Pitch vs. trim in flight phases

On 2008-05-16, Scott Skylane wrote:
gatt wrote:
/snip/ Electronic trim switches mounted to the yoke are a
bad habit waiting to happen; they're disabled in a lot of training
aircraft. /snip
Gatt, you owe me a new keyboard, I just spewed my coffee all over mine!
The plethora of inop electric trim swithces in GA is due to them being
broken, and the ownerws too cheap to have them fixed.

There are some aircraft (such as the Zodiac) where the trim is only
electric. The control forces are light enough that runaway/broken trim can
be overpowered, but I consider inop electric trim (either elevator or
aileron) to be a no go condition in the Zodiac.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

BDS writes:

I have experience with both and to me (and probably every other pilot
on this ng) it is a big difference.

But your experience is limited, just like mine, and the fact that it
includes time in a real plane isn't necessarily significant.

I find that most pilots here have an amazingly narrow view of flying
that does not extend beyond whatever experience they have personally
with real aircraft. There's a lot more to aviation than Cessnas or
Pipers. They complain that I overestimate the competence I can
acquire from using a simulator, but at the very same time they seem to
believe they know everything about flying even though they've only
flown a handful of tiny little planes for a total of a few hundred
hours at most.

I don't think you have the background to comment on this and have it
actually carry any weight. A spring-based yoke on a PC sim feels
nothing like the real thing, not even close.

I've been in real aircraft--at least in airliners--and the importance
of sensation is _wildly_ exaggerated, if what I felt was
representative (and I felt exactly the same thing that the pilots
did). Sensations are surely stronger in tiny GA aircraft, but you
can't fly aircraft on sensations alone, and in many aircraft
sensations just aren't important.

Various aircraft are more similar to each other in the way that yoke
vs trim forces feel than the spring-based yoke is to any actual
airplane.

Except that there are actual airplanes that use spring-based feedback.
In fly-by-wire aircraft, the control pressure (if any) is completely
simulated. If simulation is so bad, why is it being used in actual
aircraft?

The answer is that these sensations are, at best, mere conveniences.
They are not reliable. They are simulated for pilot comfort where
they do not naturally exist. They cannot be depended upon for flying.
To fly safely you need to be able to see things, either the world
outside, or instruments, or both. At _best_, sensation tells you that
something has changed, but if you are keeping your eyes where they
belong, you don't need to be told that something has changed by
physical sensations.

The spring-based yoke feels like a child's toy, nothing more, nothing
less.

Some might well say that small aircraft feel like children's toys.
It's just a matter of viewpoint.

In addition, trim in the PC sim changes where the elevator is
positioned for a given yoke location (in software). This is
fundamentally different from what it does and how it functions in an
actual aircraft.

So?

That is not relevant to the topic.

Yes, it is. It illustrates how unimportant some things are. You
cannot drive a car based on physical sensations, and you certainly
cannot fly based on them. They might feel nice (or not nice), and
they might attract your attention to the driving/flying task (if
you've been careless enough to let your attention wander), but they
are not important, and that's one reason why desktop simulators work
as well as they do.

Things like sensation and control feedback can be adapted to in
seconds, not hours or days or weeks. And they aren't very useful.


Anthony, you are totally unimportant to the human race.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Tina writes:

Your description of yoke pressure is vastly different from that we
who fly ga aircraft experience, which explains why you do not
understand ga trimming procedures.

It is not "vastly different," merely different. Don't overestimate
the importance of minor differences. If such differences were that
important, then pilots would have to start learning from scratch again
every time they moved from one aircraft to another.


Nope, completely different thing, fjukkwit.


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote

But your experience is limited, just like mine, and the fact that it
includes
time in a real plane isn't necessarily significant.

Everyone's experience is limited to some extent. However, yours is the more
limited in this case, and yet you claim to know better. Go figure.

I find that most pilots here have an amazingly narrow view of flying that
does
not extend beyond whatever experience they have personally with real
aircraft.
There's a lot more to aviation than Cessnas or Pipers. They complain that
I
overestimate the competence I can acquire from using a simulator, but at
the
very same time they seem to believe they know everything about flying even
though they've only flown a handful of tiny little planes for a total of a
few
hundred hours at most.

