Why are multiple engines different?

Sylvain writes:

No, MS FS makes it possible, which is odd.

First, what's your technique for accomplishing it in MSFS?

Second, how do you know that it's impossible in real life?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

No, MS FS makes it possible, which is odd.

First, what's your technique for accomplishing it in MSFS?

start engines; switch off one engine, even the critical one,
won't matter; then taxi, line up with runway. and take off,
no sweat, just keep directional control with the rudders.


Second, how do you know that it's impossible in real life?

because as explained earlier, while training -- which involve
a lot of engine off practice in all sort of configs -- I was
able to observe for myself that it won't work; can't taxi the
thing. Didn't try too hard because I don't want to damage a
real life aircraft -- I reckon the nose gear wouldn't take
it -- that I cannot afford to replace; then also because it
obviously cannot work for a number of reasons already explained
here.

That said, may be it is possible in real life, say, if
you don't care about the aircraft, you have at your disposal
a perfectly flat and smooth and extremely vast -- as in
considerably larger than the airfield where I did quite
a few of the hours of my training -- A****er -- and which
was designed to accomodate B52s -- but it wouldn't be as
easy and straight forward as it is in MSFS.

But this is only one case that I used as an illustration;
there are quite a few other corner cases where real life
stubbornly disagrees with MSFS; don't get me wrong,
the thing is not too bad, but don't put too much faith
in it, *especially* in those corner / least explored
cases.

--Sylvain

--Sylvain

Sylvain writes:

start engines; switch off one engine, even the critical one,
won't matter; then taxi, line up with runway. and take off,
no sweat, just keep directional control with the rudders.

You don't say anything about speed or throttle settings.

If you have only one engine, and you set the throttle on it high
enough to get the aircraft moving, and you wait long enough, it will
tend to accelerate and converge on a certain speed. If you gradually
ease the throttle forward, it will converge on a higher and higher
speed, without necessarily increasing the eccentric thrust beyond what
you can counteract with the nose wheel. Eventually you should be able
to taxi anywhere.

Likewise, given a sufficiently long runway, you should be able to
eventually build up enough speed to rotate. Beyond that, I'm not sure
what would be possible.

because as explained earlier, while training -- which involve
a lot of engine off practice in all sort of configs -- I was
able to observe for myself that it won't work; can't taxi the
thing.

Because you can't do it, it cannot be done?

Didn't try too hard because I don't want to damage a
real life aircraft -- I reckon the nose gear wouldn't take
it -- that I cannot afford to replace ...

So you didn't really go for broke to see if it could be done or not.
It might still be possible, but you didn't wish to take the risk that
it might not be. It's logical to avoid the risk, but that also means
that you don't really know if it's possible or not.

... then also because it
obviously cannot work for a number of reasons already explained
here.

I don't see any clearly obvious reason why it cannot work. It
certainly wouldn't be practical, and it definitely wouldn't make much
sense to want to do it, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done.

That said, may be it is possible in real life, say, if
you don't care about the aircraft, you have at your disposal
a perfectly flat and smooth and extremely vast -- as in
considerably larger than the airfield where I did quite
a few of the hours of my training -- A****er -- and which
was designed to accomodate B52s -- but it wouldn't be as
easy and straight forward as it is in MSFS.

I didn't find it easy or straightforward in MSFS. In fact, I didn't
really have any useful success with it.

But this is only one case that I used as an illustration;
there are quite a few other corner cases where real life
stubbornly disagrees with MSFS; don't get me wrong,
the thing is not too bad, but don't put too much faith
in it, *especially* in those corner / least explored
cases.

But that's just it: so far, I don't see any disagreement between MSFS
and real life. Nobody seems to know if it can be done in real life or
even in MSFS.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

But that's just it: so far, I don't see any disagreement between MSFS
and real life. Nobody seems to know if it can be done in real life or
even in MSFS.

You simply *refuse* to "see any disagreement between MSFS and real life",
and you do so because you have zero real-life experience flying planes.
Those of us who have MSFS *and* real-life experience flying planes do see
"disagreements", some of which have been posted in this and other threads.
Frankly, I don't care in the least *why* MSFS gets some things wrong; it's
only a game and I treat it as such.

As far as taking off with one engine in a Baron goes, what I don't get is
why you think that someone who is rated in flying those planes would know
less about its capabilities than you do?

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

You simply *refuse* to "see any disagreement between MSFS and real life",
and you do so because you have zero real-life experience flying planes.

I don't refuse to see it; I simply have not yet been shown the
disagreement, despite repeated requests for the evidence.

What exactly does MSFS do that disagrees with real life, and how can
you know how either environment will handle single-engine taxis or
take-offs if you have experience with neither of them?

Those of us who have MSFS *and* real-life experience flying planes do see
"disagreements", some of which have been posted in this and other threads.
Frankly, I don't care in the least *why* MSFS gets some things wrong; it's
only a game and I treat it as such.

Every simulator gets some things wrong. But not knowing exactly what
they are is a lot worse than knowing the discrepancies in detail.

As far as taking off with one engine in a Baron goes, what I don't get is
why you think that someone who is rated in flying those planes would know
less about its capabilities than you do?

That's easy: No matter what he is rated in, I doubt that it includes
taking off from a dead stop with one engine. There is no reason for
anyone to ever do that in real life, so nobody practices it.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

You simply *refuse* to "see any disagreement between MSFS and real
life", and you do so because you have zero real-life experience
flying planes.

