limit of trim = limit of travel?

You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
significant climb rate using a single piston.



On Apr 27, 3:29 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Tina writes:
If you show significant climb rate with a single piston your sim is
smoking tobacco substitute.

How much is significant, and which single pistons?

On May 1, 3:15 pm, Tina wrote:
You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
significant climb rate using a single piston.

Here's one. Just one piston, too.
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?h...-8&sa=N&tab=wv

Dan

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:e3qSj.59204$QC.6038
@newsfe20.lga:



Bertie


Certainly not stupid. He reads your nonsense in my replies.






Of course he does.


Bertie

On May 2, 9:15*am, Tina wrote:
You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
significant climb rate using a single piston.


A Cri-cri has two single piston engines.

Cheers

wrote in message
...
On May 1, 3:15 pm, Tina wrote:
You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
significant climb rate using a single piston.

Here's one. Just one piston, too.

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?h...-8&sa=N&tab=wv

Dan




Now there is a man with Honeck's money and Bertie's brains.

Tina writes:

You said single piston, not single engine. Show me an airplane with a
significant climb rate using a single piston.

Single-engine Otto cycle reciprocating internal combustion engine.

Jay Honeck writes:

Anyway, the former is correct. Other than engine sound there is no "feel"
in the sim, so everything in slow flight mus be done on instruments.

Well, I find that slightly reassuring, as it implies that the flight model is
okay. Obviously, without motion and a large field of view, flying by feel is
going to be difficult with the sim. I'm sure a full-motion simulator could be
driven by MSFS, but I don't know if anyone has tried to do it (I've seen some
homebuilt sims with limited motion driven by MSFS). Some simmers use multiple
screens.

I fly mostly on instruments, so motion and vision deficits are not huge
problems. I do find visual flight in the C182 challenging, since there isn't
much in the way of instruments or autopilot. Just maintaining a constant
altitude is a pain.

Interestingly, we were trying to spin one of the Mustangs (that comes with
the Acceleration package), and were unable to do so. It just would not
break, even fully cross-controlled at the stall. Perhaps Dudley can comment
on this, as I was under the impression that Mustangs would spin pretty
easily.

With spins being substantially out of the envelope for aircraft not certified
for them, it would not surprise me if there were anomalies in the simulations
with respect to spins. Even the largest simulators often have that problem,
if they are simulating aircraft that one normally doesn't spin (such as large
transport aircraft).

Nope, I was referring to default aircraft.

With all the time and money you've invested in the sim, you should install a
few add-on aircraft. The difference is dramatic, often very much like using a
whole new simulator. The default aircraft don't fully exploit the
possibilities of the sim. I never fly default aircraft these days.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

I fly mostly on instruments, so motion and vision deficits are not
huge problems. I do find visual flight in the C182 challenging, since
there isn't much in the way of instruments or autopilot. Just
maintaining a constant altitude is a pain.

LIAR! LIAR! PANTS ON FIRE!

You don't fly, yet here you go again claiming you do. Liar!

YOU DO NOT FLY.

Only a non-flying asshole with an overinflated sense of self importance
would make the claim, as you do, that visual flight in a C182 is
challenging. You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in visual
conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent to fly
on instruments.

ANTHONY, YOU DON't KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA ABOUT AVIATION. POSER. MORON.

Just in case anyone is reading this who is just planning to learn to fly,
and is not part of the ongoing flame war or this topic:

I do not presently fly, but plan to do so in the future. Therefore, please
do not start out with a PC simulator--especially with a single monitor--as a
starting point for learning to fly in visual conditions. Doing so will
teach you to fixate on exactly the wrong things, you will rarely look at the
right things, and the thought of subsequently having to share the sky with
anyone who is doing that really SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME!!!!!

Thanks,
Peter

Benjamin Dover writes:

You can do it with FAR LESS instruments than are found in a
typical C182. If you can't maintain constant altitude in a C182 in visual
conditions without it being a pain, you're too ****ing incompetent to fly
on instruments.

Motion cues are absent and visual cues are limited in the sim, which may be a
factor. However, I'm sure I'll get better with practice. I may try to
install Reality XP instruments, which are smoother in motion and better for
detecting small changes.