Steering on the taxiway

Peter Dohm writes:

Perhaps, since you are not really using it as a simulation in preparation
for a flight. OTOH, you found one.

It looks as though throttles are often side by side in real aircraft
as well, so presumably one moves them as a unit most of the time,
unless there's a specific reason to adjust one throttle alone.

One thing about the sim is that throttles are always perfectly locked
together. I don't know how easy that is to manage in real life,
unless an aircraft has some sort of locking system to ensure that all
throttles move in exactly the same way.

I've heard that very small differences in throttle settings can reduce
economy, and that FADECs automatically eliminate discrepancies in
order to improve fuel economy.

Thus simulating nothing.

Not quite. Some things that are time-consuming in the sim would be
extremely fast and easy in real life. Thus, pausing the sim to carry
them out is actually more realistic than doing them in real time.

For example, feathering a single prop requires bringing up the
throttle panel, placing the mouse on the prop lever, and rolling it
downwards towards the feather position. In real life, it would be one
very simple and quick movement. Doing it in the sim takes time that
wouldn't be taken up in real life, and thus reduces realism. Pausing
the sim makes the timing closer to real life.

The main reason for throttle quadrants is to avoid the problem above.
Adjusting throttles in MSFS is very awkward without an actual throttle
quadrant, and throttle adjustments are so frequent in real life that
having a moveable throttle lever enhances realism enough to make it
cost-effective. This is dramatically less true for prop and mixture
levers.

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

Mxsmanic,

If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.


The way your life seems to be going, it might be time to ask if YOU are
the cause of the problems, not "such people". But you knew that - just
as well as you know that your style of "discussion" is anything but
normal.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
says...

If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.



Break into their group, then say they should avoid you.
Anyone who's bothered by you is, by definition, unlikely to be willing or
able to participate in a normal discussion?


Funny thing about humans. They are such unrelaible sources of
information. They have ideas, opinions - they disagree with each other
- they even make mistakes, and when they do, they are capable of still
trying to defend themselves! Such children!It's hard to imagine what
pleasure they can get out of hearing one anothers' opinions, when, by
definition, only one can be right, and the others can only be "blowing
smoke".

There are much more reliable sources of information - books for
example. But wait a minute - this argument is made by one who refuses
to research a subject before discussing it - who cannot find the
motivation to look up the simplest subject before coming to the public
place to tell the experts they are amateurs and children . . .

Greg Farris writes:

Break into their group, then say they should avoid you.

"Their" group? Sorry, but newsgroups belong to no one, and although
the kiddies in the boys' club might be the most active posters in a
group, that doesn't mean that the group belongs to them.

Anyone who's bothered by you is, by definition, unlikely to be willing or
able to participate in a normal discussion?

No, but people who are in general preoccupied by personalities and
emotions rather than rational discussion are likely to have such
difficulties.

Funny thing about humans. They are such unrelaible sources of
information. They have ideas, opinions - they disagree with each other
- they even make mistakes, and when they do, they are capable of still
trying to defend themselves! Such children!

Yes.

It's hard to imagine what
pleasure they can get out of hearing one anothers' opinions, when, by
definition, only one can be right, and the others can only be "blowing
smoke".

It's not hard to imagine, but it is a source of pleasure that I do not
share. There are many psychological underpinnings to such behavior.

There are much more reliable sources of information - books for
example.

Books are not inherently reliable.

But wait a minute - this argument is made by one who refuses
to research a subject before discussing it - who cannot find the
motivation to look up the simplest subject before coming to the public
place to tell the experts they are amateurs and children . . .

Well, you can change if you wish.

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

Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article , Greg Farris
wrote:

You can get questions from a different reasonable reader. Not this
guy, if
you
want this group to remain healthy. He is a troll, plain and simple.
Go over
to
the sim group, and ask about him. They ran him off, over there.

How did they get rid of him?
Can they give us some instruction?

Maybe we should all just go over to the sim group and leave him here all by
himself.

