I give up, after many, many years!

"Michael Ash" wrote:

You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat. Whether
this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
realm. There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.

Good observation. I usually subscribe to this approach, when the topic of
instrument filght comes up, since I *am* a newbie in that realm. I've only
shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours
total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with
someone who flies instruments daily.

However, in this case MX is parroting "the book" on instrument flight, while
several others are arguing counter to "the book". IMHO this is a case
where the messenger is being killed despite the fact that the message is
correct.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Steve Foley writes:

Please explain how increased power can increase lift without first producing
increased velocity.

I never claimed that power alone would produce increased lift. However, an
increase in power will normally produce an increase in speed, all else being
equal, and so an increase in lift will result.

If the nose is pointed down (going downhill) , and you increase power, you
WILL descend faster.

Your increased speed will produce more lift, which will tend to raise the
aircraft, slowing the rate of descent and potentially leveling the aircraft or
producing a climb. For any given setting of AOA and thrust, the aircraft will
tend to converge on a specific density altitude. If AOA is held and thrust is
increased, the aircraft will converge on a higher final altitude than it would
if thrust were not increased. Increasing power (and thus thrust) at constant
AOA will produce a positive change in climb rate, because it increases the
speed of air flowing over the wings.

On Sat, 17 May 2008 15:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 17, 5:30*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

MSFS aircraft are properly maintained by default.

So is my airplane down to every AD and every scheduled maintenance for
the past 6 years and replaced faulty instruments. I have the bills to
prove it, will you pay for them?

Things break in flight as it happened to me

Lets face it, MSFS does simulate some things, but what I experienced
Saturday, I have never encountered in MSFS.

Is that a flaw in real life or Microsoft? Do I need to reboot my life?

He wouldn't understand MTBF if it came and bit him in the ass. Another
thing the simulator has the ability to do, but because he doesn't
comprehend it doesn't use.

Michael Ash writes:

Because you do a crappy job of repeating things.

No. It's because some people reject anything I say in a knee-jerk emotional
reaction. They are more concentrated on me than on my words. Sometimes they
argue with established facts simply because I'm the one who posted them.

You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat.

I don't do it any differently than most people do.

Whether this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

It's neither. Some people simply look for some way to argue with what I say,
even when I'm simply repeated well-established facts. I've occasionally made
test posts here that prove it, literally lifting statements from reliable
sources and posting them under my own name, and watching the amusing reaction
of the usual suspects.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...


He wouldn't understand MTBF if it came and bit him in the ass. Another
thing the simulator has the ability to do, but because he doesn't
comprehend it doesn't use.

I'm pretty sure MX has claimed that ANY failure is a design flaw.

It explains why he doesn't work for Honeywell anymore.

What you need to do, if you wish to persuade refractory persons like
myself,
is explain and support your assertions.

Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them over
the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can not)
explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that they are so
incredibly experienced that no one should deign question their authority on
the matter.

Of course, it seems funny that someone of this mindset might frequent a
*newsgroup* -- where the free-flow of information is the whole point. But,
like I said, pilots are an interesting breed.

Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you to
expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence that your
message is no longer important to many posters here, even when what you're
saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent book "The Complete
Instrument Pilot".

Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a few
weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try using
your own?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:24:38 GMT, Benjamin Dover wrote:

Hey,

*PLONK*

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Your increased speed will produce more lift, which will tend to raise the
aircraft, slowing the rate of descent and potentially leveling the
aircraft or
producing a climb. For any given setting of AOA and thrust, the aircraft
will
tend to converge on a specific density altitude. If AOA is held and
thrust is
increased, the aircraft will converge on a higher final altitude than it
would
if thrust were not increased. Increasing power (and thus thrust) at
constant
AOA will produce a positive change in climb rate, because it increases the
speed of air flowing over the wings.

This is much less inaccurate than your other statement.

Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all.

The sound quality in MSFS is remarkably good -- in SOME of the aircraft, and
with the proper equipment.

For example, our sim set-up at the hotel has a full surround-sound system
with sub-woofer. When you wind up the Merlin in the P-51, it sings. When
you pull it back to idle, you can hear wind noise. When you kill the
engine, you can hear the prop windmilling.

And the rumble of the big radial engines in the Grumman Goose is wonderfully
done.

An indication of the importance of sound in the sim -- it's MUCH harder to
fly the sim with the sound turned off. You don't realize how often you use
aural cues in flight until they're not there. (Which, BTW, makes me really
admire the deaf pilots of the world. Back before the troll wars reduced
this group, there used to be a regular poster here named Henry Kisor who
belonged to the deaf pilot's association, and I was always impressed that he
was able to fly so well without aural cues. But I digress...)

Of course, if you're relying on your desktop computer's speaker, you're
absolutely correct -- the sounds are not there. But the sim software *is*
creating the proper sounds, mostly, but it does require a good quality
system to hear it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"