I am not them. What makes you group everyone into the same category here?

I've been in real aircraft--at least in airliners--and the importance of
sensation is _wildly_ exaggerated, if what I felt was representative (and
I
felt exactly the same thing that the pilots did). Sensations are surely
stronger in tiny GA aircraft, but you can't fly aircraft on sensations
alone,
and in many aircraft sensations just aren't important.

Did you fly the airliner, or ride in the back?

Except that there are actual airplanes that use spring-based feedback. In
fly-by-wire aircraft, the control pressure (if any) is completely
simulated.
If simulation is so bad, why is it being used in actual aircraft?

I have flown some of these and the simulated feedback provided is very close
to the real thing. Believe me, it is nothing like the toy yoke used on PC
sims.

Some might well say that small aircraft feel like children's toys. It's
just
a matter of viewpoint.

Find me an actual pilot who says this. So far, you are the only one I've
ever heard say this and coming from a non-pilot it doesn't really mean
anything.

Yes, it is. It illustrates how unimportant some things are. You cannot
drive
a car based on physical sensations, and you certainly cannot fly based on
them. They might feel nice (or not nice), and they might attract your
attention to the driving/flying task (if you've been careless enough to
let
your attention wander), but they are not important, and that's one reason
why
desktop simulators work as well as they do.

I agree that you cannot fly based on physical sensations alone, nor can you
drive a car in this manner. Would you agree however that sensations can
tell you things like relative speed, you just got a flat tire, your brakes
are shot, something bad is about to happen to your engine, your power
steering just failed, etc., etc. Some sensations in flying can be relied
upon and they add to the total picture about what is happening at any given
moment. No pilot would ever disagree with this. If you disagree, find
someone who is a pilot to back you up and you will gain some small level of
credibility.

BDS

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

BDS writes:

I have experience with both and to me (and probably every other pilot
on this ng) it is a big difference.

But your experience is limited, just like mine, and the fact that it
includes time in a real plane isn't necessarily significant.

I find that most pilots here have an amazingly narrow view of flying
that does not extend beyond whatever experience they have personally
with real aircraft. There's a lot more to aviation than Cessnas or
Pipers. They complain that I overestimate the competence I can
acquire from using a simulator, but at the very same time they seem to
believe they know everything about flying even though they've only
flown a handful of tiny little planes for a total of a few hundred
hours at most.

I don't think you have the background to comment on this and have it
actually carry any weight. A spring-based yoke on a PC sim feels
nothing like the real thing, not even close.

I've been in real aircraft--at least in airliners--and the importance
of sensation is _wildly_ exaggerated,

No, it isn't, fjukkwit.

I have considerable experience in airplanes large and small and in
simulators.


You are talking complete and utter ****.



Bertie

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

I have flown many different aircraft, and have never had to ask someone
how
to trim the plane.

Nothing obliged me to ask. I could have simply used trial and error.

If you don't have to ask someone how to trim a real plane, then it follows
that no training is required to do so

No, that doesn't follow.

"Jay Maynard" wrote ...
... I consider inop electric trim (either elevator or
aileron) to be a no go condition in the Zodiac.


Do Zodiacs come with aileron trim standard, or did you mean rudder trim?

"Steve Foley" wrote...

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
If you don't have to ask someone how to trim a real plane,
then it follows that no training is required to do so

No, that doesn't follow.

This is the typical MX dance where each and every partner walks away feeling
dizzy. The music hasn't changed since he started posting.

BDS writes:

What makes you group everyone into the same category here?

I don't. But quite a few of the most vocal posters to this group seem to
belong to some sort of odd subset of all pilots. Their behavior is unlike
what I've seen in other pilots, and their knowledge is also peculiarly
limited. I think that other factors besides being a pilot enter into whatever
motivates them to post here and behave as they do.

Did you fly the airliner, or ride in the back?

I was on board, and that's all that was required, since the entire aircraft
moves at once.

I have flown some of these and the simulated feedback provided is very close
to the real thing. Believe me, it is nothing like the toy yoke used on PC
sims.

But it's still simulation, provided by springs. How can it be realistic?

