RealAir Lancair Legacy -- GA doesn't get any better

[Dirk98 354]

If you want to have a realistic feeling track IR is the best I've experienced so far... the natural head movements are essentially what I've felt when I flew irl. But to have additional "bouncy" effects seems overkill imho.

 

This is how the flight feels/looks for me mostly (start 0:50 to 1:20), including the tremors, shakes, wing drops etc. It was never a knife in the butter in a small plane if you ask me.

 

 

 

I use a combination of TrackIR and EZDOK views in FSX.

 

Cheers,

Dirk.

[Ron Attwood 3,499]

When I watched that Cirrus video I happened upon another video of a guy landing in Tampa in pouring rain. I was struck by how little stick waggling was done. The camera was obviously solidly mounted and showed none of the shake of the hand held example in the 'shakey' video.

As an 'off topic' I found this video. Quite thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=PM3s24j3cbU

[GHarrall 494]

It also says 'gusty pattern' - I would expect some shaking!

 

Personally, in 152's and 172's the ride is usually fairly smooth. The 152 gets bumped around a little more than the 172 but then you would exepect that really.

[Dirk98 354]

When I watched that Cirrus video I happened upon another video of a guy landing in Tampa in pouring rain. I was struck by how little stick waggling was done. The camera was obviously solidly mounted and showed none of the shake of the hand held example in the 'shakey' video.

 

Huh? Where did you see the "hand held example example in the 'shakey' video"? All cameras were firmly mounted in the both videos, except for the short footage of the wing in the very beginning (which can be skipped for the sake of this turn in the discussion).

 

Cheers,

Dirk.

 

It also says 'gusty pattern' - I would expect some shaking!

 

Lol, check out the previous one then, where it doesn't say gusty. I agree, planes, wx and areas are different, even the way you feel in the air is quite specific to each person. Of course I had some flights, that were very smooth, but still flying for me was always more wobbly than the tuned out movement in the air in FSX.

 

Cheers,

Dirk.

[Gregg_Seipp 571]

As an 'off topic' I found this video. Quite thought provoking. http://www.youtube.c...1&v=PM3s24j3cbU

 

Cirrus aircraft have a pretty poor safety record. I think people think that that parachute will save them if they get in trouble so they push the envelop even further.

[ryanbatc 13,019]

The vibrations from that video (I've watched that before hehe) are all from the camera and the mount. Heck maybe the air is smoother where I flew :P

 

Oh well... I guess nobody can fault you for wanting to fly how you want to fly!

 

Cirrus aircraft have a pretty poor safety record. I think people think that that parachute will save them if they get in trouble so they push the envelop even further.

 

Only because so few have been made compared to the many years of Cessnas, Pipers, Beech, and Mooneys out there... Remember how on one day Concorde's record was perfect and the next it was the worst aircraft for safety in the world? It's because they didn't make many and fly nearly as much as a B747 for example.

 

I'm not saying all cirrus pilots are bad - there are plenty superb pilots I've worked with, but a lot become complacent with the technology and it shows when I issue them simple instructions.

[Dirk98 354]

The vibrations from that video (I've watched that before hehe) are all from the camera and the mount. Heck maybe the air is smoother where I flew :P

 

Oh well... I guess nobody can fault you for wanting to fly how you want to fly!

 

Hehe, next time try a helmet mounted camera, it will produce a much smoother video (no arguing about this) compared to what your rear end actually experienced. ;)

 

Dirk.

[Gregg_Seipp 571]

Only because so few have been made compared to the many years of Cessnas, Pipers, Beech, and Mooneys out there... Remember how on one day Concorde's record was perfect and the next it was the worst aircraft for safety in the world? It's because they didn't make many and fly nearly as much as a B747 for example.

 

I'm not saying all cirrus pilots are bad - there are plenty superb pilots I've worked with, but a lot become complacent with the technology and it shows when I issue them simple instructions.

 

Yeah and stats are in the eye of the beholder...so many ways to interpret them and some people just seem to be on a witch hunt to make their point or sell an article. They've been under fire, off and on, about sequences of crashes due to some of the things they said the airplane was designed to handle...stalls, for example. I saw some speculation as to the safety being one reason why their resale prices were low but that could be lots of other things too. Personally, I think it's a gorgeous aircraft and would be quite safe if you respected how you could get it in to trouble like any other aircraft.

