Pitch vs. trim in flight phases

Robert M. Gary writes:

Well, the use of it doesn't require any training. However, as CFIs we
bang our heads against the wall because students don't trim often
enough. This is especially true in the pattern. If you let them,
students will build up a sweat holding the yoke with a death grip.

I make the same mistake in the sim. I've been trying to train myself out of
it. I need to do more hand-flying (without autopilot) and things like pattern
work.

Steve Foley writes:

That's because almost nobody (yourself included) takes simming seriously.

A lot of people do, including many real-world pilots--at least those with open
minds. There is much to be gained from simulation.

Otherwise, your recent tragic crash would have involved more than
"half-hearted attempts to recover control".

That was a one-purpose experiment, not a regular flight.

Steve Foley writes:

I find your choice to of the term 'tiny tin cans' particularly telling.

I don't hold them in the same high esteem that many private pilots seem to.
There are many types of aircraft, not just little Cessnas. One of the
advantages to simulation is that you can try flying all sorts of aircraft, not
just the ones for which you might have an appropriate certification.

BDS writes:

First, it's generally more than a couple of springs and second, it costs
more than the $150 you probably spent on your toy yoke. That's why it's
more realistic.

So how realistic does a simulation have to be before it counts, exactly?

I disagree. What I have seen here is mainly the argument that the sim (and
especially the PC sim) is not a true substitute for the real thing - in this
case trim function being the latest example.

By definition, no simulation is a true substitute for the real thing,
otherwise it would _be_ the real thing. But the real question is whether or
not a given simulation fulfills a given purpose. And for some reason, some
people here have an irrational need to dismiss desktop simulators, or perhaps
just MSFS specifically.

I think you have an emotional investment in arguing against this because
your arguments lack logic and tend to dismiss anything that points to that
conclusion.

I'm not an emotional person.

When you are backed into a corner you always seem to resort to
the thinly veiled "tin can pilot" insult without having any idea of the type
of pilot you are corresponding with, or the experience level they might
have.

It's not an insult, it's an observation. The most vocal and single-minded
pilot posters also seem to be the ones whose experience is limited to the tin
cans. I know this because they describe flying in terms that apply only to
the tin cans, as if no other type of flying existed.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

I find your choice to of the term 'tiny tin cans' particularly telling.

I don't hold them in the same high esteem that many private pilots seem
to.

I was thinking more along the lines of your statements that you only want to
engage others in
discussions about aviation, but the terminology you choose is clearly
intended to be inflammatory.

Steve Foley writes:

I was thinking more along the lines of your statements that you only want to
engage others in discussions about aviation, but the terminology you choose is clearly
intended to be inflammatory.

Language isn't inflammatory; only a person's reaction to language can be that.
Some people become inflamed by a cloudy day; others, including myself, are
entirely refractory even to language intended by its author to produce
inflammatory reactions.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Foley writes:

That's because almost nobody (yourself included) takes simming seriously.

A lot of people do, including many real-world pilots--at least those with open
minds. There is much to be gained from simulation.

I have enjoyed tremendously both my work on MSFS with both Microsoft and
other designers in the sim community. I find the program has many
educational and practical uses in the real world of aviation if used
properly by creative instructors.
In addition to the practical side of the sim , I have also been
fortunate in that some of the finest designers connected with MSFS have
created exact virtual replications for me of several aircraft I have
flown and been involved with personally during my career and I have
these aircraft appearing exactly as they existed and looked in real life
even to their tail numbers in the sim to enjoy, allowing both my family
and friends to experience a bit of my tenure in aviation.

--
Dudley Henriques

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

I was thinking more along the lines of your statements that you only want
to
engage others in discussions about aviation, but the terminology you
choose is clearly
intended to be inflammatory.

Language isn't inflammatory; only a person's reaction to language can be
that.
Some people become inflamed by a cloudy day; others, including myself, are
entirely refractory even to language intended by its author to produce
inflammatory reactions.

OK, Let me re-phrase:

I was thinking more along the lines of your statements that you only want to
engage others in discussions about aviation, but the terminology you choose
is clearly
intended by its author to produce inflammatory reactions.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Robert M. Gary writes:

Well, the use of it doesn't require any training. However, as CFIs we
bang our heads against the wall because students don't trim often
enough. This is especially true in the pattern. If you let them,
students will build up a sweat holding the yoke with a death grip.

I make the same mistake in the sim. I've been trying to train myself
out of it. I need to do more hand-flying (without autopilot) and
things like pattern work.


Good grief.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Steve Foley writes:

That's because almost nobody (yourself included) takes simming
seriously.

A lot of people do, including many real-world pilots--at least those
with open minds. There is much to be gained from simulation.

Otherwise, your recent tragic crash would have involved more than
"half-hearted attempts to recover control".

That was a one-purpose experiment, not a regular flight.


None of your "flighs" are regualr flights. They're jerking off.

Bertie