LOL! a world record of errors? you not only make up nonsense, but you continue to spew it time and time again. Then you talk about insults and being a "wise a--"I once again direct you to your first post responding to mine. Sorry Mr pot, you lose again. Past your bedtime? you are way too uptight

Big_Al,Ask yourself this, why does an airman of 30 years experience really give a f**** about such minutiae and why give a hoot about what other anonymous people on a sim forums think about aerodynamics? The only reason for somebody to continually comeback at other people is not to discuss, but to be right and to be seen to be absolutely right. Conquer and humiliate is his modus operandi and it isn't worth a second of your time.

<>With great respect, Ron, that is splitting hairs. Taken to an extreme, one could make the argument that ANY maneuver is impossible to execute when the standare of measure goes out to, say, 10 decimal places. The standard, therefore, must be general but also must conform to the basic idea of the definition being put to use.<>No, Ron. A continuum is "a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees"...so you can't "combine" a continuum.What you can to is to execute a progression or SEQUENCE of definitally different processes. But you can't cause an airplane to climb and descend at the same time. No hairsplitting please. I know that the nose can rise while the tail descends...but you can't make the altimiter indicate a climb and a descent at the same time.You can execute a series of climbs and descents that would be a continuum that could be described as "porpoising" but you can't "combine" both maneuvers...nor can you combine a forward and a side slip because they are just as definitally different as climbs and descents.<>Good question. But no is the answer to your question. During such a transition as you describe. The MAGNITUDE of, say, the side slip, would decrease until the moment when there would be ZERO cross-control inputs...at which point, say in the landing process where a steady state descent was occuring, the MID-POINT of the transition would be called a "stabilized descnet" or some other phrase with the same meaning and certainly, that mid-poing would not be called either a forward or side slip because the conditions precedent to either of those terms would be absent.<>Sure, but this is a forum dedicated to airmship...simulated or otherwise...and not a forum for physicists...nor do the standards for becoming a pilot require any PARTICULARLY ADVANCED knowledge of physics.The understanding of the difference between forward and side slips is rudimentary and the definition of those maneuvers are clear and mutually exclusive so there is no PRACTICAL possibility of vagary. As is true for ANY concept, there is the possibility of misunderstanding but with respect to rudimentary, clearly defined issues, misunderstanding does not always result from vagary. It can and often does result from the observer's failure to cognize a definition, however specific. (Remember the "debate" over when the 21st Century began???) (-:<>Ron, the definitions of those two slips is not "idealized." You are executing one or the other...or none at all.But I think you have touched on the core issue...which seems to be WHO or WHAT is the authority on the definition of those two terms? I have quoted more than one...including the FAA...and I think that it serves the interst of knowledge...and therefore, this forum to define such terms authoritatively.I certainly am not the authority on the definition of any aviation term and of course, no one else on this forum is either. So, it is only right and proper for "noted authorities" to be quoted. All matters in controversy, from the law, to science to debate are settled by the citation of "the highest and best authority" (except war, which is settled by other means, of course).I am NOT the highest and best authority on much...if anything...so, in the noble interest of knowledge, I read from those authorities and quote them when the occasion arises.Let me hasten to reiterate what you already know...that there is virtually NO concept, philisophical or scientific, that is NOT subject to being overruled by greater knowledge. So, if some noted authority can prove that one CAN climb and descend at the same time, then HURRAY! Progress marches on to my cheers.;)>>I noted your smiley at the end. Let's not go THERE!! :-)Because there IS NO commonly accepted, univeral, AUTHORITY on that subject...as you know. What there are, are massively respected authorities on that subject who have disagreed with each other since the dawn of aviation.So, in the FAA's defense, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't on THAT hot potato. But again, pilots need not be scientists and if we, as a group understand at least ONE of the noted authorities on that subject, we know all we need to know. And besides, the more practical knowledge is why lift is LOST, not why it is acquired...because it is the former that will most often kill you, not the later.<>I generally agree with you Ron. Certainly any study of the power curve yields the knowledge that in certain conditions, NO amount of available power will result in offsetting the descent.<>Roger that. But again, that was a quote from the PRACTICAL Test Standards...which is a body of "need to know" information. In that context, it is true that the GENERAL PURPOSE of the forward slip, is to lose altitude rapidly without gaining APPRECIABLE forward speed....and to do so SAFELY. IN GENERAL, (and please accept the notion that the FAA's purpose is to test the GENERAL knowledge of prospective airmen so as to acertain, IN GENERAL, whether they have acquire sufficient knowledge and skills to operate aircraft safely. It is NOT the purpose of the FAA to attempt to determine whether an applicant is suitable to apply for the job of Chief Test Pilot with NASA.Hey, I have issues with the FAA just like every other pilot but if asked to walk a mile in their shoes, my response would be HE11 NO!<>Yes, of course. In primary flight instruction, we all learn that in certain configurations, IAS is not properly reflected by the AI...and we learn about inaccurate fuel guages..and that an airplane can be actually climbing while the VVI shows a descent...and that the mag compass is wrong most of the time to varying degrees.<>Right, but the use of power relative to rate of descent is fully covered elsewhere in the literature. For the purpose of defining the slip, it is sufficient to state that, all else equal...once the controls are crossed to as to execute the maneuver, ROD will increase...which is the very purpose of the maneuver. <>Right Ron. Elsewhere in that document...which I mercifully elected not to quote in its entirety, the need maintain some down wing if the cross wind component is sufficiently high, was mentioned...including the relative dangers of doing so with low wing vs. high wing aircraft.Just as an aside...if I may...I always use the "crab method" of landing because that is what works best for me...But I also ALWAYS side slip for a moment at least, on short final to be as sure as one can be with variable winds...that I will have enough rudder authority to "kick out the crab" a MOMENT before touchdown. <>I fully understand. The landing method is one of the classic personal preference issues. Neither is better than the other...except in the hands of GIVEN pilots. And as noted...I borrow from the side slip camp for at least a brief interval.Ron, I really have enjoyed this dialog. As I mentioned in another post, you are one of the more respected members of the sim community and have been the ultimate gentleman is this and all other threads to which you have posted.Fortunately for you, and because of your widespread recognition in this community, few, if any posters "crack back on you" when you post views contrary to other's.And of course, that last comment will precipitate furhter debate (by others...not you) on "who started it" which is childish but inevitable.Sincere regards,Jim