Find me an actual pilot who says this.

Most pilots are polite, especially those with the much greater experience that
is usually required before they can fly aircraft other than tiny tin cans.

I agree that you cannot fly based on physical sensations alone, nor can you
drive a car in this manner. Would you agree however that sensations can
tell you things like relative speed, you just got a flat tire, your brakes
are shot, something bad is about to happen to your engine, your power
steering just failed, etc., etc.

They can tell you some of these things, but not all. A flat tire produces a
very distinctive sensation. However, you cannot tell how fast you're going,
or even how much you've changed speed, by sensation alone. Overall, it's a
pretty poor indicator for everything.

Inner-ear sensations are designed to help you stand and walk, and for those
purposes they work reasonably well, particularly when combined with visual
input. However, they fail pretty miserably in situations for which they are
not designed, such as flying an aircraft. The literature is absolutely
constant on this point. About the only thing you can glean from sensations is
that a change in sensations generally correlates with a change in status. If
you suddenly feel that you are turning, chances are that something about the
aircraft has changed ... but you cannot assume that the change is actually a
turn unless you can confirm that by other means.

Some sensations in flying can be relied
upon and they add to the total picture about what is happening at any given
moment. No pilot would ever disagree with this. If you disagree, find
someone who is a pilot to back you up and you will gain some small level of
credibility.

Some sensations can be relied upon in a small way. No sensations are actually
required. An absence of sensations does not prevent you from flying if you
have other sources of information, and sensations alone are never sufficient.

This is why motion is not very important in simulation. Motion helps convince
a pilot that he is flying a real airplane, just like sound, but he doesn't
need motion to fly, and in fact, he is supposed to be able to fly without it.

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.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

BDS writes:

What makes you group everyone into the same category here?

I don't. But quite a few of the most vocal posters to this group seem
to belong to some sort of odd subset of all pilots. Their behavior is
unlike what I've seen in other pilots, and their knowledge is also
peculiarly limited. I think that other factors besides being a pilot
enter into whatever motivates them to post here and behave as they do.

Did you fly the airliner, or ride in the back?

I was on board, and that's all that was required, since the entire
aircraft moves at once.

I have flown some of these and the simulated feedback provided is
very close to the real thing. Believe me, it is nothing like the toy
yoke used on PC sims.

But it's still simulation, provided by springs. How can it be
realistic?

Find me an actual pilot who says this.

Most pilots are polite, especially those with the much greater
experience that is usually required before they can fly aircraft other
than tiny tin cans.

I agree that you cannot fly based on physical sensations alone, nor
can you drive a car in this manner. Would you agree however that
sensations can tell you things like relative speed, you just got a
flat tire, your brakes are shot, something bad is about to happen to
your engine, your power steering just failed, etc., etc.

They can tell you some of these things, but not all. A flat tire
produces a very distinctive sensation. However, you cannot tell how
fast you're going, or even how much you've changed speed, by sensation
alone. Overall, it's a pretty poor indicator for everything.

Inner-ear sensations are designed to help you stand and walk, and for
those purposes they work reasonably well, particularly when combined
with visual input. However, they fail pretty miserably in situations
for which they are not designed, such as flying an aircraft. The
literature is absolutely constant on this point. About the only thing
you can glean from sensations is that a change in sensations generally
correlates with a change in status. If you suddenly feel that you are
turning, chances are that something about the aircraft has changed ...
but you cannot assume that the change is actually a turn unless you
can confirm that by other means.

Some sensations in flying can be relied
upon and they add to the total picture about what is happening at any
given moment. No pilot would ever disagree with this. If you
disagree, find someone who is a pilot to back you up and you will
gain some small level of credibility.

Some sensations can be relied upon in a small way. No sensations are
actually required. An absence of sensations does not prevent you from
flying if you have other sources of information, and sensations alone
are never sufficient.

This is why motion is not very important in simulation. Motion helps
convince a pilot that he is flying a real airplane, just like sound,
but he doesn't need motion to fly, and in fact, he is supposed to be
able to fly without it.

Many pilots here seem to cling to this idea that simulation without
motion is inadequate.

No, simulation is in inadequate, period.


Bertie