Best Flight Dynamics I've seen

[Guest av84fun]

<>Well, at least you now admit that there is an instructor station. Progress is progress.<>Now you are REALLY dancing. You asked me earlier to only comment from my own personal experience. I have OWNED Elite sir and will serial # 1961, I was one of the early adopters of that software. Today, the basic CORE software, that ships with a total of TWO aircraft...a Skyhawk and and Archer III sells for $199.00 and has nowhere NEAR the scenery and other attributes of FS. But STILL the minimum system reqirements...which I obtain from the Elite home page on the internet are:1.0 GHz (or faster) Pentium III/AMD Processor 256 MB RAM 1.2 GB Hard Disk space64 MB OpenGL accelerated graphics card (nVIDIA "GeForce" Required) There are PLENTY of FS9 users who have no more advanced systems than that.Where is that dunce cap you referred to????LOL times 10000000Jim

[Guest av84fun]

<>Bob, just as is true in the context of definitions of such things as why airplanes fly, wherein ENDLESS debate has and will continue to rage among the world's most noted authorities, I suppose that buried deep in some arcane text somewhere, someone has defined the slip as you note above in your secondary definition.But I think that PRACTICAL application of aeronautical terms is what we should strive for in the context of advancing our RW and simulated flight experience and in that context, a slip...either forward or side, implies the maintenance of a constant heading.I quote from the Cessna Manual of Flight (a publication intended for pilots, not scientists):"In a slip, the airplane is held on a constant heading but is flown at an angle to the flight path directly to one side of the nose. The airplane is banked in the direction in which the slip is intended and then prevented from turning by the application of opposite rudder."The Manual then goes on to define the difference between a forward slip and a side slip.If, as in your secondary definition, all that is required to slip is to orient the fuselage at an angle to the relative wind, then a turn must occur wouldn't you agree?But I would be curious to learn of the authority on which you rely in citing that secondary definition.Regards,Jim

[Guest av84fun]

<>With all due and geniune respect for ELITE, not even they, I suspect, would argue that their scenery is at all competitive with MSFS...even without mesh upgrades. And to acquire their entire world of GenView databases costs an additional $299.00 by the way.YAWN's propositions along the lines of Elite vs. MSFS are simply preposterous.Regards,Jim

[Guest av84fun]

The current FAA Airplane Flying Handbook..which I THINK but am not sure is the more up-to-date version of the Flight Training Handbook that has been around for 30+ years, updates and expands upon the definition you cited.I excerpted a pertinent section and placed it first...below...but the entire paragraph is cited in full."An intentional slip, therefore, requires deliberate cross-controlling ailerons and rudder throughout the maneuver.>>A slip is a combination of forward movement andsideward (with respect to the longitudinal axis of theairplane) movement, the lateral axis being inclinedand the sideward movement being toward the lowend of this axis (low wing). An airplane in a slip is infact flying sideways. This results in a change in thedirection the relative wind strikes the airplane. Slipsare characterized by a marked increase in drag andcorresponding decrease in airplane climb, cruise, andglide performance. It is the increase in drag, however,that makes it possible for an airplane in a slip todescend rapidly without an increase in airspeed.Most airplanes exhibit the characteristic of positivestatic directional stability and, therefore, have a naturaltendency to compensate for slipping. An intentionalslip, therefore, requires deliberate cross-controllingailerons and rudder throughout the maneuver. A

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

>>Who's definition? A flight training program that often aired on the >>Discovery (ex) Wings channel, always used MSFS for visual aids to it's >>students.True. I was little bit provocative. But the line has to be drawn between using a sim to learn to fly and apply your theory and using a sim to get to grips with the theory (a CBT). My conjecture is that that the latter is really a CBT, introducing you to concepts whereas the former is acutally the part of the processs of flying training and is recognised as such to the extent of reducing the number of hours needed to obtain a license or rating (loggable). Also the point about loggability is only relevant to the discussion to create minimum standard by which an FS based sim could defined. Or else there is no value to the debate because what is and isn't important becomes totally subjective and dependant on the required application. In otherwords a circular and inconcludable debate.Within that context, I am merely suggesting that FS introduces significant risk and barriers for a thrid party to pull together all the required vendors for software hardware and customisation into a product that is better AND cheaper than what is currently available (Elite is the only example I have direct experience of).WRT to Jims comments:I didn't really want to get in a bun fight over Elite and FS, but one has to remember the application of a flight trainer it to learn normal and abnornal procedures. It is a simple fact that ELITE not only does this more accurately in terms of instruments, systems, malfunctions and performance but does this very ergonomically within an student-instructor environment. The need for 3D clouds, texture mapped scenery with autgen doesn't figure in that equation. The need to assess a students performance at minimums, the applicability of partial panel instrument interpretation or how quickly they spot an errant needle is (to name three of many secanrios). There isn't much that can be done to Elite to make it better at what it already does, although there are somethings, the turbulance effects aren't brilliant and I think the time periods for malfunctions should be extended. Even basic stuff like all the buttons functioning on the Bendix King avionics stack is important, the pilot is forming habits in the sim that will transferable to the real aircraft. That simply is not possible in FS as it stands, that is not to say it can't, just at much cost and risk IMHO.I have Elite on my PC too. I upgraded from Core which I bought for

