On Topic

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com writes:

I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.

They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting
motion is just not right.

Inner ears don't detect constant motion, they detect acceleration, and they
are very easy to fool.

Plus they can't come close to simulating the
things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns.

You can mess up your inner ear just by spinning in a chair. It doesn't take
much.

Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a Bonanza or Airbus?

Mxsmanic wrote:
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com writes:

I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.

They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting
motion is just not right.

Inner ears don't detect constant motion, they detect acceleration, and they
are very easy to fool.

True but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

Plus they can't come close to simulating the
things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns.

You can mess up your inner ear just by spinning in a chair. It doesn't take
much.

Again, true but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a Bonanza or Airbus?

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a real airplane?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

Two or three?

Or are you going to tell me that the nosewheel with wheel pants and a
fairing is faster than the tailwheel hanging out in the breeze?

Sure, go ahead, try to destroy our hopes, our dreams, our pre-concieved
misconceptions just for the sake of reality.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate

writes:

True but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

On the contrary, it's extremely important for simulators. Full-motion
simulators are designed specifically to profit maximally from the various
defects of human motion perception. The same defects that result in spatial
disorientation are put to work in simulators to create an extremely persuasive
illusion of real, continuous movement.

The simulator actually uses only acceleration cues and washout to persuade the
human brain that the sim cockpit is actually going somewhere. It works
extremely well.

Again, true but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

If you can be messed up by turning in a chair with your eyes closed, you can
definitely be persuaded of just about anything with a properly-programmed
motion base reinforced by effective visuals and sound effects.

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a real airplane?

Sure, but only in aerobatic and fighter aircraft, which are a very tiny
percentage of all the aircraft in service. Most aircraft will disintegrate
long before GLOC occurs.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

Two or three?

About 1 percent. At most 1.5%. The "A" models have the nosewheel, so here
are the performance figures Van's claims (I've read others say that he is
pretty honest about the performance numbers he lists):

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8per.htm
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-9per.htm

I think the RV-9 compared with the RV-9A at 118 HP, 55% power, and gross
weight shows the largest percent difference at about 1.4% faster for
conventional gear. Oddly, all the aircraft show about 2 mph difference,
regardless of power setting.

Or are you going to tell me that the nosewheel with wheel pants and a
fairing is faster than the tailwheel hanging out in the breeze?

Sure, go ahead, try to destroy our hopes, our dreams, our pre-concieved
misconceptions just for the sake of reality.

No hopes, dreams, or pre-conceived misconceptions shattered, alas, but
perhaps beaten up a bit, eh? :-)

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

True but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

On the contrary, it's extremely important for simulators. Full-motion
simulators are designed specifically to profit maximally from the various
defects of human motion perception. The same defects that result in spatial
disorientation are put to work in simulators to create an extremely persuasive
illusion of real, continuous movement.

The simulator actually uses only acceleration cues and washout to persuade the
human brain that the sim cockpit is actually going somewhere. It works
extremely well.

Again, true but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

If you can be messed up by turning in a chair with your eyes closed, you can
definitely be persuaded of just about anything with a properly-programmed
motion base reinforced by effective visuals and sound effects.

Yet the most advanced and costly simulators still do not 100% simulate the
reality of flight, something that in your delusions you will never understand.

Granted 100% simulation is not required for all situations such as
teaching procedures, but I highly doubt you will ever find anyone that has
actually flown an aircraft that will agree that all flight training can
be done in a simulator like you seem to believe.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 12, 10:22*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:





"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
. ..
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. *That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would
either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?

Two or three?

About 1 percent. At most 1.5%. The "A" models have the nosewheel, so here
are the performance figures Van's claims (I've read others say that he is
pretty honest about the performance numbers he lists):

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/r...ic/rv-9per.htm

I think the RV-9 compared with the RV-9A at 118 HP, 55% power, and gross
weight shows the largest percent difference at about 1.4% faster for
conventional gear. Oddly, all the aircraft show about 2 mph difference,
regardless of power setting.

Or are you going to tell me that the nosewheel with wheel pants and a
fairing is faster than the tailwheel hanging out in the breeze?

Sure, go ahead, try to destroy our hopes, our dreams, our pre-concieved
misconceptions just for the sake of reality.

No hopes, dreams, or pre-conceived misconceptions shattered, alas, but
perhaps beaten up a bit, eh? :-)

Well, at least there's always several RV-6s on the market at all
times, some very reasonable. Here's one from an estate sale.
They're only asking 45. You could offer 39 and take it from there.

http://barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=345031

---
Mark

On May 11, 11:05*am, "birdog" wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message

...
On May 10, 3:06 pm, "birdog" wrote:





Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
on topic comments.

Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options..
The
Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ..
The
principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down
solid,
you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax
and it will swap ends, with devistating results.

In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed
pilots
trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a
dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about
3-6
hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally
took
about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning
pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing
was
the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.

Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it
be
worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

I saw one like this yesterday parked out back,
except it was blue and white, real sharp.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Van's-RV-6/1577100/M/

---
Mark

Beautiful little plane. Looks a lot like a 300. It is stressed for
aerobatics?

I really can't say, but apparently the RV-8 is according to
this fellow:

http://www.tailwheel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=199

They were having a similiar conversation on this topic.

---
Mark

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
wrote in message
...

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.

They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the
resulting motion is just not right. Plus they can't come close to
simulating the things that really mess up your inner ears during
sustained turns.

Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?


The "insider" view is that visuals are the dominant cue, and
since the time of TV cameras on gantries over a landscape board, visuals
have steadily improved. Sim visuals are not at the Atavar level of
visual realism yet - but that took lots of post-processing.

6DOF motions are all well and good, but NASA aside, they provide only
onset motion cues.
As to multi million dollar sims - the going rate is getting on for $20
million presently for a full house commercial jet.

Brian W

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...


Not to mention...even the venerable C150 disengaged the nosewheel in
flight to free caster.

Brian W