Question to Mxmanic

"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.

"swag" wrote in
ups.com:

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.

You meant 45 degree bank. A 60 degree steep turn would require a parachute.

no it wouldn't

mike


You meant 45 degree bank. A 60 degree steep turn would require a
parachute.

swag writes:

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.

Don't you have to descend to catch the wake? Downwash should be moving
downward at a few knots and IIRC the vortices do as well, so after two minutes
at, say, 12 knots, the turbulence would be almost 2500 feet below you, if you
are staying at altitude. I don't see how you could run into it.

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

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
swag writes:

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.

Don't you have to descend to catch the wake? Downwash should be moving
downward at a few knots and IIRC the vortices do as well, so after two minutes
at, say, 12 knots, the turbulence would be almost 2500 feet below you, if you
are staying at altitude. I don't see how you could run into it.

Real people in real airplanes training to become real pilots do real
45 degree bank, constant altitude turns on a regular basis and run into
their real wake.

It is just another thing you don't understand because you have no
context.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.