Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

TxSrv writes:

Toward the huge manufacturing and other costs incurred to
hand-produce a very complex machine in extremely low sales
volumes.

So the manufacturers are selling these simulators at cost? That's
very good of them.

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

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

I have no doubt that anything can be modelled to a high degree of
accuracy. The issue is, does MSFS?

In this case, yes, probably. It's only a difference in altitude.

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

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:

Agree, but why am I wrong? I didn't say anything to the contrary. I said
_if_ MSFS allows you to fly the 172 up there, then it's wrong.

Maybe a communications problem? If MSFS lets you climb there in a 172 on
your own, then it's wrong. If however it just lets you put it up there
as a starting point, this isn't wrong per se. The question then is, how
does it handle the situation?

I have no doubt that anything can be modelled to a high degree of
accuracy. The issue is, does MSFS?

No idea. Most probably not.

Stefan

Stefan writes:

Maybe a communications problem? If MSFS lets you climb there in a 172 on
your own, then it's wrong. If however it just lets you put it up there
as a starting point, this isn't wrong per se. The question then is, how
does it handle the situation?

At 45,000 feet, the engine seems to windmill a bit but will not run.
Airspeed is about 80 KIAS, and the aircraft can be held level easily
enough, but it is losing altitude very quickly, at around 2000 fpm.
Not much can be done with it (short of diving) for 15-20,000 feet or
so, at which point control seems to get better, and the engine will
run if you set the mixture right. At that altitude there are some
fairly huge phugoid movements if you try to climb or descend. Whether
the aircraft actually behaves this way in real life at such altitudes,
I don't know.

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

In article ,
says...
Stefan writes:

Maybe a communications problem? If MSFS lets you climb there in a 172 on
your own, then it's wrong. If however it just lets you put it up there
as a starting point, this isn't wrong per se. The question then is, how
does it handle the situation?

At 45,000 feet, the engine seems to windmill a bit but will not run.
Airspeed is about 80 KIAS, and the aircraft can be held level easily
enough, but it is losing altitude very quickly, at around 2000 fpm.
Not much can be done with it (short of diving) for 15-20,000 feet or
so, at which point control seems to get better, and the engine will
run if you set the mixture right. At that altitude there are some
fairly huge phugoid movements if you try to climb or descend. Whether
the aircraft actually behaves this way in real life at such altitudes,
I don't know.

AFAIK no-one has ever towed a C-172 to 45K' - unlike MSFS where you can
just pause and set the a/c at any altitude you like.

--
Duncan

Duncan writes:

AFAIK no-one has ever towed a C-172 to 45K' ...

So nobody really knows.

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

Mxsmanic,

The distinction can be important in flying.


How would you know?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Sam Spade wrote:
Buck Murdock wrote:


Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.

Damn!

I can just imagine that Geek Squad installation visit. G

In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:

Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.

Damn!

I can just imagine that Geek Squad installation visit. G

"Well... I really think you should get the 3-year service plan on this,
'cuz we see a lot of service calls on these. Let's see.... $12
million.... .... yeah, it'd be just $3.5 million for 3 years of full
coverage. Can I sign you up now?"

grin

Buck Murdock wrote:
In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:


Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.

Damn!

I can just imagine that Geek Squad installation visit. G


"Well... I really think you should get the 3-year service plan on this,
'cuz we see a lot of service calls on these. Let's see.... $12
million.... .... yeah, it'd be just $3.5 million for 3 years of full
coverage. Can I sign you up now?"

grin

In addition to the $3.5 mil service contract the owner is required to
provide a break room and rest facilities for the full time geeks.