I don't refuse to see it; I simply have not yet been shown the
disagreement, despite repeated requests for the evidence.

If your usenet feed includes all messages in this ng, then you most
certainly have been "shown the disagreement".

What exactly does MSFS do that disagrees with real life, and how can
you know how either environment will handle single-engine taxis or
take-offs if you have experience with neither of them?

The fact is that those who *do* have experience with *both* of them have
told you repeatedly that the results are not the same.

Those of us who have MSFS *and* real-life experience flying planes
do see "disagreements", some of which have been posted in this and
other threads. Frankly, I don't care in the least *why* MSFS gets
some things wrong; it's only a game and I treat it as such.

Every simulator gets some things wrong. But not knowing exactly what
they are is a lot worse than knowing the discrepancies in detail.

The performace of the MSFS game is completely irrelevant to those of us
whose main interest is flying real planes. It is only "a lot worse" to you
and other gamers.

As far as taking off with one engine in a Baron goes, what I don't
get is why you think that someone who is rated in flying those
planes would know less about its capabilities than you do?

That's easy: No matter what he is rated in, I doubt that it includes
taking off from a dead stop with one engine. There is no reason for
anyone to ever do that in real life, so nobody practices it.

Nobody in their right mind practices things that are likely to damage the
airplane and possibly kill them. As Sylvain pointed out, if you can't
perform your stunt on a field large enough to accommodate B-52s, then
there is no reason to think that it can be done at all. The fact that one
can perform this stunt at a typical virtual airport with MSFS is
sufficient proof that it gets some pretty important things wrong. That
isn't news to those of us that fly real planes and have MSFS; it's only
news to you.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

The performace of the MSFS game is completely irrelevant to those of us
whose main interest is flying real planes.

You spend a lot of time discussing it for someone who apparently
considers himself part of this group.

Nobody in their right mind practices things that are likely to damage the
airplane and possibly kill them.

In that case, nobody really knows if they are possible or not, no
matter how much experience they might have in other aspects of flight.

As Sylvain pointed out, if you can't
perform your stunt on a field large enough to accommodate B-52s, then
there is no reason to think that it can be done at all.

I fail to see the logical connection there. Obviously, if you have a
large enough field, you can do all sorts of things.

The fact that one can perform this stunt at a typical virtual airport
with MSFS is sufficient proof that it gets some pretty important
things wrong.

I have not yet succeeded in performing it in the simulator; have you?

Since you don't know if it's possible in real life, you cannot know
whether the simulation is accurate or not. Personally, I trust
computers and math a lot more than I trust human beings and their
emotions.

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

The performace of the MSFS game is completely irrelevant to those of
us whose main interest is flying real planes.

You spend a lot of time discussing it for someone who apparently
considers himself part of this group.

You may have noticed that my "discussing it" is limited to addressing your
misinformation.

Nobody in their right mind practices things that are likely to
damage the airplane and possibly kill them.

In that case, nobody really knows if they are possible or not, no
matter how much experience they might have in other aspects of flight.

Completely irrelevant. It may have been possible for someone to make the
East River turn in a Cirrus that killed Lidle and his instructor. However,
a safe pilot would not try to find that out in that environment.

As Sylvain pointed out, if you can't
perform your stunt on a field large enough to accommodate B-52s, then
there is no reason to think that it can be done at all.

I fail to see the logical connection there. Obviously, if you have a
large enough field, you can do all sorts of things.

The logical connection is that there aren't many airports larger than
those that can accommodate B-52s, and they tend to be military-only air
fields. So, if there's nowhere to try such stunts, it's pretty much a
given that they can't be done.

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that you can't do *any* of those
things in a real plane, which as far as I can tell is the only reason you
think that it is "logical" to consider it a real possibility.

The fact that one can perform this stunt at a typical virtual airport
with MSFS is sufficient proof that it gets some pretty important
things wrong.

I have not yet succeeded in performing it in the simulator; have you?

I trust Sylvain's statement that he can do it. No need for me to replicate
it.

Since you don't know if it's possible in real life, you cannot know
whether the simulation is accurate or not.

What I wrote before still holds true: those things that I *do* know about
real life flying that differ from MSFS are sufficient to convince me that
it is only a game. I would not use any techniques in real aircraft based
on what that game does.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that you can't do *any* of those
things in a real plane ...

How do you know? You haven't tried it, and you haven't found anyone
who has.

I trust Sylvain's statement that he can do it. No need for me to replicate
it.

Why is his statement more trustworthy than mine?

What I wrote before still holds true: those things that I *do* know about
real life flying that differ from MSFS are sufficient to convince me that
it is only a game.

What things are those?

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

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that you can't do *any* of
those things in a real plane ...

How do you know? You haven't tried it, and you haven't found anyone
who has.

Perhaps you are confused over the meaning of the word "YOU" in my comment?

I trust Sylvain's statement that he can do it. No need for me to
replicate it.

Why is his statement more trustworthy than mine?

Because he is a pilot with a multi-engine rating, and you aren't even a
student pilot. DUH...

What I wrote before still holds true: those things that I *do* know
about real life flying that differ from MSFS are sufficient to
convince me that it is only a game.

What things are those?

Take a flying lesson and discover them for yourself. You seem to be the
only one you believe, anyway.

Neil