Question to Mxmanic

FS 2004 does not, nor does the built-in AI ATC delay for wake turbulence. I
don't know about FSX or other sim software.


Ok. So its much less realistic than I thought because wake turbulence
avoidance is a very important concern for real pilots.

Little Endian writes:

Ok. So its much less realistic than I thought because wake turbulence
avoidance is a very important concern for real pilots.

True, but it's not something that requires practice. In real life, you simply
take care to avoid wake turbulence; in the sim, you can take the same
precautions if you wish, but you don't have to.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
Little Endian writes:

Ok. So its much less realistic than I thought because wake turbulence
avoidance is a very important concern for real pilots.

True, but it's not something that requires practice. In real life, you
simply
take care to avoid wake turbulence; in the sim, you can take the same
precautions if you wish, but you don't have to.


Well, in real aviation the most valuable use of simulators is for practising
upsets and other abnormal situations that are not safe or feasible to do in
the real aircraft. So it would be an extremely useful feature to have in
MSFS.

In addition, if the feature were in MSFS, it would aid realism to basic
flight training as well i.e. flying a correct 360-degree turn.

Snowbird writes:

Well, in real aviation the most valuable use of simulators is for practising
upsets and other abnormal situations that are not safe or feasible to do in
the real aircraft.

Not everyone uses simulation as practice for real aviation. There are many
possible purposes to which simulation can be put, and just as many different
types of simulators. No simulator simulates every aspect of reality
accurately, but nobody requires a duplicate of reality, only a reproduction of
those aspects of reality that are of interest.

So it would be an extremely useful feature to have in MSFS.

I don't know that it would be "extremely" useful, but it would certainly be a
plus. Then again, if real pilots don't use MSFS for training, would it really
be that important?

Besides, the idea is to avoid wake turbulence, not to fly through it, so the
only real training required is procedural.

In addition, if the feature were in MSFS, it would aid realism to basic
flight training as well i.e. flying a correct 360-degree turn.

Are 360-degree turns common? Why would they encounter wake turbulence?

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

A sign of a well executed 360 is to encounter your own wake turbulence,
although the vortex generally sinks some in the intervening time and the
turbulence is usually no more than a slight bump.

Still, it's a gratifying feeling.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Are 360-degree turns common? Why would they encounter wake turbulence?

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

mike regish writes:

A sign of a well executed 360 is to encounter your own wake turbulence,
although the vortex generally sinks some in the intervening time and the
turbulence is usually no more than a slight bump.

From my back-of-envelope calculations, if it's a two-minute turn, the downwash
and vortices would have descended by some 2000 feet or so by the time you
close the circle (depending on various factors). I'm surprised that there
would be anything to feel if you are maintaining the same altitude, which is
why I didn't consider this. However, if it has actually happened to you, I'll
have to review my calculations.

Anyway, while it might be interesting in real life, it would be horrifically
CPU-intensive to simulate, since it would require modeling of large chunks of
air away from the aircraft, which is as compute-bound as weather reporting.

Indeed, modeling any sort of wake turbulence would be this way, unless the
simulation were canned and provided as a couple of fixed scenarios that
wouldn't require calculation of air movements. But then you have to wonder if
it would be worthwhile, either, since it's a really bad idea to fly through
another aircraft's wake turbulence. If it's mild there's not much to
simulate; if it's heavy it's too dangerous to approach.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
mike regish writes:

A sign of a well executed 360 is to encounter your own wake turbulence,
although the vortex generally sinks some in the intervening time and the
turbulence is usually no more than a slight bump.

From my back-of-envelope calculations, if it's a two-minute turn, the
downwash
and vortices would have descended by some 2000 feet or so by the time you
close the circle (depending on various factors). I'm surprised that there
would be anything to feel if you are maintaining the same altitude, which
is
why I didn't consider this. However, if it has actually happened to you,
I'll
have to review my calculations.

Anyway, while it might be interesting in real life, it would be
horrifically
CPU-intensive to simulate, since it would require modeling of large chunks
of
air away from the aircraft, which is as compute-bound as weather
reporting.

