Coordinated turns without rudder, and autopilots

Mxsmanic wrote:

george writes:


Why don't you like flying real aeroplanes?


Not having piloted a real airplane, I cannot say with certainty that I would
not like it. However, I can think of several disadvantages:

- It takes too much time to get a license.
Not

- It costs too much to get a license.
Little by little, Michelangelo carved David.

- It's too hard to get a medical.
Yeah, took me one painful half hour.

- Owning a real aircraft is financially unrealistic.
Don't need to own

- Renting a real aircraft is financially unrealistic.
Nope, it's expensive, but worth it.

- Real airplanes go places, and I don't like to travel.
But you're an American living in France

- Real airplanes can crash, especially small tin cans with their unreliable
components and frequently poor maintenance.
Only if the pilot does something stupid or can't handle exceptions
and doesn't keep the plane up to FAA par.

- You cannot stop a real flight if you get tired of flying.
Just like real life.

- There is no way to control real-world weather.
You can control when you fly, weird, isn't it?

- You can only fly from places you are, so you can't fly out of London for an
hour and then switch to LAX.
Yeah, that totally will keep me from flying.

- The environment inside an aircraft isn't always comfortable.
You should have seen my CFI. Big as a cow with me and he
in a 150. It was STILL a good time.

- You have to worry about hypoxia at altitude.
No, you don't.

- If the aircraft moves a lot you may become airsick.
If I breathe the air in a public place, I might get a cold.

- Real flying is limited to tiny tin cans that you can afford; transport
aircraft are out of reach unless you fly for a living.
I trust those tiny tin cans MUCH more than I trust those
big damn ATP planes.


ItalicsBoldShock THESE /I/B are your reasons for not
flying?

Don't you know that when you step out of your door in the morning,
you can be hit by one of those french drivers? Maybe you can catch
a cold. You might slip on a stone.

You lie. It's not that you don't want to fly, you're down
right frightened of it. It's not that you don't want to get
laid, girls scare you. It's not that you don't want to move
out of your mom's basement, you're afraid of living your own
life.

Wow. That's pathetic. Pathetic but totally fixable.

Get out there, do something real for a change, ****tard.

I believe in you!

Erik wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in
news

Nomen Nescio writes:


Answer.....or shut the **** up.

No.



Aww. The fjukktard takes a stand., So kewt.

Bertie

Why, what did I miss? I don't show the parent of this
one.

Was it some question about why mx can't fly? I've seen
some statements about numerous physical reasons, but
nothing specific. Diabetes or many of the other physical
deterrents aren't someone's fault and they can't be ashamed
of it, ie: "I have diabetes, therefore I cannot get a medical"
Astute fear of heights would be one thing, but you can over-
come that. A few Prozac in the right seat for a first flight
would fix that.

Why won't mx fly? I don't think he's not smart enough, I think
he could figure it all out.

My guess? Autism. relatively mild, but there all the same.

Bertie

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. 130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.

Well, there's your answer, dip****.
Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
Real plane always behave "real".
Real autopilots always behave "real".
Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll
excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the
4th star on Orion's belt.

Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
last night. I actually found having my hands in
*real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.

Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
Dudley Henriques

You think he has a wife?

Hmm.


Bertie

Actually, I've not given him that much thought.

Wise man


However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.

I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.


Bertie

Bob Crawford wrote in
oups.com:

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
Table-driven models are often more accurate.

On May 31, 2:30 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Snowbird writes:
Show me scientific proof.

How does one provide scientific proof of the self-evident?

A perfect measurement of a real-world random contour will always be
perfect. A mathematical recreation will always be an approximation.

Table driven models are only "perfect" at the (often very few) points
in the table (and even there depends upon the accuracy of the
measurements). Elsewhere they too are only approximations, the
accuracy of which depends upon how well the real world contour matches
the interpolation method chosen.

Please remember that "mathematical recreation" is a synonym for
"simulation".

And what you see in your simulator MSFS is only an approximation of
reality. A model/simulation is always a process of give & take
between the accuracy in representing various processes & effects in
different regimes, and while MSFS allows you some control over some of
those choices most of them are hidden and have been made for you.
Without real world experience it would be very difficult for you to
realize many of these tradeoffs, those with real world experience can
spot them quite easily. The advice of those who have actually
experienced what you wish to simulate can be very informative - but
comes at the cost of learning what you are missing (possibly
diminishing your enjoyment of your simulator).

The alternative, of course is,"Ignorance is bliss".


He must be experiencing Nirvana.



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. 130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. 130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.

