Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

On Aug 5, 8:50*am, "bds" wrote:
A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. *I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Where am I even remotely wrong in this thread????????

He is dead wrong in what he says in this thread. He needs lessons on
English if he thinks a NON aviator can understand what it takes to fly
an airplane.

I can't imagine you even agreeing with what he says. If you fly a
REAL airplane, you wouldn't have said what you did above.

On Aug 5, 2:55*pm, "Stephen!" wrote:

* In other words, without ground school I was able to not only take (and
pass) the written but also the practical.[1] *Before I even had my
introductory flight I already had an understanding of "what it takes to
fly".

[1] *My primary CFI quizzed me and determined that I was ready for the
written. *I'd spent the previous 30+ years doing 'self-study' and he
realized that trying to do ground school would be a waste of time for
both of us.

Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert. If you fly far enough on a
regular basis, it's not if but when these situations will happen.
Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

Would you want to be taught by a CFI WITH ONLY MSFS experience and no
real airplane flying experience??????

I'd think and hope not! I know I would not!

Ever try to reach for something in heavy turbulence in a real plane
such as a throttle? Compare that to MSFS and then come back and lets
talk. The two doesn't compare. Ever experience leans and have to be
forced to ignore your bodily sensations. Compare that to MSFS and
then come back and lets talk.

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. ZERO, NADA. MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

You can talk all the theories about what it take to fly a plane but
when the rubber meets the road, it's you that is flying the plane, not
the books. I have yet had to have a hard time reaching for my keyboard
in MSFS severe turbulence LOL yet conversly try reaching for the
throttle or tune a radio in light to moderate chop.

He talks like he flies XC's in a citation. HE SIMULATES, he doesnt'
fly. He presents himself as a pilot. He is not a pilot, he is
simulating being a pilot on a desktop computer.

He outright lies by misleading people.

'nuf said.....

writes:

Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert.

Which parts of doing these things are not documented in books?

Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

So?

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. ZERO, NADA. MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

What are your total hours flying, just out of curiosity?

On Aug 5, 11:02*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. *Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert.

Which parts of doing these things are not documented in books?

Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

So?

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. *ZERO, NADA. *MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

What are your total hours flying, just out of curiosity?

Asking for experience, flying hours, qualifications etc are a total
waste of bandwidth on Usenet. The person being challenged could be a
trained Chimp with a keyboard or the King of Siam. They could also be
quite legitimate.
The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
posting history based on the above.

My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
him.
My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.
DH

Dudley Henriques wrote:
My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
him.

Maybe you have an evil twin you don't know about?

My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.

While I'm not a fan of weeding or watering, I do take a certain
satisfaction in mowing the yard with our riding mower.

On Aug 5, 11:45*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
him.

Maybe you have an evil twin you don't know about?

My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.

While I'm not a fan of weeding or watering, I do take a certain
satisfaction in mowing the yard with our riding mower.

YOU sir, are close to being a woman's ultimate fantasy :-))
D

On Aug 6, 3:45*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

Maybe you have an evil twin you don't know about?

An evil twin wouldn't do 'yard work' either :-)

On 2010-08-06, Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
My most interesting Usenet experience occurred when someone accused me
of NOT being Dudley Henriques as he knew Dudley Henriques and I wasn't
him.

Maybe you have an evil twin you don't know about?

My wife promptly answered his private email to me stating that if he
knew the real Dudley Henriques, would he be kind enough to ask him to
come home immediately as the impostor she had been living with for
over 40 years didn't like to do yard work.

While I'm not a fan of weeding or watering, I do take a certain
satisfaction in mowing the yard with our riding mower.

There's something about the riding mower that I enjoy. Not
sure what it is. I'd have to agree that mowing is acceptable
when a riding type is used. Especially if its got a big
2 or 3 bag catcher strapped to the back.

z

"Stephen!" wrote:
Gemini wrote in
:

There's something about the riding mower that I enjoy. Not
sure what it is. I'd have to agree that mowing is acceptable
when a riding type is used. Especially if its got a big
2 or 3 bag catcher strapped to the back.

Bah... To hell with bags. Full Mulch is the only way to go.

We bought a 3 bag catcher a few years back, and while I find bagging makes
for a nicer result, I bought a mulcher kit for the lawn tractor a couple
months ago. Still haven't used it yet (Oregon has a dry summer climate, so
as the summer wears on mowing isn't needed as much. And when it does need
mowing there is no need to bag or mulch.)

With regard to aviation and this thread:

I will need to increase the size of the blades (currently only 48 inch
width) and engine horsepower (currently just 20 HP) on my lawn tractor to
make it a hovering mower. Instead of a lever to adjust the height of the
mower blades, I'll need some way to adjust the height of the tractor above
ground (maybe replace the mower attachment lever with a collective?)
Haven't figured out how I'll handle slopes. Clearly a stability
augmentation system of some kind will be needed.

I'm pretty sure it'll weigh more than allowed for ultralights, so I may
need to get a helicopter license to legally mow. Will I need to equip it
with two seats to allow CFIs do BFRs? Or can they simply observe from a
safe distance while I show I can safely perform cross-wind mows, collision
avoidance of trees, flowers, and fences; simulated emergencies such as
mowing over things that make it go "kerchunk!"?

On Aug 5, 10:28*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

The ONLY accurate measure of value on any Usenet forum is the accuracy
of the information posted proven over time. Posters are usually found
to be who they claim to be or not who they claim to be over time and
posting history based on the above.

So, where do I fall in this accurate measurment??? I would hope I
have proven my own experience over 10 years.