Indeed, modeling any sort of wake turbulence would be this way, unless the
simulation were canned and provided as a couple of fixed scenarios that
wouldn't require calculation of air movements. But then you have to
wonder if
it would be worthwhile, either, since it's a really bad idea to fly
through
another aircraft's wake turbulence. If it's mild there's not much to
simulate; if it's heavy it's too dangerous to approach.

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

That's a keeper.

This is actually a maneuver that's demonstrated and practiced very
early in flight training, so I'm sure all pilots and student pilots
have experienced this. But your calculations are fairly correnct--a 2
minute turn won't cut it. It's usually demonstrated with a 60 degree
bank turn. I'm not sure of the timing, but i'd guess 30 sec or less.

On Apr 14, 7:11 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
mike regish writes:
A sign of a well executed 360 is to encounter your own wake turbulence,
although the vortex generally sinks some in the intervening time and the
turbulence is usually no more than a slight bump.

From my back-of-envelope calculations, if it's a two-minute turn, the downwash
and vortices would have descended by some 2000 feet or so by the time you
close the circle (depending on various factors). I'm surprised that there
would be anything to feel if you are maintaining the same altitude, which is
why I didn't consider this. However, if it has actually happened to you, I'll
have to review my calculations.

Anyway, while it might be interesting in real life, it would be horrifically
CPU-intensive to simulate, since it would require modeling of large chunks of
air away from the aircraft, which is as compute-bound as weather reporting.

Indeed, modeling any sort of wake turbulence would be this way, unless the
simulation were canned and provided as a couple of fixed scenarios that
wouldn't require calculation of air movements. But then you have to wonder if
it would be worthwhile, either, since it's a really bad idea to fly through
another aircraft's wake turbulence. If it's mild there's not much to
simulate; if it's heavy it's too dangerous to approach.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...

From my back-of-envelope calculations, if it's a two-minute turn, the
downwash
and vortices would have descended by some 2000 feet or so by the time you
close the circle (depending on various factors). I'm surprised that there
would be anything to feel if you are maintaining the same altitude, which
is
why I didn't consider this. However, if it has actually happened to you,
I'll
have to review my calculations.

Tip vortices is not the only form of turbulence behind an aircraft. And an
airliner on approach has a different type of wake than a trainer at
altitude.

Anyway, while it might be interesting in real life, it would be
horrifically
CPU-intensive to simulate, since it would require modeling of large chunks
of
air away from the aircraft, which is as compute-bound as weather
reporting.

Indeed, modeling any sort of wake turbulence would be this way, unless the
simulation were canned and provided as a couple of fixed scenarios that
wouldn't require calculation of air movements. But then you have to
wonder if
it would be worthwhile, either, since it's a really bad idea to fly
through
another aircraft's wake turbulence. If it's mild there's not much to
simulate; if it's heavy it's too dangerous to approach.

The best value of a good simulator is that it enables training of situations
that would be unsafe to do in a real aircraft.Flying into wake turbulence is
a good example.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Little Endian writes:

Ok. So its much less realistic than I thought because wake turbulence
avoidance is a very important concern for real pilots.

True, but it's not something that requires practice. In real life, you simply
take care to avoid wake turbulence; in the sim, you can take the same
precautions if you wish, but you don't have to.


Am I the only one seeing the irony in this/

Someone who claims that a sim is close to real life, and wants
to do everything that is done in the real world, but thinks that it is
*OPTIONAL* to handle a problem that has killed people over the years?

You don't get to cherrypick operations like this. If you're in
a PC-12 and you come in 1 mile in trail of a B767, you don't get to
pick and say "I'm not going to take precautions for wake turbulence" in
the real world; you either do it, or you risk your life. If you want to
do this in the real world (which in your case, you don't (thank the
gods) ), you had best do what you can to avoid it, whether it's there
or not.

You contradict yourself with every statement you make, Anthony.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGH9zXyBkZmuMZ8L8RAvg9AJ9h54Cj17DNwXRrTF4UtE QjcZdeiQCgzW1q
fbo0LG/lsrJotCZuKQFr5oY=
=foHT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----