<>As noted in the related post, you are EXACTLY wrong...yet again.I would agree with you though when you suggested that forward and side slips are interchangeable terms depending on who (whom)you speak to.That is TRUE given that reality that you so well define, that some people don't know what they are talking about.Jim

Blimey. I think the point was that stick forces in real aircraft are beyond anything you can buy, The 100lbs statement wasn't meant to be taken literally.>> How do YOU know what the poster meant to be taken literally??<>Wrong again sir. See Big Al's post # 2552 quoted below. His was the quote to which I was referring.<>Just to sum up...1. You think "forward and side slips are interchangeable terms and I agree with you to the extent that there are those, like yourself, who have not successfully learned the actual difference.2. You think that airspeed is quite prone to decrease in a slip...all you have to do is add back pressure...but adding back pressure does not fall within the control inputs definitially associated with a slip. To slip, you lower a wing and input opposite rudder...PERIOD.Nope.But I have a solution. Those in search of the truth can average your proposition...that airspeed decays in a slip (properly performed)with Rico, who initially stated that airspeed increases. A simple average of those two incorrect assumptions would yield the facts.Regards,Jim

Jim,What the #### are you talking about? where did I question the slip? I think you are arguing with yourself again. Time to take a chill pill and go find something else to do besides "suming it up"

>................>Aerodynamically, the ***forward slip*** is identical to the>sideslip; however, in this case, the pilot slips the aircraft>not to stay lined up with a runway, but to lose altitude>quickly

Teehee.

"Buttpipe" = the exact opposite of "buttplug", I take guess? Very nice review, Eric. I give it 5 stars. ***** :-beerchug

And it seems I have helped drag this out long after its sell by date :(

Now, about the 727 - we all known mine is more realistic than yours, and they're both better than the other one..........LOL!! Not for today, and as I think you say in that long post, FS is indvidual perceived realityYour comment on thrust reverse got my interest.......guess what I was "flying" last night?As a clue, it was a full motion sim (sadly without the motion last night due a tech problem) of a certain classic airliner and I was able to use the thrust reversers to slow the approach speed ;-) Actually, I should've said eventually. It was agreed (by whomever) that my intoduction to this airliner was to be a circuit at Kai Tak. Sadly, nobody had spotted that we'd been flicking switches everywhere durng the photography session. As I turned in toward the Checkerboard I was at around 4,000 and beginning to decend with idle thrust and flaps 13 and remaining steady at 200 kts, selecting gear down made little difference to speed so I moved to idle reverse thrust; still 200 kts. "Guys, this is still a little hot don't you think".At that point the guy that looks after these sims spotted the result of the earlier switch flicking and corrected our actions. Oh bugger, we're approaching 1000ft and suddenly the thrust goes into reverse, the flaps come down (at 200kts this caused a very large balloon!) and I'm pushing the nose down toward the lights on the buildings below in an effort to mantain the glideslope.A glance at the ASI showed the needle rapidly passing 150 heading toward 140 as I reached for the throttles to take them out of reverse and get some power on. The shocker came as I began the final turn toward the threshold and found this thing flew like a real sloppy dog with the airspeed low.How's that for changing the course of a thread, and no I didn't try and sideslip or forwardslip :-)More later.http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

Now I have to disagree with you, Erick. Natalie Portman? They should have already found them by now or given up!

<>Of course, one could execute both type slips, one at a time, in sequence but they could not be combined simultaneously, because they are two different maneuvers relative to ground track.<>An aircraft, while slipping by the use of crossed aileron and rudder inputs, that tracks a given line on the earth but where the longitudinal axis of the aircraft points at an angle to that line is in a forward slip.I think the issue in this segment of the thread centers on the fundamental and definitional difference between the two types of slips where there aerodynamics are essentially identical and the difference lies in the orientation of the airplane to a line on the ground.That orientation cannot be both aligned to that line and at an angle to it at the same moment. Therefore, it is impossible to combine the two types of slips simultaneously just as it would be impossible to climb and descend or to bank left and bank right at the same time."Climb", "descend", and "bank" are specifically defined aeronautical terms and so too are "side slip" and "forward slip."Please note that it is perfectly acceptable to execute a "forward slip to landing" as well as a "side slip to landing" and both methods are commented upon in the publications I have quoted below including from the PTS manual.In a NO WIND condition, where the nose is already aligned with the runway centerline, if the pilot needs to lose altitude a forward slip may be executed. The pre-existing orientation with the centerline will be MAINTAINED (not created) by the opposing aileron and rudder inputs.However, in a crosswind, the nose of the airplane MUST be at an angle to the centerline in which case the sideslip must be used where rudder input is used to CREATE longitudinal align with the centerline and aileron input used to correct drift.I trust that the above and the following quotations can put this matter to rest in all reasonalbe minds.Regards,JimFROM FAA SAMPLE TEST QUESTIONS""How many techniques are used to execute a touchdown in a crosswind?Answer: One (FAA-H-8083-3A, 8-15).