How did we get rid of the fish that shall not be named?

Dumping Nuclear Waste in the water?

What happened to the long island looney bird?

Shot 'em all?

"Mxsmanic" wrote

It's an accurate description of the people it references (the kiddies
and children), who unfortunately are very common on USENET.

Hey group! This is what you get, if you deal with this one!

If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.

You are the authority on interaction being a waste of time. It is always a
waste of time to communicate with you.

However, I long ago learned--the hard way--that most people are
blowing smoke when they answer questions. On USENET, almost everyone is
posturing, so all responses must be taken with a large grain of salt.

See what I mean, group? This is what he thinks of your answers. Just say no!

Credentials are not a factor, in part because (1)
credentials are not reliable, and (2) everyone on USENET is a
self-appointed world expert in everything.

Again, this is what he thinks of you, group.
--
Jim in NC

"Mxsmanic" wrote

Books are not inherently reliable.

So you don't trust books or people. Is anyone up to your high standards?

No need to answer that. I know you think more of yourself than anyone or
anything else.

Have fun playing with your sim game.
--
Jim in NC

"Greg Farris" wrote

How did they get rid of him?
Can they give us some instruction?

Everyone quit responding to him.

We still have members here that think it is worthwhile to answer him, and
continue threads with his insertions.

He will not leave, until nobody will play with him.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Greg Farris writes:

Break into their group, then say they should avoid you.

"Their" group? Sorry, but newsgroups belong to no one, and although
the kiddies in the boys' club might be the most active posters in a
group, that doesn't mean that the group belongs to them.

The charter of this group, which I have quoted below:

From: Geoff Peck )
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Date: 2002-01-13 00:45:07 PST


The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:


************************************************** *****************
* Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
* which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
* rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
* flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
* characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
* emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
* flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
* ground support facilities, etc.
************************************************** *****************

Certainly you can recognize by now that certain of your questions and
comments are not pertinent to pilots of General Aviation aircraft.

Please refrain from violating the charter of this group.

MX,
You do raise valid points, and I appreciate that you at least replied.
Now I'm going to be sentimental....There is one underlying thing for
you to keep in the back of your mind here, however. There is an
underlying principle that bonds pilots subconsciously together- that
mistakes can lead to death. Being a pilot doesn't guarantee anything,
you are right. A lot of us have friends who have died flying, with
their license providing no help. But, despite that, we love flying, and
it is safe. Not knowing the perfect taxi speed might not hurt anyone,
but the collective package of knowledge a pilot possesses makes him/her
safer up there. It takes a lifetime commitment to being a safe pilot.

Try to get to the right answer, but be sensitive to the fact that this
group of people's differing opinions stem from a deeper belief that
their well being (as well as their passengers) depends on their
ultimate actions in the cockpit. Often times there are multiple ways to
do the same thing, and everyone who has done it their way safely wants
to tell others. (And yes, some people just want to show off...). But
what is good for one pilot might not be for another. So of Course there
are different answers. Examples:

You are too high on final. Do you sideslip or go around?
How much do you lean the mixture while on the ground?
What visibility is too low for takeoff? Part 91 lets me go with 0.
Am I safe at 9000ft at night without supplemental oxygen? FAR says it's
legal
When you taxi, how fast is too fast?
Is that runway too short today?


I know my abilities and limitations. For instance, I have great
crosswind landing skills, but am more timid with small mountain strips.
Most people here have different opinions OR experience levels, and you
can't just poke them with sticks when they know that you are detached
from the issue. If you screw up, no problem. If I screw up, somebody
might die, and that's why we try so hard to tell each other what we
think is best. Sometimes it seems you toy with this principle (without
knowing it, I hope) and it really ****es people off. Just my 2 cents.


Being a pilot isn't a guarantee of anything, unfortunately, except
that one holds a pilot's license. As a group, pilots are likely to
know more about aviation than non-pilots, but this general observation
is useless for predicting the reliability of individuals who call
themselves pilots.