MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

writes:

Really?

Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.

Add-ons will spin. I don't know about the built-in planes.

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

writes:

Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
virtual models, and does it accuratley.

There are many ways to accurately model flight.

X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
(from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.

When you do remember exactly what you're talking about, come back and
explain it again.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
virtual models, and does it accuratley.

There are many ways to accurately model flight.

X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
(from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.

When you do remember exactly what you're talking about, come back and
explain it again.

The details are here ( http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html ) Found them in
10 seconds as you could have if you bothered at least a little bit to
look things up on your own.

Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
virtual models, and does it accuratley.

There are many ways to accurately model flight.

X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
(from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.

Except for:

"Now, with X-Plane, we have a flight sim that can be used for logging time
towards your instrument rating, Commercial Certificate, or even your AIRLINE
TRANSPORT CERTIFICATE! Actually LOGGING this time requires you to be in a
Motus full-motion sim (price tag: about $150,000.00) "

More properly stated, X-Plane is a component "part" of a certified PCATD, it
is NOT a PCATD.

Big difference.

That said, the X-Plane reviews for the home PC are pretty darn good.

John Theune wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Anyway, the only readily available simulator that can be bought at a
store that simulates aerodynamics "properly" is x-plane, in fact the
engine that is used to simulate the physics of an airfoil does so
completley without using benchmarks of real world aircraft, just their
virtual models, and does it accuratley.
[...]
X-plane is also endorsed by the FAA as a PCATD... or something along
those lines, I don't remember exactly what, but it's a lot better
(from a physics standpoint) than Microsoft's release.
[...]
The details are here ( http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html )

Nice stuff. We used it one of the demos in our booth at the recent ATCA
conference in DC.

Found them in 10 seconds as you could have if you bothered at least a little bit to
look things up on your own.

Wot? And waste all that valuable time telling us what's up?

Just a 21st century variation on an old theme: "we were given two ears
and one mouth and...."

Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.

I'd like to see what Mx would think.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I think I have to agree with Jon. Flying a non precision approach in
heavy rain, down to minimums, knowing that every decision you make might
kill you and your passenger... that's real. Flying a simulator in your
conference room is just helpful for learning procedures, not matter how
"real" you try and make it. That said, practicing the procedures is
probably well worth it.


Jay Honeck wrote:
Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
"as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?

I'm not really sure, but I think it's because the sim set-up is too
widely variable from person to person. For example, flying MSFS on my
laptop at work using a mouse would *NOT* recreate flight in a way that
would be truly meaningful. Flying the Kiwi (and some step in between)
is.

Since the FAA can't delineate between the two experiences, they simply
disallow it. Makes sense to me, really.

Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


--

Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

Judah wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1165207605.867323.172810@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
points for discussion:

1. IFR Flight

Here I have to agree with you. I found my sim time to be very valuable with
respect to Instrument training and currency. I think it's too easy to
"cheat" in real life because if you stop scanning for a moment, and the
plane starts drifting, you usually get "seat of the pants" cues to remind
you to keep up your scan. Even if the cues are the wrong direction, they
bring you out of your coma and get you back on your scan.

The simulator doesn't give you that, so if you stop your scan, it starts
drifting, and it becomes very clear that you and your plane have drifted
and demonstrates just how important it is to keep your scan going.

OTOH, I find the most disorienting part of IMC flight to be takeoff - I
believe that the same factors that cause left turning tendency also create
seat of the pants feelings that are innacurate and distracting. Combine
that with the fact that your most likely to be "out of practice" when you
first take off in IMC (as opposed to landing, when you've probably spent
some amount of time getting re-acquainted with your scan), and I think it's
easiest to get yourself into trouble on takeoff in IMC. I find that I have
to consciously make an effort to focus on my scan during takeoff in IMC,
and after the first time I found myself having trouble, I actually tell
myself outloud to stay on scan if I know I'm taking off into soup...

I think it's hard to simulate that without a full motion simulator...

ISTR a (former?) regular on this group that ran one of those out of PA.
Haven't seen him post on here in ages, though. Nice guy. Richard
(sorry, last name escapes me right now)...

I used to practice spins on MSFS on the default Cessna 182 many years
ago. I don't know if real 182's will spin or not, but this one did
quite nicely and realistically.


fromTheShadows wrote:
wrote:
Really?

Spin the plane, stall it and put it in a spin... the models are not
full, it won't do a spin.


I'm not a pilot, but there add-on aircraft that according to their
developers will spin. The description for the (free) RealAir Cessna 172
specifically states that "it will side-slip and spin".

Jay Masino writes:

I think I have to agree with Jon. Flying a non precision approach in
heavy rain, down to minimums, knowing that every decision you make might
kill you and your passenger... that's real.

Spoken like someone who hasn't been in a good simulator.

Someone who has actually done this in a simulator a few times will be
a lot better equipped to face it in real life, should he ever have to.
Someone who shuns simulators because he thinks the experience doesn't
count unless he's sick with fear is going to be caught completely off
guard when bad things happen, and not only will he be terrified of
making the wrong move, he won't know what the right move is supposed
to be.

Besides, as I've already said, the best pilots are the least emotional
pilots. If you're frothing at the mouth with emotion in some delicate
situation aloft, you're going to make mistakes no matter how good you
are.

Contrary to what you might think from watching movies or reading
novels, the more emotional you are in an emergency, the more likely
you are to die.

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