<Where did I suggest that you had questioned the slip? What don't you hone your reading skills in hopes of making less of a fool of yourself than you already have.Here's some advice to SUM UP. If you are going to be a WISE A$$ it is important to first be wise.(-:

>>Where did I suggest that you had questioned the slip? What>don't you hone your reading skills in hopes of making less of>a fool of yourself than you already have.>maybe when you quote my wording and them "sum it up" for me?I'm not making a fool out of myself, I'm just picking apart your ridiculous accusations and comments. The only fool is the one who claims 100 lbs of force, and then completely backs away from that and tries to pin it on somebody else.>Here's some advice to SUM UP. If you are going to be a WISE>A$$ it is important to first be wise.>>(-:A wise a--? pot calling the kettle black? I think soGo reread your insulting and ridiuclous comments, especially the first reply to what I said regarding the PMDG reponse. And then get back to me about being a wise a--

><slips to both lose altitude rapidly and compensate for a>crosswind. >>>>Of course, one could execute both type slips, one at a time,>in sequence but they could not be combined simultaneously,>because they are two different maneuvers relative to ground>track. There is a continuum between the two 'kinds' of slips. Certainly they can be combined to any degree desired. Further, one can go outside that continuum at either side. Note I said: ><it would also be pointing to the side.>>>An aircraft, while slipping by the use of crossed aileron and>rudder inputs, that tracks a given line on the earth but where>the longitudinal axis of the aircraft points at an angle to>that line is in a forward slip. In that case, one can't exactly do a 'forward slip', since any small deviation would make it something else. >I think the issue in this segment of the thread centers on the>fundamental and definitional difference between the two types>of slips where there aerodynamics are essentially identical>and the difference lies in the orientation of the airplane to>a line on the ground. Definitions are often vague. A problem with semantics. That's why most definitions in Physics are mathematical, not grammatical. You said "one could execute both type slips, one at a time, in sequence but they could not be combined simultaneously". In that case, what is the condition when one is transferring from a 'forward' to a 'side' slip? An 'undefined slip'? I'd say a slip is a combination of |Beta| > 0, and AC Track that's anything one wants to set. The latter includes 'AC linked up with Runway (or any line on the ground)' and 'AC Tracking Runway (etc)', and any other combination of the above. Idealized definitions are "Forward" and "Side" slips; but in reality, one is not limited to those two. My 'combined slip' is simply a Superimposition of the two defined slips. >I trust that the above and the following quotations can put>this matter to rest in all reasonalbe minds.>>Regards,>Jim I often run into complaints about FAA tests in theoretical aeronautics forums. Usually on the Incorrect answer one has to give for 'lift' to be scored correctly. ;)>FROM FAA SAMPLE TEST QUESTIONS>>""How many techniques are used to execute a touchdown in a>crosswind?>Answer: One (FAA-H-8083-3A, 8-15).

<>Wrong again Al. Are you trying for a world record of errors? I even QUOTED the 200 lbs. comment...the one to which I was referring...PLUS the post #. If you misunderstand to whom the post was directed, that is YOUR problem.Jim

Hello Erik,Your post was VERY funny in many ways but you forgot to include another Poster Type. Let's call him Type III.He jumps in near the end of the thread and starts criticizing the opinions of those before him who have criticized the opinions of others.There is a certain circularity of logic and hypocracy exhibited by Poster III.Most importantly though, one would assume that forums such as these EXIST to fulfill the desire of the forum's members to acquire knowledge. Except in rare cases of spontaneous bursts of true genius, knowledge is acquired by hearing or reading information and by attempting to discern which, of an array of conflicting views and opinions, are most likely to be correct.Many, if not most, such pursuits of knowledge result in debate, or the witnessing of debate and the venting of passion in many forms is inherent in the debate process...except in the minds of the most naive among us.Read the written record of debates associated with any great, national controversy...say the Revolution and the related formation of the United States and you will read "accusations" from America's most revered Founding Fathers that make anything written in this thread read like "compliments."You also seem to object to (at least you satarize on) the posting of third party AUTHORITIES on the topic of debate. I find that hard to understand.It seems to me that the alternative to the above would be an endless procession of UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion and rhetoric.When such non-authorative "sword play" continues, it seems to me that the pursuit of knowledge is done harm.So, to "sum up" (in spite of Big Al's distaste for summing up...or was is Adverse Yaw...who knows and who cares?)let the debate serve the admirable pursuit of knowledge..within the rules of the forum...and let's not have too much criticism when some portions of some posts do not conform to the comportment demands made by second grade teachers on their students.This is a worldwide forum predicated on the exchange of information...not a Cub Scout Pack.Reards,Jim