[oldbear 33]

I don't believe it!I've been away a few days and come back to find this thread is STILL at the top of the pile! :( It's all become far too technical for me but can I just say I admire the stamina of the key players :) Ian

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

>>According to Cessna POH for my (former T310) the procedure is to>>1. Full Rich>>2. Props forward>>3. Throttles full forward>>4. GEAR UP...SIR...NOT AFTER FEATHERING as your post implies>>5. FEATHERYou are totally correct. Well spotted. Probably a case of brain faster than fingures.>>Thanks for the best laugh I've had in months YAWN. Helps line the >>fuselage up with the relative wing??? Do you fly in airplanes with >>jacknifing fuselages?? LOL And which "relative wing" are you talking >>about...the aunt or the uncle??? ROFLMAO!!! And REDUCES VMC IN OTHER >>WORDS?? Now you REALLY blew it. VMC is a FIXED VALUE. Nothing you can >>do the the airplane modifies VMC...unless you redesign it.It is both curious and telling that you not only believe this to be the case, but so strongly too.>>That's not my personal definition but that of the vast majority of >>aviation expertsThe problem with quote capturing is the whole picture is not evident. The sideslip is a condition as well as a manouevre. I may well choose to put the aircraft into a sideslip, or I may well find my aircraft is in an unintentional sideslip. You of course will find plenty of quotes on the net for the former, but it is pretty basic knowledge that the latter is a fact of flying normally and abnormally. It is confusing for newbies because the same term is used to describe seemingly dissimilar situations.

[Guest av84fun]

<> You are to be admired for admitting to that although "provocative" and "inaccurate" would have been a further step in the right direction. But, "a trip of a thousand miles starts with the first step."<>Not only is it not a "simple fact", it is no fact AT ALL. What is the source of your supposedly factual data on those points?<

[Guest av84fun]

<>Thank you.<>OK, then teach me. How, in fact, does one "line the fuselage up with the relative wing?" And what is a "relative wing"...honestly, I've never heard of that phrase.Or possibly you were referring to my remarks on your comment "reduces VMC in other words."How, exactly, can VMC be REDUCED below the manufacturer's limitations?

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

Evening Jim,Time for some more :)>>What is the source of your supposedly factual data on those points?How about you tell me some facts. Describe the procedure for partial panel unusual attitude recovery. Tell me about ADF error with a quarting needle and bank. Also, tell me about static blockages on the VSI and the two possible effects of a pitot freezing. Now describe how Elite and FS deal with these things.>>which is far inferior to FS9 stock worldwide scenery.True the Elite scenery is regional. However, maybe you should describe the function of scenery in Elite to me so I understand where it is lacking. Also, you may not have noticed, but with Genview we actually have runways with slope which means that the full flight suite of performance calculations can be tested. You not have noticed how accurately placed the roads, railways, towns, rivers and lakes are permitting me to compare my position to an actuall and current VFR chart. This is pointless with default landclass and hit and miss with 3rd Party, need expensive VFR photo scenery just to get the same basic effect. Not to mention the ALL the freqs and navaids are included. Not so with FS in the UK. Genview is sparse but utilitarian, fit for purpose and entirely practical. Anyway, sorry to be boring. Back to the point. FS needs ALOT of work to be used to log hours in lieu of flight time.

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

Relative wind. I know you knew what I meant but all is fair in love and war and a point scored is a point scored :D>>How, exactly, can VMC be REDUCED below the manufacturer's limitationsThe Vmc quoted is for (from memory) a small angle of bank to live engine, with take-off power, gear down, take-off flap, rearward CofG at MAUW and the dead engine unfeathered and possibly with both Cowl flaps open too. If you feather the engine you reduce Vmc because you need less rudder. Raising the gear can also reduce Vmc. Correcting yaw with wings level puts a greater load on the rudder and increases Vmc. Altitude reduces thrust on the prop and reduces Vmc. A fwd CofG reduces the yaw moment and so reduces CofG. Cold weather weather is like a lower density altitude and would increase Vmc because engine thrust is increases on the live engine. I'm in a bit of a rush for a telly programme, but I think you get the drift.

