Flight Simulator for Real Pilots

I have been playing with FS2004 lately. I have the yoke and rudder pedals,
and 2 monitors (the one on my left is for my base to final leg and I must
say the realism is incredible. All phases of flying are very, very
realistic to me.

That's good to know. (The lefthand monitor -- that's a hoot! Great
idea.)

I tried it once when I was learning to fly. The model for the J-3 was
all but unflyable, and of course I couldn't see anything to either
side, so that was ridiculous. But even the landscape was unreal. It
was full of landmarks I'd never seen, in the form of cell-phone
towers, and the landmarks I actually depended on (Hampton water tower,
North Hampton tennis court) were altogether absent.

(I'm looking to my left and wondering if I could put a monitor there
.....)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

I'm glad to here that I am not the only person that can't land worth a grain
of sand on the MSFS :-). In fact, I stopped flying it for that reason. I
think what I am going to do is just use it for VOR training and when I get
to my destination just recycle the flight, not even try to land.

I am still using the 2002 version. My PC won't handle the 2004 version.

Harry
PP-ASEL

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
(Charles Talleyrand) wrote in message
. com...
Does anyone here use Microsoft Flight Simulator to help them become a
better pilot? I already know it can be used for fun, but does anyone
use it to help them on their IFR landings, or to become familiar with
their Garmin 430, or what not?

Basically, anyone have any Microfost Flight Simulator tips for actual
pilots?

I basically use MSFS to drill procedures and practice instrument
approaches (full approach only, no ATC). Used '98 now 2002 after the
kind gift of someone upgrading to 2004.

I find it helpful. It is useful to set up different wind conditions,
instrument failures etc but it's most useful to me just for drilling
procedures. I use the same mneumonics checklists timer etc as I
do when I fly.

I still can't land MSFS worth a darn. Whatever sensory cues I use
to land, they aren't there in "as real as it gets".

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:18:52 -0600, "Matthew P. Cummings"
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:58:14 +0000, Yossarian wrote:

spin recovery, engine failures, and go-arounds. I use it to practice heavy
crosswind takeoffs and landings too.

What are you using for controllers? I've got the CH Products Yoke and
rudder and this setup with FS9 is the most unrealistic thing I've ever
seen for crosswind practice.

If you're using the same, what are your settings? I've looked for months
to find something usable and finally gave up on anything approaching
reality, and I'd like to. In other words, what did you do to make the 172
fly like a 172?

I don't normally fly the default planes. The best that I've found for
spins and slips is the 172 that is available for download and
www.realairsimulations.com. The download is free.
Rich Russell

control/performance works best to land MSFS. just set the power and trim
the pitch for a nice gradual descent and don't touch it. it will squeek 'em
on.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Harry Gordon" wrote in message
...
I'm glad to here that I am not the only person that can't land worth a
grain
of sand on the MSFS :-). In fact, I stopped flying it for that reason. I
think what I am going to do is just use it for VOR training and when I get
to my destination just recycle the flight, not even try to land.

I am still using the 2002 version. My PC won't handle the 2004 version.

Harry
PP-ASEL

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
(Charles Talleyrand) wrote in message
. com...
Does anyone here use Microsoft Flight Simulator to help them become a
better pilot? I already know it can be used for fun, but does anyone
use it to help them on their IFR landings, or to become familiar with
their Garmin 430, or what not?

Basically, anyone have any Microfost Flight Simulator tips for actual
pilots?

I basically use MSFS to drill procedures and practice instrument
approaches (full approach only, no ATC). Used '98 now 2002 after the
kind gift of someone upgrading to 2004.

I find it helpful. It is useful to set up different wind conditions,
instrument failures etc but it's most useful to me just for drilling
procedures. I use the same mneumonics checklists timer etc as I
do when I fly.

I still can't land MSFS worth a darn. Whatever sensory cues I use
to land, they aren't there in "as real as it gets".

control/performance works best to land MSFS. just set the power and trim
the pitch for a nice gradual descent and don't touch it. it will squeek
'em
on.

I'm surprised to hear people have trouble landing in FS. Maybe it's the way
I have things setup, but it seems to be about as easy (or difficult) as in
meatspace. Perhaps the 3ghz computer with hardware video acceleration makes
the difference.

Perhaps the 3ghz computer with hardware video acceleration makes
the difference.

Yea, fine, go ahead and rub it in. See if I care :-))))).

Harry

That is a pretty good 172, thanks. Much less twitchy than the default one.