<While Alex attempts the world record for being wrong in a single thread, you seem to pursue the world record for being insipid.If think that such topics as what constitutes a forward slip vs. a side slip is "minutia" then you only define the limits of your own intellectual curiosity...and likely, therefore, your IQ.But excuse me. I must be wrong. I thought that flight sim forums such as these are INTENDED to be a clearinghouse for discussion of such rather related topics as aerodynamics.If you are so dim that you don't care to learn, then fine...get back to the checker lane at Kroger. That is a noble profession for which I would wager you are fully suited.REgards,Jim

EDIT: DIRECTED TO AY, not Big Al. And AY, what does "f" followed by FOUR asterisks spell???????????????????ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey Paul,Very interesting, your use of reversers on the appr. hasn't there been real world crashes due to 'inadvertant' deployment of reversers on those classic aircraft? :-)BTW, I really have fond memories of flying on PSA's -200's amongst the other carriers that operated them back in their day.

Thanks Paul for that very interesting diversion. It was good to read.NOW PAY ATTENTION TO THE THREAD! LOL *Grin*Dave T. .........On the Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/

Hey All,Skipping by all the above I wanted to say the best post I saw was by Mike who said...

BINGO! In my review of the CS 707 is stated that I wasn't going to try to ascertain the accuracy of the flight dynamic for many reasons, rather just fly the plane and if it is reasonably stable and pertains to the peformance manual then good enough.In msfs there is NO tactile feedback. There is no measurement of pressure required on the rudder to conteract a cross wind. There is no resistance on the yoke to differenciate between the heavy handed feel of manual cable-pully vs. FBW. There is no buffeting on the flight controls to preclude the oncoming stall. There is no feedback to judge between being in ground effect and not. And there is no difference in peformance and "feel" to airframes with 20 years on them and a few hard landings vs a brand new airframe just out of the factory.These are just a FEW quirks to "simulating" real world flight dynamics. Multimillion dollar Level-D sims mimic the aerodyamic co-efficient on every single relevant airstream facing part + tactile feedback + motion to offer an ACCURATE simulation of a particular aircraft. MSFS approximates far less variables to try to get the model as close to the numbers printed in the manual as possible and there is a HUGE difference between the two.The whole argument of accurate vs. inaccurage flight models in MSFS is academic at best. 99% of the people in this forum are NOT qualified to tell if the flight dynamics were accurate even if they were sitting in a full level D simulator much less simplistically approximated in MSFS.Sure a manual can explain that a given aircraft SHOULD perform in a certain way given certin conditions of wx, weight, configuration, speed, etc. But it is NOT the fact that the aircraft WILL respond that way but HOW and WHY it responds that way that makes an accurate flight modelShow me a developer who can mimic the onset of stall in a 777-200 at MTOW with the port engine out and seized (as opposed to windmilling), damage to four starboard vortex generators, at 2c SAT, 3,700 MSL with rime on the port wing causing partial seperation of laminar airflow behind the spoilerons....and then we can talk about accurate flight models.