[robert young 2,897]

No doubt at all that was a quite bumpy bit of turbulence. Nice video. Two things though: The human eye is much better at compensating for vibration than a camera. We are seeing the camera's eye. A human eye smooths things out a bit. Secondly, in still, calm air, a Cirrus, Tiger Moth, Glider, Ultralight and many other craft will reflect the conditions. My original point was that aircraft don't move around unless something is moving them, and controls are generally very simple unless something outside is disturbing them.

 

Aeroplanes are not twitchy by themselves.

 

Interesting to note whether Cirrus aircraft are intrinsically unsafe, or whether their pilots tend to have too much cash and too little training. Also interesting to conjecture whether recent loss of an Airbus and regional Turboprop are partly due to inadequate basic flying instincts and too much reliance on automation and instruments. In both cases the pilots held the stick back against what was eventually a stall, instead of pushing forward. In both cases the aircraft in question deep stalled in to the ground.

 

I was taught right from the word go to recognise impending stalls and never forget it: Wind noise drops, controls become floppy, wings tend to wander in roll, buffeting noise, or in the case of an Airbus, stick shaker goes nuts, etc etc. No amount of anti-Alpha equipment, Glass gauges, Gps-s, parachutes or gizmos are going to compensate for a gut feeling that you are too close to a stall. Even an Airbus A380 will let you know without even looking at instruments.

[Dirk98 354]

No doubt at all that was a quite bumpy bit of turbulence. Nice video.

 

For the sake of this part of the discussion the first video serves much better:

 

http://www.youtube.c...1&v=Y6f6KOAXSqo

 

Aeroplanes are not twitchy by themselves indeed. Your FDEs for MSFS planes, Robert, are perfect.

 

Sometimes we can also emulate the resulting behavior to some point if simulation (in this case constant real air and wind gust effects) can't be achieved to the necessary detail (I mean the EZDOK effects, AccuFeel and alike).

 

Thanks,

 

Dirk.

[robert young 2,897]

For the sake of this part of the discussion the first video serves much better:

 

http://www.youtube.c...1&v=Y6f6KOAXSqo

 

Aeroplanes are not twitchy by themselves indeed. Your FDEs for MSFS planes, Robert, are perfect.

 

Sometimes we can also emulate the resulting behavior to some point if simulation (in this case constant real air and wind gust effects) can't be achieved to the necessary detail (I mean the EZDOK effects, AccuFeel and alike).

 

Thanks,

 

Dirk.

 

Thanks Dirk. I had a look at that clip. I don't know the precise conditions, but was there a tad too much over-controlling there? The stick never settled to see what was going to happen next. But of course it's easy to say without being on the end of said stick!

[tttocs 301]

Aeroplanes are not twitchy by themselves.

 

Especially not your average GA plane. The whole "on rails" criticism of FSX has always bugged me as well, so this has been a welcome discussion. I've seen some unrealistically squirrely flight models praised by some because they were so twitchy.

 

I always enjoyed taking first time GA flyers up and letting them get their first stick time in good weather. Almost universally, the biggest surprise was that airplanes in straight and level flight flew, well... pretty doggone straight and level when left alone. GA aircraft, as others have pointed out, are remarkably stable beasts.

 

Yes, wx complicates the picture, and real-world flying on a summer afternoon (for example) can try a pilot's patience with the constant need for correction. There's a reason a good autopilot is a valued addition to a GA plane that's regularly flown for more than just local hops. But trying to make up for less than accurate turbulence simulation by making an aircraft model that's in and of itself overly touchy is correcting a problem with an even bigger problem.

 

Scott

[Griphos 138]

I only watched the first video... but there's no way things were that bumpy when I flew the Warrior... Maybe the 162 is bumpy but I always remember the high wing cessnas being "uber" stable. The aftermarket effects in that video are excessive.

 

Maybe on the ground, sure. Sort of like the C162 had springs on its gear, but once in the air, it seemed pretty much right to me. About what I would often experience in the CTLS. which is a similar plane.

[Dirk98 354]

But trying to make up for less than accurate turbulence simulation by making an aircraft model that's in and of itself overly touchy is correcting a problem with an even bigger problem.

 

Scott

 

I haven't seen anyone suggested it here... but, for what it matters, you are right, why to distort FDE? Besides, as an icing on the cake, you can use AccuFeel and EZDOK to your planes or just fly stock wx etc.

 

Dirk.

[tttocs 301]

I haven't seen anyone suggested it here...

 

Sorry - I wasn't suggesting that anyone had in this thread.

 

Scott