Pitch vs. trim in flight phases

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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 Pixtels


I have fixored your poast.


Bertie

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

On aircraft that simulate it, the simulation is realistic.

But I thought that nothing is the same as the real thing, therefore _any_
simulation is unacceptable. If that's not true, then there must be some
simulations of flying that are just as realistic as the real thing.

Did you miss the word "aircraft"?

On an AIRCRAFT where there is no natural control feedback, systems
much more complex and expensive than a couple of springs provide
the feedback. That is not a "simulation of flying", it is actual flight.

You can't have it both ways. Either simulation works, or it doesn't.

Irrelevant to the statement.

In the early days of fly by wire airplanes without any control feedback,
the airplane tended to wander about the sky the way simmers do.

Simmers don't wander about the sky any more than real pilots.

As long as they have the autopilot on.

Which airplanes do you have in mind, specifically?

Any real one.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert Moore writes:

In FAR Part 23, The FAA specifies the pressures that MUST exist,
and how it MUST vary with airspeed.

Jim just said that early FBW didn't have feedback. Who's right?

Get a dictionary from someone who owns one and look up the words
"development", "reasearch", "testing", "production" and "certified".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.

A good way to keep students from doing this is to have them fly with a pen or
pencil interwoven between the fingers. If the student squeezes too hard, it
hurts, which reminds the student to relax the grip.

Barry wrote:
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.

A good way to keep students from doing this is to have them fly with a pen or
pencil interwoven between the fingers. If the student squeezes too hard, it
hurts, which reminds the student to relax the grip.



Another good way of preventing excessive grip on the stick or yoke is to
start the student from day one handling the airplane with their
fingertips ONLY. Worked well for me for every student I taught to fly.

--
Dudley Henriques

In rec.aviation.piloting Barry wrote:
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.

A good way to keep students from doing this is to have them fly with a pen or
pencil interwoven between the fingers. If the student squeezes too hard, it
hurts, which reminds the student to relax the grip.

The way my instructor broke me of the death grip on the controls was
to have me establish cruise then fold my arms and fly a short cross
country using only the rudder.

I was allowed to make trim tweeks, but if I unfolded my arms for any
other reason I got a BIG gutteral noise and reminder.

On the return trip I got to hold the yoke with 2 fingers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Many pilots here seem to cling to this idea that simulation without
motion is inadequate. I'm not sure whether they are really addicted
to motion as much as they seem to be, or whether they are just using
it as an excuse because it is one of the salient differences between a
desktop simulation and a real aircraft. Perhaps if MSFS included
motion, they'd find something else to latch onto.

Good grief. You're knowledge of aviation decreases with every post you
make.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.


You're displaying your stupidity again, Anthony. Now, put your head back
up your ass.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

I'm not an emotional person.


You're not a person, period. You're fecal matter attached to a keyboard.

Dudley Henriques writes:

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.

I looked at some of the companies you recommended and their aircraft seem very
cool, even though I'm not a big warbird fan. I'm always on the lookout for
companies that produce top-quality, ultrarealistic add-ons.