Here's a question for the trolls and flight simmers

I'm sorry, I didn't see this post until now. One of the
fondest memories of my first solo was seeing my own
shadow below. I guess my attention was elsewhere while
I had the CFI in the cockpit with me.
Lou

Lou wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't see this post until now. One of the
fondest memories of my first solo was seeing my own
shadow below.

My strongest memories were how the plane LEPT off the surface with 200
less pounds and more rearward GC, and remembering on downwind that I HAD
to land the plane with no reminders or comments from the CFI.

My PP CFI was a "master of distraction" type of chatty guy. He would
continually yak on about things that had nothing to do with flying. I
also noticed how peaceful solo flight was! G

My PP CFI was a "master of distraction" type of chatty guy. He would
continually yak on about things that had nothing to do with flying. I
also noticed how peaceful solo flight was! G

That's funny, while reading this I was thinking the same thing. My CFI
kept
talking about things he did over the weekend, what did I do etc. I
guess
it worked.
Lou

Lou wrote:
My PP CFI was a "master of distraction" type of chatty guy. He would
continually yak on about things that had nothing to do with flying. I
also noticed how peaceful solo flight was! G

That's funny, while reading this I was thinking the same thing. My CFI
kept
talking about things he did over the weekend, what did I do etc. I
guess
it worked.

It did!

All the same stuff non-flying pax talk about that can easily draw you in
and away from flying.

The quiet on the first solo, without him yakkin' away, was soooooooooooo
noticeable! G

In article ,
Stealth Pilot wrote:

at 4,500ft (the original question) the aircraft has no shadow at all
but at the sub solar point (were you'd think the shadow should be)
there is a distinct bright area tracking along under the aircraft.

for thirty years this quietly puzzled me. it is a fact that aircraft
at altitude have no shadow. below them tracking along the ground is a
bright spot of light.

the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
this causes the bright spot.

Poisson spot, Spot of Arago, Keller edge waves. Very much doubt
gravitational bending of light is involved.

Stealth Pilot writes:

the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
this causes the bright spot.

It's much simpler than that. The shadow is so blurry at altitude that you
cannot see it, but it is still there, and it is almost exactly the same size
that it would be on the ground. Gravitational lensing is not significant for
an object with the mass of an airplane (but it works for the sun, which is
considerably larger).

The bright spot comes from direct reflection of the sun behind you.

And pilots are not the only people who see these phenomena. Anyone riding in
a plane can see them, pilot or not. Indeed, the plane isn't necessary either,
as they can be seen from hilltops, mountaintops, and even from the roof of a
tall building.

the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
competent knowledge.

Simulators simulate what is important; they don't simulate what isn't.
Simulating a few rare optical phenomena is so unimportant that it would be a
waste of code to simulate it.

if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?

Yes.

Microsoft Flight Simulator actually has better visuals than some
multimillion-dollar simulators. Does that mean that the latter are "bad"
simulators? No. It just means that these latter simulators emphasize other
aspects of the simulation; the relatively primitive visuals are there because
the simulator is not normally used for VFR simulation, and photorealistic
visuals are very expensive. You can bet that these expensive full-motion
simulators don't normally simulate heiligenschein, glories, rainbows, or other
minor phenomena, either.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Stealth Pilot writes:

the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense
of the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens
and this causes the bright spot.

It's much simpler than that. The shadow is so blurry at altitude that
you cannot see it, but it is still there, and it is almost exactly the
same size that it would be on the ground. Gravitational lensing is
not significant for an object with the mass of an airplane (but it
works for the sun, which is considerably larger).

The bright spot comes from direct reflection of the sun behind you.

And pilots are not the only people who see these phenomena. Anyone
riding in a plane can see them, pilot or not. Indeed, the plane isn't
necessary either, as they can be seen from hilltops, mountaintops, and
even from the roof of a tall building.

the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
competent knowledge.

Simulators simulate what is important; they don't simulate what isn't.
Simulating a few rare optical phenomena is so unimportant that it
would be a waste of code to simulate it.

if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?

Yes.

Microsoft Flight Simulator actually has better visuals than some
multimillion-dollar simulators. Does that mean that the latter are
"bad" simulators? No. It just means that these latter simulators
emphasize other aspects of the simulation; the relatively primitive
visuals are there because the simulator is not normally used for VFR
simulation, and photorealistic visuals are very expensive. You can
bet that these expensive full-motion simulators don't normally
simulate heiligenschein, glories, rainbows, or other minor phenomena,
either.


you're an idiot.


Bertie

Stealth Pilot wrote:
it is a fact that aircraft
at altitude have no shadow.

Rather, that it does have a shadow, but which is so diffuse that it is
below the JND of your eyeballs.

below them tracking along the ground is a
bright spot of light.

A side effect of the lift fairies, perhaps? :P

TheSmokingGnu

On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
....
the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
competent knowledge.

Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
to photograph the far side of the moon that the
Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
finally got it.
Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
rules to "sim" the ballistics.

if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?

I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:874ec04d-d3fb-447e-
:

On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
...
the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
competent knowledge.

Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
to photograph the far side of the moon that the
Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
finally got it.
Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
rules to "sim" the ballistics.

if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?

I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).




Of course you would k00kie boi.

Bertie