Question for RW Pilots

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

Please expand.

[Guest aca_dia]

I don

[Guest yarvelling]

Couldn't agree more...although I've never flown ITRW, flying in a sim is, I imagine much like driving a car in a sim. Most of us do that every day, yet if you try a racing sim, the feel and handling of the car is never what you feel when you physicaly get in and drive off. I like racing sims, and have driven racing cars so I know what it's like to handle small single seater open wheel racing cars, but never once, in any sim race game, no matter how well regarded they may be, have I truly felt the same forces, that unmistakable feel of rubber on tarmac, that seat of the pants - especialy as your backside is only a couple of inches off the tarmac, feling in a sim. Plus of course, there's peripheral vision ITRW which you don't have on a PC or console, the smells, and the true raw sounds, or even the real feel of a helmet clamped around your head, and the wind, and of your body being so tightly strapped in that you quite literaly feel everything that the chassis is doing. All of these sensory inputs from reality are vital to the experience, and a computer recreation can only provide a small amount of mainly visual stimuli...so, I'm sure that in flying a Cessna for real and then flying it in FS9 is a world apart, and probably more difficult in the sim BECAUSE you don't have all the real-world stimuli working on your whole body and making you react almost instinctively, whereas in the sim you have to learn a new discipline based on only the visual and limited aural pointers given. Even with sophisticated yoke/pedal/FF peripherals, you'll never 'really' feel that tug of wind, the bump of wheel on grass, or even as importantly on a subconcious level, smell the oil and fuel of the plane whillst sat in your lounge/den/bedroom!!I say these words to back-up what I believe to be valid argument, but, having said that, it's the closest that I probably ever will get to real-world piloting, and so, with a good dollop of imagination, I can almost believe that I AM flying the plane!! I preffer the heavy stuff, but on occasion, I'll REALLY enjoy flying the Real Air Spitfire because that is to me, what must be one of the closest aircraft to fly to being in the real thing....maybe I'll set a small can of petrol near my couch and strap-on a motorcycle helmet, tie myself back on my couch, for maximum effect, and then fly it......hmmm, must remember....NO SMOKING!!!!!!

[Guest bobsk8]

The first thing I did when I began to to fly MSFS, was to very carefully adjust the controls so that they mimiced the response that I knew to be true in a real aircraft, since I had a basis of comparison. I am also very fussy about what aircraft I fly , and the default MSFS aircraft are nothing like the real thing. What is pretty close to the real thing, which is my litmus test, is the list I have with my signature. These aircraft coupled with proper settings of yoke and rudder and elevator sensitivity, should get one pretty close to the way an aircraft actually responds in real life. I sometimes visit someone elses home that has MSFS, and after I fly their sim for about 10 seconds, I am wondering how they ever manage to have a successful flight. It is like trying to control a moth in a flame. If you know a real pilot, do yourself a favor, and have him fly your system and ask him what he thinks should be done to adjust your system, to make it more realistic.

[LAdamson 240]

>I am also very fussy about what>aircraft I fly , and the default MSFS aircraft are nothing>like the real thing. IMO -- the default 172 is not to far off the real thing, both are somewhat boring.......... :D But other than that, the default reacts to inputs rather well, and I found the Fs2004 model to be better than the Fs2002 model; to the point that I didn't worry about adding the RealAir flight model to it. L.Adamson

[Guest Darren Howie]

In the real world aircraft ride bumps far better and in general are far more stable.Part of these problems with FS is its basic poor handling of aerodynamics,turbulence and the aircrafts interaction with the outside world.Personally i'd wish they'd throw the whole lot in the bin and start again with a smoth flowing feel of flight ala X plane which actually feels like flying and riding through the air.Instead they continue with a stuttering,pausing model which poorly simulates flight at the best of times.My vote to MS for FS10 is an all new flight model from scratch.Darren

[Chris_CYWG 0]

RW flying is 100X easier then the sim...I've got 3200 hours mostly on twins and an ATR, and I still think the sim is only good for IFR "maintenance" and for fun...Chris

