Why are multiple engines different?

Sylvain writes:

There is quite a bit of info about single engine performances
though. Nothing specific about taxiing with one engine I
must admit, but there are a lot of other things that are
omitted as well, for instance, take off performances
with the wings off, that sort of things.

Well, the advantage of simulation is that you can easily try these
things.

But once stopped,
or sufficiently slowed down, I guarantee you that you
won't go anywhere without pushing or towing it (in the
conventional light twin, well in the glider too)

Increase the throttle very slowly, and wait for the plane to start
rolling. You won't spin around. If the eccentric thrust is weak
enough that the nose gear can compensate for it, you should be able to
taxi, but it will be an extremely slow taxi, and it will take a long
time to get rolling.

A flight sim that has reasonably good models is Xplane,
which you may want to check out,

I still haven't been told what's wrong with the MSFS model.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

I still haven't been told what's wrong with the MSFS model.

actually you have been told, repeatedly, but you apparently
refuse to believe it.

--Sylvain

Sylvain writes:

actually you have been told, repeatedly, but you apparently
refuse to believe it.

No. I've seen assertions that it is wrong, but no illustrations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Sylvain writes:

actually you have been told, repeatedly, but you apparently
refuse to believe it.

No. I've seen assertions that it is wrong, but no illustrations.

Perhaps you should go through the posts once again. I remember seeing at
least one post describing the technique used by MSFS to arrive at flight
parameters, and I seem to recall you replied to it (!).

None the less, it's probably it's the same for other pilots as it is for
me; MSFS doesn't behave in the same way as the real planes that I've tried
with it (e.g. C172), and that's good enough for me to say that it is not a
real aviation sim, because the real ones DO behave similarly to the real
thing.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
snip

None the less, it's probably it's the same for other pilots as it is for
me; MSFS doesn't behave in the same way as the real planes that I've tried
with it (e.g. C172), and that's good enough for me to say that it is not a
real aviation sim, because the real ones DO behave similarly to the real
thing.

My question is, if I can't keep a MSFS plane in the air, and have never
crashed on actual airplane, what does that say?

Sylvain writes:

by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
can takeoff with only one engine...

You're saying MS FS does *not* allow that? What does it do?

(I haven't played MS FS since it ran from a 180K floppy.)

--kyler

Kyler Laird wrote:

by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
can takeoff with only one engine...

You're saying MS FS does *not* allow that? What does it do?

No, MS FS makes it possible, which is odd.


(I haven't played MS FS since it ran from a 180K floppy.)

it improved quite a bit since then, but the flight model
still sucks; I like to play with it though to go through
instrument approaches.

--Sylvain

Neil Gould writes:

Perhaps you should go through the posts once again. I remember seeing at
least one post describing the technique used by MSFS to arrive at flight
parameters, and I seem to recall you replied to it (!).

Describing the technique is not describing the errors (if any).

None the less, it's probably it's the same for other pilots as it is for
me; MSFS doesn't behave in the same way as the real planes that I've tried
with it (e.g. C172), and that's good enough for me to say that it is not a
real aviation sim, because the real ones DO behave similarly to the real
thing.

Which C172 model were you using, and what were the discrepancies
between real life and the simulation? And what version of MSFS was
it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Emily writes:

My question is, if I can't keep a MSFS plane in the air, and have never
crashed on actual airplane, what does that say?

That simulation is more difficult than the real thing, which is
something that many pilots have told me. The lack of movement, the
differences and limitations of the physical controls, and the more
limited visibility probably have a lot to do with this.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Kyler Laird writes:

You're saying MS FS does *not* allow that? What does it do?

I tried it. With the standard Baron 58 I shut down one engine and
feathered it, then very gradually eased up the throttle (on runway 22
of Edwards AFB, 15,000 feet long). The theory was that a very gradual
increase in throttle would ease up on airspeed until I had rudder
authority to hold the aircraft aligned. This seemed to work, but the
runway wasn't long enough, and I still had only 73 knots at the end,
just barely enough to attempt some sort of rotation. This rotation
was successful, but I couldn't hold it steady or maintain a climb
after leaving the ground, so I crashed.

With a Dreamfleet Baron, which is vastly more accurate, I didn't even
get that far. I did get up to about 82 kts, but some part of the
aircraft (not sure which part) hit the runway on rotation, and then I
bounced back down and started spinning on the ground in a circle (but
no crash).

So it doesn't appear to be possible, or it requires a much more
skilled pilot than I am. In theory, you'd think that if you could
gradually build up enough airspeed (on a sufficiently long runway),
you could eventually get into the air, but I didn't have enough space
or skill to do that. That doesn't mean it cannot be done.

How this compares to the real aircraft, I don't know, but it still
seems theoretically possible. If you go to full throttle, obviously
it won't work, but with an extremely long runway that allows extremely
gentle acceleration, it might.

I doubt that anyone has ever tried it for real. What would be the
point? And if it didn't work, you could scratch the aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.