Pitch vs. trim in flight phases

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

From the way some of them talk, it doesn't sound like they've done any
recent
or serious simming.

That's because almost nobody (yourself included) takes simming seriously.
Otherwise, your recent tragic crash would have involved more than
"half-hearted attempts to recover control".

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

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

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. 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.



You are a fjukkwit.
Oh, and BTW, I fly little tin cans, big tin cans and rags.


Jerkoff.


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote

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

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.

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.

No one here has argued against this.

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

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.

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. 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.

BDS

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:52:53 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

gatt wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I don't know how that compares to the Saitek Aviator which is what I
use, but I'm thinking of removing the springs and replacing them with
stiffer ones to make it a bit more realistic.


Ah yes......but at what airspeed? (slugs dynamic pressure vs unboosted
control surfaces :-))

Ooh. Good point. I wonder if a series of small electric motors could
be used to spool up bungee tension corresponding to appropriate
pressures. Not sure how the big sims do it.




-c

Not sure myself. It would have to be a complicated program. Even the
control surface area is a factor, and each aircraft would be affected
differently.

Unless I'm mistaken here, since the big jets have boosted controls and
run everything through an artificial feel unit for the yokes don't
they just install the same artificial feel unit in the sim as is in
the aircraft?

Bertie?

Peter Clark wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:52:53 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

gatt wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I don't know how that compares to the Saitek Aviator which is what
I use, but I'm thinking of removing the springs and replacing them
with stiffer ones to make it a bit more realistic.


Ah yes......but at what airspeed? (slugs dynamic pressure vs
unboosted control surfaces :-))

Ooh. Good point. I wonder if a series of small electric motors
could be used to spool up bungee tension corresponding to
appropriate pressures. Not sure how the big sims do it.




-c

Not sure myself. It would have to be a complicated program. Even the
control surface area is a factor, and each aircraft would be affected
differently.

Unless I'm mistaken here, since the big jets have boosted controls and
run everything through an artificial feel unit for the yokes don't
they just install the same artificial feel unit in the sim as is in
the aircraft?



Nah, the artificial feel is fairly simple compared to the arrangement in
a sim. In an aircraft there's an airspeed input ( some older airplanes
have seperate pitot tubes on the tail to feed the feel) that goes to a
computer which operates a bunch of arms and levers that give a mecanical
advantage type feedback to the stick. While it's similar in a sim, the
number of parametrs the sim's computer has to look at to make a feel
adjustemnt is enormous. In the airplane it's pretty natural in
operation. Even the best sims tend to be a bit notchy and not so natural
to fly. Good smooth RL pilots tend to be fairly poor at controlling
sims, particulkarly the old ones, wheras guys who are good at flying the
sims tend to be automatons and fly the airplane as such. Not a hard and
fast rule, but it's the case more often than not. I was in an old three
axis sim years ago and noticed the altimeter wasn't moving while we were
in S+L flight. I just assumed the sim was acting up and was broken....



Bertie

On May 16, 2:51*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Foley writes:

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, in which case a pilot has no advantage
over a non-pilot when it comes to trim, since everyone does it instinctively,
without having to ask anyone anything.

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.

-Robert, CFII

Gatt,

He just marked it INOP to keep
people from using it.


How extremely dumb of him! I'd run, not walk out of that "flight
school".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bds,

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


Why, oh why, do you bother with the idiot? It's going the same route it
always goes (and you're right, of course).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter Clark wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:52:53 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

gatt wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I don't know how that compares to the Saitek Aviator which is what I
use, but I'm thinking of removing the springs and replacing them with
stiffer ones to make it a bit more realistic.

Ah yes......but at what airspeed? (slugs dynamic pressure vs unboosted
control surfaces :-))
Ooh. Good point. I wonder if a series of small electric motors could
be used to spool up bungee tension corresponding to appropriate
pressures. Not sure how the big sims do it.




-c

Not sure myself. It would have to be a complicated program. Even the
control surface area is a factor, and each aircraft would be affected
differently.

Unless I'm mistaken here, since the big jets have boosted controls and
run everything through an artificial feel unit for the yokes don't
they just install the same artificial feel unit in the sim as is in
the aircraft?

Bertie?

Here's a great article written by Joe Bill Dryden, test pilot in the F16
program. Dry does a very credible job of explaining artificial feel in
rate control systems as opposed to displacement systems.
I believe this will help clear the air a bit.


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...rol/index.html

--
Dudley Henriques