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:18:52 -0600, "Matthew P. Cummings"
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:58:14 +0000, Yossarian wrote:

spin recovery, engine failures, and go-arounds. I use it to practice
heavy
crosswind takeoffs and landings too.

What are you using for controllers? I've got the CH Products Yoke and
rudder and this setup with FS9 is the most unrealistic thing I've ever
seen for crosswind practice.

If you're using the same, what are your settings? I've looked for months
to find something usable and finally gave up on anything approaching
reality, and I'd like to. In other words, what did you do to make the
172
fly like a 172?

I don't normally fly the default planes. The best that I've found for
spins and slips is the 172 that is available for download and
www.realairsimulations.com. The download is free.
Rich Russell

In article , Snowbird wrote:
I find it helpful. It is useful to set up different wind conditions,
instrument failures etc but it's most useful to me just for drilling
procedures. I use the same mneumonics checklists timer etc as I
do when I fly.

I still can't land MSFS worth a darn. Whatever sensory cues I use
to land, they aren't there in "as real as it gets".

On the subject of MSFS takeoffs and landings, I did an interesting
experiment a while ago with FS98 and the Cessna 182. My goal was to see
how recoverable total engine failures at 50-100' AGL were, depending on
the type of departure. I believe the results are reasonably reliable
(judging by reading NTSB reports).

In summary, the takeoff and climbout at Vx is almost unrecoverable in a
sudden engine stoppage below about 100 feet - even with a very quick
recovery, you don't have the energy to flare and you smash into the
runway. A quick recovery results in survivable crash forces - a delayed
recovery of the "magic two seconds" that supposedly is the delay that
most people have in reacting to a sudden engine stoppage results in what
I would expect to be a fatal or serious injury crash.

Going off on a tangent, I'm not so sure that the "two seconds reaction
time" is all that accurate for a properly trained pilot - I've had power
failures on takeoff, and my recovery action was instant. I had a launch
failure whilst taking a winch launch recently in a glider. When winch
launching, you are pitched up at about 50 degrees nose up, and any delay
in recovery will result in a stall (the recovery is immediately push the
stick ALL THE WAY forward until you are in an attitude a bit steeper
than normal glide, and wait until the airspeed reaches normal flying
speed, then recover to normal glide attitude). When the cable
backreleased at around 800 feet, I didn't waste *any* time shoving the
stick all the way forward. I've also had cases of a C-85 engine
momentarily stopping altogether at 40' AGL on normal climbout due to a
stuck valve - my recovery action was immediate and I landed on the
remaining runway.
In winch launching gliders, cable failures aren't all that uncommon, and
all the people I've witnessed suffering launch failures have taken
immediate recovery action (good job too, because one I saw recently at a
glider club over in the UK was at an altitude that any delay in recovery
would have resulted in a probable fatal crash).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:13:08 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

In article , Snowbird wrote:
I find it helpful. It is useful to set up different wind conditions,
instrument failures etc but it's most useful to me just for drilling
procedures. I use the same mneumonics checklists timer etc as I
do when I fly.

I still can't land MSFS worth a darn. Whatever sensory cues I use
to land, they aren't there in "as real as it gets".

On the subject of MSFS takeoffs and landings, I did an interesting
experiment a while ago with FS98 and the Cessna 182. My goal was to see
how recoverable total engine failures at 50-100' AGL were, depending on
the type of departure. I believe the results are reasonably reliable
(judging by reading NTSB reports).

In summary, the takeoff and climbout at Vx is almost unrecoverable in a
sudden engine stoppage below about 100 feet - even with a very quick
recovery, you don't have the energy to flare and you smash into the
runway. A quick recovery results in survivable crash forces - a delayed
recovery of the "magic two seconds" that supposedly is the delay that
most people have in reacting to a sudden engine stoppage results in what
I would expect to be a fatal or serious injury crash.

I'm not sure about 100ft but I have twice done a practice PFL on
take-off with a PA28 from 200ft. Landed and took off again within
6000ft. Only one onboard and real life not FS! The only thing to watch
is lateral drift with a crosswind as the runway moves sideways -




E-mail (Remove Space after pilot): pilot

In article ,
wrote:
I'm not sure about 100ft but I have twice done a practice PFL on
take-off with a PA28 from 200ft. Landed and took off again within
6000ft. Only one onboard and real life not FS! The only thing to watch
is lateral drift with a crosswind as the runway moves sideways -

At Vx or Vy though? In my flight sim tests, a complete engine stoppage
at 50', climbing out at Vy was easily recoverable with a normal landing.
At Vx though, a crash was the normal outcome.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"