Right On! but that said...I personally have seen way too many "flight dynamics" that are way way off. First I want to make completely clear that I am not trying to point fingers at anybody or any group.The most recent examples as I was looking at different aircraft to fly in the upcoming RTW - so performance accurate performance is key. The Convair 880/990 air and cfg files allow this aircraft to cruise along at around 610 kts GS at 10,000 ft with GS declining roughly linearly to 565 kts GS at 35,000 which is realistic but 610 kts GS at 10,000 isn't. The climb rate is also way out too fast. I've seen a seafury that struggles to get to 18,000 and is SLOW. I could point out many many others. Now I've never flown on a Convair or a Seafury but I know that those aircraft performance dynamics are out to lunch.It seems to me that there are many modelers who spend hours and hours on the 3D model and hours and hours on panels and then go OH yeah it needs an air and cfg file I'll just use ____ - you fill in the blank - it's close enough.In my opinion - this kind of modeling does a tremendous disservice to both the original aircraft and designer as well as to the FS user of the model. Some people's only experience with the seafury might be the model above and they will walk away with the impression that it is/was a really krappy plane. Anybody believe that? I think that anybody who sets out to model a plane assumes at a minimum the responsibility of getting the big 3 reasonably right - 1)3D model 2)Panel 3)air and associated cfg file. Most obviously do the research needed to get an accurate 3D representation they usually do some work on the panel all they have to add is the digging necessary to get the performance data. How the plane "feels" and how many bells and whistles after the basics is up to them - but I believe they are responsible for these three.We have tools for 3D models (GMAX for ex) Panels (Panel Design for ex) AND air/cfg files (Airwrench or the 1% workbook). IMO with the tools readily available to get aircraft able to perform within 1% of book values there is no real excuse for such poor performance air and cfg files other than ____ - you fill in the blank. :) Of course defining and getting the "feel" right is above and beyond these basics.I think a real opportunity could exist for lowcost air and cfg repair for the many aircraft out there that don't perform close to right - as well as for bringing some FS2k2 aircraft into FS9 properly. But it requires tweaking or overhauling both the air and cfg files not just the ASCII text cfg file alone. The tools are there just add the research.JMO -Ed-