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

I think I can guess which bit. Looking in the index under "Lift" produces "Engineers idea of, 45-46" "Pilots idea of, 45,51-55". That gives you a clue in what direction this book is taking you.Wolfgang makes a rather bold statement that it is incorrect to say that the wing sucks you into the air; that the low pressure of accelerated air over the wing is not responsible for lift - the Bernoulli principle is not why we fly. This is a little disconcerting at first, because it is once of the first things you are taught. But in Wolfgang's world Newton is king.Bizzarely I think he is spot on. Some may say that asymetrical wings produce lift at negative AoA. That is correct for an asymetrical aerofoil, but that won't keep you in the air. There is only one thing that keeps you airbourne, nothing else has any significant effect on your ability to control the airplane's altitude and that is the AoA, if it is insufficient you fall, if it is too much you fall.The basic fact of the matter is that any flat surface will generate lift, you know this already because paper aeroplanes fly, as do Jet Fighters and aerobatic planes with their symetrical aerofoils. Basically, it doesn't matter what shape the wing is, if you have sufficient AoA then lift will result, if not then you won't.That is all that Wolfgang says, the art of flying is all about a complete understanding of angle of attack. That pilots routinely die because they fail to grasp this basic an elementary principle and that all these fancy formulas and talk of Bernoulli do nothing more than confuse a pilot, with his engine out and struggling to make the field.He masterfully links his (correct) view of lift with the exact and precise purpose of the stick, throttle and rudder.Some not very difficult questions to illustrate the point:Q1. If your engine is out, what are your options for making a safe landing in a field you suspect is out of reach?Q2. In the same vein, what is a valid technique for shortening the glide?His understanding of flying was and is more advanced circa 1944 than most pilot's practical knowledge circa 2005.

[Guest aca_dia]

[q]His understanding of flying was and is more advanced circa 1944 than most pilot's practical knowledge circa 2005[/q]Your post did vaguely remind me of some of the issues presented to me. The idea of Ram lift being the primary force in flight was a major one. I know that was easily disproved with wind tunnel data. Yes a sheet of plywood can fly off the roof of a car because of ram lift, but there is also an incredible amount of drag that prevents a flat surface from producing sustainable lift. That is not to say that a certain amount of Ram lift is not part of the equation, but it alone does not create sustainable flight. If I remember correctly Langewieshe completely dismisses Bernoulli and claims that flight is the result of a wing deflecting air downwards and therefore the aircraft goes up (Newtons 3rd law). If that is the case then every other modern reference is wrong.

[Guest bobsk8]

>I don

[Guest aca_dia]

>A good friend of mine is a long time aeronautical engineer for a major >aircraft company as well as a pilot, and he loves the book.....Not for >how to design an aircraft, but for learning how to fly one.I don

[LAdamson 240]

> If that is the case then>every other modern reference is wrong.Even to this day, the debate of what causes lift goes on & on & on, with no final answer. With all the available links to the subject, available on the internet, it makes good reading though.Personally, after many years of water skiing, I'm for the ram effect, associated with angle of attack. Then add in different shapes for efficiency of lift versus drag.L.Adamson

[Guest aca_dia]

>Even to this day, the debate of what causes lift goes on & on & on, >with no final answer. With all the available links to the subject, >available on the internet, it makes good reading though.I know folks like us may debate it, but I am fairly certain it is not debated in the engineering and science world. Modern modeling and wind tunnel testing leave little to ponder (aside from things like reducing drag and developing more efficient airfoils). Other than "Stick and Rudder" I can find no sources that considers Ram lift as the primary reason for flight. On one hand we have mounds of data and stacks of texts that claim one thing and then on the other hand we have "Stick and Rudder" off on its own with nothing more than the authors opinion to support it.If anyone has another serious source that concurs with the aerodynamics in

[Guest aca_dia]

Well I take part of my last comment back. I just spent a little time searching the subject on the web and I see folks sure do like to debate this topic. I also found my copy of S & R and I don

[LAdamson 240]

and some more:http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Lift/Page7.htmlhttp://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/eberhardt/lift.htmhttp://www.av8n.com/how/had another one, titled "Lift doesn't suck", but it does not link anymore.