GA is priceless

Jay Honeck schrieb:

Even driving is becoming less and less
"free", as the lawyers and lawsuits increasingly constrict the free
flow of traffic in exchange for a false feeling of "safety".

I imagine a certain J.H. after his wife and kids have been killed by
some freedom loving "casual" driver. Of course he will relaxedly lie
back and happily say "I accept it as the price for the free flow of
traffic. Get over it."

Stefan

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

john smith writes:

2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual
control feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full
motion military sims.

True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft and/or
on course.

Instrument
flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
motion can be useful).

See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is independent
of motion.

My theory is that real pilots who cannot land a PC simulator probably
depend a great deal on sensations and visibility in real life. Pilots
who can land a sim perfectly probably have a lot more experience with
instruments alone.

My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is dependent
on the ability to translate the sim's representations of control vs.
motion into something that works on the sim. That does NOT mean that the
same physical movement translations would work in the real thing, and has
nothing to do with "experience with instruements alone".

Neil

Mxsmanic,

In any case, I wouldn't have much use for a European license, as I'm
mostly interested in flying in U.S. airspace.


Stop bull****ting us! You have made it firmly clear here that you have
no interest in flying in any real airspace! Stop twisting the truth at
your convenience!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Neil Gould writes:

It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft and/or
on course.

The actual control feel is not a big factor in many aircraft and many
situations. The mass and inertia and so on are simulated correctly.

See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is independent
of motion.

Instrument flight is independent of motion.

My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is dependent
on the ability to translate the sim's representations of control vs.
motion into something that works on the sim.

I partially disagree, as the absence of movement is probably a problem
for many pilots, especially GA pilots.

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

I give up: What's a PIO?

Pilot Induced Oscillation. It's usually something that happens during
the landing flare, but can happen on a short-coupled aircraft in any
phase of flight. I wasn't aware that a Bonanza was in that category,
but apparently it is.

Isn't it bad for your aircraft to put it through 2 G stresses?

Planes are built to handle it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft
and/or on course.

The actual control feel is not a big factor in many aircraft and many
situations. The mass and inertia and so on are simulated correctly.

You are posting to a group that is largely GA. I don't know of any GA
planes where the effects of mass and inertia are not important to flying.
And, no, the mass and inertia are not simulated correctly in MSFS.

See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is
independent of motion.

Instrument flight is independent of motion.

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as you have done no flying,
instrument or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that it is not the
motion you feel that is relevant to instrument flying, but the effects
weather on the inertia and motion on the course and attitude of the
airplane. These are not accurately simulated in MSFS.

My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is
dependent on the ability to translate the sim's representations of
control vs. motion into something that works on the sim.

I partially disagree, as the absence of movement is probably a problem
for many pilots, especially GA pilots.

So, you disagree based on a total lack of experience and a notion of
probability that you can't verify. Real intelligence at work, there.

Neil

Neil,

Real intelligence at work, there.


This discussion about instrument flight and motion was the very first
we went through with the village troll. He has gone through it
completely unchanged. Anyone out there who wants to eplain again how
this guy is here to learn?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Anyone out there who wants to eplain again how
this guy is here to learn?

It's hard to tell, because so many are here to ridicule him.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck writes:

Pilot Induced Oscillation. It's usually something that happens during
the landing flare, but can happen on a short-coupled aircraft in any
phase of flight.

Like the book _Airframe_. I guess I should have remembered it.

I wasn't aware that a Bonanza was in that category, but apparently it is.

I've read about phugoid (what a bizarre word!) oscillations, both
pilot-induced and otherwise, and apparently they are universal to some
degree. When I first encountered these in simulation, I thought it
was an artifact of the simulation.

Planes are built to handle it.

Well, a 737 can handle only 2.5 Gs. That's not a very wide margin of
safety.

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

Neil Gould writes:

You are posting to a group that is largely GA.

Yes. Unfortunately they think that anything they know about GA
applies to all the rest of aviation as well.

I don't know of any GA planes where the effects of mass and
inertia are not important to flying. And, no, the mass and
inertia are not simulated correctly in MSFS.

What parts of mass and inertia are not simulated correctly,
specifically?

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as you have done no flying,
instrument or otherwise.

But that is _your_ opinion, isn't it? I have found that GA pilots are
the least informed and competent of all pilots. That's why I take
whatever they say with a grain of salt, unless I know them personally
to be more competent than average.

The fact of the matter is that it is not the
motion you feel that is relevant to instrument flying, but the effects
weather on the inertia and motion on the course and attitude of the
airplane. These are not accurately simulated in MSFS.

What parts of the MSFS simulation are incorrect?

So, you disagree based on a total lack of experience and a notion of
probability that you can't verify.

No, I simply disagree. The rest is conjecture on your part.

Why do you persist in personal attacks? They just waste your time and
mine.

Real intelligence at work, there.

Yes. It irritates some people, unfortunately.

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