Well, there's your answer, dip****.
Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
Real plane always behave "real".
Real autopilots always behave "real".
Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll
excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the
4th star on Orion's belt.

Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
last night. I actually found having my hands in
*real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.

Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
Dudley Henriques

You think he has a wife?

Hmm.


Bertie

Actually, I've not given him that much thought.

Wise man


However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.

I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.


Bertie



I must admit I find the threads entertaining at times. I just don't want to
engage with him. It's a lose lose situation really. I have a firm opinion on
where he's coming from, and have had that from the first time he engaged me.
Since I can teach him nothing, and there is most certainly nothing I can
learn from him, engagement seems a classic lesson in futility.
Be my guest however. I do get a chuckle here and there from watching it.
Who knows. This guy could easily be a new "Ralphie" :-))
Dudley Henriques

I'm kinda new here, tho flying tin cans for 32 years. I think, or one
heck of a delusion. Sorta simulatin' what an A/P comfortably does.
What's this repartee with Mx all about? There is a web site of a
pathetic loser it appears is his. Can't be. 6 billion people on the
planet, enormous odds.

The moron engineers who been designing A/P's for 60+ years, whatever,
just never met a consultant in France. Why them inboard waggle
thingies (I know the technical lingo) on many transport jets in cruise
which work fine just done nuthin' but drive airline ticket prices up.
The solution is how Microsoft, the world force in computing does it.
The French-based consultant has seen it, right on Mommy's 'puter. Why,
Teflon was invented by accident. Clericals at 3M told management that
crappy glue which really isn't was real cool. Aluminum and steel costs
real money; even C++ code is cheap.

There's even word the A/P controller for them old tin cans is "analog
logic," maybe 2N2222's for how crude the industry is.

You folk just bash for bash sake. It's oh, so wrong.

/s/ ****tards Anonymous

In article ,
says...
Nomen Nescio writes:

Answer.....or shut the **** up.

No.

= I am a troll.

--
Duncan

Dave Doe wrote in
. nz:

In article ,
says...
Nomen Nescio writes:

Answer.....or shut the **** up.

No.

= I am a troll.


Please don't call him a troll I find it deeply offensive.


Bertie

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. 130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. 130...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.

Well, there's your answer, dip****.
Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
Real plane always behave "real".
Real autopilots always behave "real".
Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if
you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle
cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt.

Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
last night. I actually found having my hands in
*real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.

Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
Dudley Henriques

You think he has a wife?

Hmm.


Bertie

Actually, I've not given him that much thought.

Wise man


However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.

I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.


Bertie



I must admit I find the threads entertaining at times. I just don't
want to engage with him. It's a lose lose situation really. I have a
firm opinion on where he's coming from, and have had that from the
first time he engaged me. Since I can teach him nothing, and there is
most certainly nothing I can learn from him, engagement seems a
classic lesson in futility. Be my guest however. I do get a chuckle
here and there from watching it.

Well, there you have it. Couldn't agree more.

Who knows. This guy could easily be a
new "Ralphie" :-))

Well, he'll take a bit of work to get to that standard, but I'm nothing
if not patient.

Bertie

On May 30, 8:25 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Crawford writes:
How do you substantiate your initial claim that "[Real life GA]
autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
rudder"?

By watching the ball in the turn indicator. It moves far less in an AP turn
without rudder than it moves when I make a turn without rudder.

But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?
Watch the ball in a real life plane, (or pay attention to
someone who has actually watched the ball in a
real life plane) and you'll see that autopilots that
can't control the rudder turn in the same way that
a hand-flying pilot turns when he keeps his foot
away from the rudder pedals. Generally speaking,
both will be slightly uncoordinated.

The degree of uncoordination varies from one
plane to the next, but at least in cruise, it's
normally not enough to matter too much. In
those planes where the AP can't control the
rudder, the decision was made that the
lack of coordination is not severe enough
to justify the extra expense and weight
penalty of giving the AP control over the
rudder.

Everyone's telling you the same thing -- real life
planes don't behave the way you're describing the
simulator to behave. Furthermore, the fact that
you've asked the question that started this thread
indicates you find some cognative dissonance
in the simulator's behavior on this point. It
simply doesn't make sense that an autopilot
with no rudder control could maintain coordination
in a situation where a human would require
rudder control to maintain coordination.

You have two choices: Either the simulator's
right, all the real pilots and real planes are
wrong, and there is some unexplainable
magic that allows the autopilot to maintain
coordination in a situation where rudder input
is required but not available, or else there's
no magic, real planes behave the way
real planes are observed to behave, and
the simulator is wrong on this particular
point.

It's obvious that you've made your choice
as to which alternative you want to
believe.