Why are multiple engines different?

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

The performace of the MSFS game is completely irrelevant to those of
us whose main interest is flying real planes.

You spend a lot of time discussing it for someone who apparently
considers himself part of this group.

You may have noticed that my "discussing it" is limited to addressing your
misinformation.

Nobody in their right mind practices things that are likely to
damage the airplane and possibly kill them.

In that case, nobody really knows if they are possible or not, no
matter how much experience they might have in other aspects of flight.

Completely irrelevant. It may have been possible for someone to make the
East River turn in a Cirrus that killed Lidle and his instructor. However,
a safe pilot would not try to find that out in that environment.

As Sylvain pointed out, if you can't
perform your stunt on a field large enough to accommodate B-52s, then
there is no reason to think that it can be done at all.

I fail to see the logical connection there. Obviously, if you have a
large enough field, you can do all sorts of things.

The logical connection is that there aren't many airports larger than
those that can accommodate B-52s, and they tend to be military-only air
fields. So, if there's nowhere to try such stunts, it's pretty much a
given that they can't be done.

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that you can't do *any* of those
things in a real plane, which as far as I can tell is the only reason you
think that it is "logical" to consider it a real possibility.

The fact that one can perform this stunt at a typical virtual airport
with MSFS is sufficient proof that it gets some pretty important
things wrong.

I have not yet succeeded in performing it in the simulator; have you?

I trust Sylvain's statement that he can do it. No need for me to replicate
it.

Since you don't know if it's possible in real life, you cannot know
whether the simulation is accurate or not.

What I wrote before still holds true: those things that I *do* know about
real life flying that differ from MSFS are sufficient to convince me that
it is only a game. I would not use any techniques in real aircraft based
on what that game does.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that you can't do *any* of those
things in a real plane ...

How do you know? You haven't tried it, and you haven't found anyone
who has.

I trust Sylvain's statement that he can do it. No need for me to replicate
it.

Why is his statement more trustworthy than mine?

What I wrote before still holds true: those things that I *do* know about
real life flying that differ from MSFS are sufficient to convince me that
it is only a game.

What things are those?

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that you can't do *any* of
those things in a real plane ...

How do you know? You haven't tried it, and you haven't found anyone
who has.

Perhaps you are confused over the meaning of the word "YOU" in my comment?

I trust Sylvain's statement that he can do it. No need for me to
replicate it.

Why is his statement more trustworthy than mine?

Because he is a pilot with a multi-engine rating, and you aren't even a
student pilot. DUH...

What I wrote before still holds true: those things that I *do* know
about real life flying that differ from MSFS are sufficient to
convince me that it is only a game.

What things are those?

Take a flying lesson and discover them for yourself. You seem to be the
only one you believe, anyway.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

Perhaps you are confused over the meaning of the word "YOU" in my comment?

Maybe, although my reply would be valid in any case.

Because he is a pilot with a multi-engine rating, and you aren't even a
student pilot. DUH...

He hasn't performed the maneuver in question, therefore he doesn't
know if it can be done or not, irrespective of his rating or status.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Perhaps you are confused over the meaning of the word "YOU" in my
comment?

Maybe, although my reply would be valid in any case.

In your mind, only.

Because he is a pilot with a multi-engine rating, and you aren't
even a student pilot. DUH...

He hasn't performed the maneuver in question, therefore he doesn't
know if it can be done or not, irrespective of his rating or status.

You are wrong, yet again. Go back and read his comments. Perhaps it's a
reading comprehension problem that you're dealing with?

Neil

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

He hasn't performed the maneuver in question, therefore he doesn't
know if it can be done or not, irrespective of his rating or status.



I tried to lift 400 lbs. and couldn't do it. I can now pretty safely say I
can't lift 500 lbs.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I tried to lift 400 lbs. and couldn't do it. I can now pretty safely say I
can't lift 500 lbs.

If you had been unable to taxi on two engines, it would be reasonable
to assume that you could not taxi on one. But that's not the case
here, and so that analogy (the only one that matches yours) is
irrelevant.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I tried to lift 400 lbs. and couldn't do it. I can now pretty safely
say I can't lift 500 lbs.

If you had been unable to taxi on two engines, it would be reasonable
to assume that you could not taxi on one. But that's not the case
here, and so that analogy (the only one that matches yours) is
irrelevant.

The question was whether one could _take off_ on one engine, something
that MSFS will let you do. Sylvain explained that the Baron couldn't even
be taxied well enough to take off unless you had more space than an
airport that can accommodate B-52s. Since it can't be done within the
space of such large airports (400 lbs.), it's safe to say that it can't be
done from airports avialable to GA pilots (500 lbs.). Gig's analogy is
quite appropriate.

Neil