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>Evening Jim,>Time for some more :)>>>What is the source of your supposedly factual data on those>points?>How about you tell me some facts. Describe the procedure for>partial panel unusual attitude recovery. Tell me about ADF>error with a quarting needle and bank. Also, tell me about>static blockages on the VSI and the two possible effects of a>pitot freezing. Now describe how Elite and FS deal with these>things. I don't know how Elite deals with the above, but what you describe could probably be coded in XML gauges for MSFS. I do know one can create a static port block, and then enable a secondary port in FS as it stands. Further, is more than one simulator that has been interfaced to the MSFS scenery, airports, etc. For example, the DOS PS1.3. I heard Boeing uses MSFS graphics with it's own flight model. While the FAA used MSFS to study the value of a GPS in pilot performance. I skimmed over the report. I think they used a standard, crappy MSFS AC, but it appeared they had their own GPS. Maybe some GPS someone had done for MSFS. A guy I work with bid on a contract for an Air Force group. Mainly an experimental HUD that might serve as a prototype for an improved HUD in the real system. Unfortunately, he overbid, so we lost that one. There are many applications that can benefit from appropriate MSFS enhancements. Applications that don't require FAA approval; because the potential users make their own rules! And, only require their specific requirements to be met, not those of the FAA, etc.>>>which is far inferior to FS9 stock worldwide scenery.>True the Elite scenery is regional. However, maybe you should>describe the function of scenery in Elite to me so I>understand where it is lacking. Also, you may not have>noticed, but with Genview we actually have runways with slope>which means that the full flight suite of performance>calculations can be tested. You not have noticed how>accurately placed the roads, railways, towns, rivers and lakes>are permitting me to compare my position to an actuall and>current VFR chart. This is pointless with default landclass .. MSFS is poor for VFR navigation. However, there are add on 'roads' that are supposed to enhance FS. What I would like are accurate roads, RR's, rivers, lakes, and water towers. I bet most here don't know that water towers used to have the name of the town painted on them. So, a pilot could figure out what city he is over. The RR's, towers, highways, settlements, etc. on sectional charts are what one should be able to see when flying a simulator VFR. One may be out of VOR range in a real AC, especially at lower altitudes. So, all you have are visible landmarks and a magnetic compass to give an idea of where you are and what direction you are heading. Try finding a small airport when visibility is 3 miles, ceiling 1000 ft, everything looks the same, and you are too low to receive a VOR. That's what real SEL pilots run in to. Often when the fuel is getting low. To make MSFS smoother and more competitive with 'training devices', set the sliders to the left. I bet you would still get better general scenery than the 'trainers', but with higher frame rates and no pauses. Do NOT use fancy .mdl's, 3D clouds and Virtual Cockpits. The trainers don't have them, and that's one reason they run smoothly. One also needs larger and sharper gauges than in most all FS panels. I can barely read the turbine gauges well enough to set 0.5% N1, etc. HSI's are too small and have limited resolution. For training, one does not want a 'photo realistic panel'. He needs a set of large, readable instruments in the correct relative locations, not a panel that is half blank leatherette. >Anyway, sorry to be boring. Back to the point. FS needs ALOT>of work to be used to log hours in lieu of flight time. It's questionable one could log many hours without a certified instructor at the training device. But, with a decent FS AC that is near the one he is learning to fly, just being able to practice navigation, ILS, etc. should do a lot to reduce real cockpit time to the minimum. Ron

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

>>It's questionable one could log many hours without a certified >>instructor at the training device. But, with a decent FS AC that is >>near the one he is learning to fly, just being able to practice >>navigation, ILS, etc. should do a lot to reduce real cockpit time to >>the minimum.Yes, but how am I expected to win this argument if we keep reducing the scope to messing about with ILS and that'll stop me going over the minimum hours :) Seriously, to be a contender, FS really needs to be quite different for more subtle failure, accurate instruments and the afore mentioned student-instructor ergonomics. I have said again and again that this is possible, but the effort (and hence risk) required would be significant to the extent that a certified FS sim would be pointless unless it was functionally on par and cheaper than the alternatives (IMHO).

[Guest av84fun]

<>Nope. Close though.Vmc is defined as the slowest airspeed that the aircraft is able to maintain directional control (i.e. a straight line) while thei. Critical engine is windmillingii. The aircraft is at gross takeoff weight.iii. The center of gravity is at it

[Guest av84fun]

Well put post Ron. <>No question there. You cannot log any.Regards,Jim