>Hey All,>>.......................>In msfs there is NO tactile feedback. There is no measurement>of pressure required on the rudder to conteract a cross wind.>There is no resistance on the yoke to differenciate between>the heavy handed feel of manual cable-pully vs. FBW. I don't know if the DirectX FFB spec includes the rudder or not. I've heard that appropriate adjustment of several FFB parameters in the AIR file can much improve the 'feel'. > There is>no buffeting on the flight controls to preclude the oncoming>stall. There is no feedback to judge between being in ground>effect and not. And there is no difference in peformance and>"feel" to airframes with 20 years on them and a few hard>landings vs a brand new airframe just out of the factory. I expect some simulation of both high speed and low speed buffet can be modeled for FS; partly with gauge code. It would be a lot easier if one could get at the appropriate internal parameters.>These are just a FEW quirks to "simulating" real world flight>dynamics. Multimillion dollar Level-D sims mimic the>aerodyamic co-efficient on every single relevant airstream>facing part + tactile feedback + motion to offer an ACCURATE>simulation of a particular aircraft. MSFS approximates far>less variables to try to get the model as close to the numbers>printed in the manual as possible and there is a HUGE>difference between the two. I've skimmed the FAA specs for 'full motion sims'. I don't think they cover a large number of details. Mainly, they are concerned with a limited number of flight dynamics effects in normal flight. Short Period Pitch Oscillation period and damping become increasingly tight as the level increases. However, I don't remember anything about changes with FL and Mach number. Nor do I remember anything about 'fuel flow' accuracy in the requirements. Such simulators are for checking out pilots, not for simulating the full range of possible flight variations. However, stick and rudder forces do have to be quite close to those of the real AC. Regardless, I've recently set about 'aerodynamic' 135 datum points in a 747-400 AIR file I'm working on. The basic number is multiplied by six to cover Mach from 0.0 to 1.0. Based on NASA CR-2114: a legendary report on flight characteristics of around 10 aircraft. That doesn't mean the end effect is realistic, but it feels reasonable to me in flight tests. Certainly I've never flown a real 747, but there are many basic criteria one can check against. Add to the above maybe 250 datum points for the RB-211 turbine tables. Done by a guy who is into this stuff. It's not completely right, but hopefully shouldn't require much adjustment. >The whole argument of accurate vs. inaccurage flight models in>MSFS is academic at best. 99% of the people in this forum are>NOT qualified to tell if the flight dynamics were accurate>even if they were sitting in a full level D simulator much>less simplistically approximated in MSFS. That's for sure. And, I'm afraid FS pilots get used to what I consider unrealistic flight dynamics and think something more realistic is too touchy. Fortunately, a few real jet transport pilots find my flight models realistic. > ..........>I personally have seen way too many "flight dynamics" that are>way way off. First I want to make completely clear that I am>not trying to point fingers at anybody or any group.>The most recent examples as I was looking at different>aircraft to fly in the upcoming RTW - so performance accurate>performance is key. The Convair 880/990 air and cfg files>allow this aircraft to cruise along at around 610 kts GS at>10,000 ft with GS declining roughly linearly to 565 kts GS at>35,000 which is realistic but 610 kts GS at 10,000 isn't. The>climb rate is also way out too fast. I've seen a seafury that>struggles to get to 18,000 and is SLOW. I could point out many>many others. >Now I've never flown on a Convair or a Seafury but I know that>those aircraft performance dynamics are out to lunch.> --------->JMO -Ed- About all it takes is to compare real FM tables with the FS AC. Something I haven't even seen reviewers do. It takes a lot of time to check a reasonable number of flight conditions; many AC are set to only give approximate performance at on typical cruise condition. Many others probably aren't even checked at one condition.Ron

><Certainly they can be combined to any degree desired.>>>>No, Ron. A continuum is "a coherent whole characterized as a>collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements>varying by minute degrees"...so you can't "combine" a>continuum. I guess I didn't make things clear. I was thinking how the continuum of slip variations could be achieved by combining different amounts of 'side' and 'forward' slips. We disagree. So, I think I'll just SLIP past anymore comments on the details. Practically speaking, what is important in airmanship is to fly the AC in a way that gives the needed result and is also safe. Most is done intuitively, even though most pilots (etc.) can't explain exactly what they are doing. Ron

Continued....><aeronautics forums. Usually on the Incorrect answer one has to>give for 'lift' to be scored correctly. ;)>>>>I noted your smiley at the end. Let's not go THERE!! :-)>Because there IS NO commonly accepted, univeral, AUTHORITY on>that subject...as you know. What there are, are massively>respected authorities on that subject who have disagreed with>each other since the dawn of aviation. Often the subject is 'Explaining Lift with Bernoulli's Principle isn't correct'. The fact an American Airlines magazine contained such a statement resulted in a long thread in sci.aeronautics. Again, the most often complaint is that the 'correct' answer on an FAA test requires one to subscribe to the myth. >So, in the FAA's defense, they are damned if they do and>damned if they don't on THAT hot potato. But again, pilots>need not be scientists and if we, as a group understand at>least ONE of the noted authorities on that subject, we know>all we need to know. And besides, the more practical knowledge>is why lift is LOST, not why it is acquired...because it is>the former that will most often kill you, not the later. I don't even try that much to understand 'Lift'. All I'm really concerned with is modeling it appropriately for MSFS. ><the wings in a twin. I noted the stall speed for an AC520 was>listed as 60 mph - Idle", "40 mph - full power". One might>uses some power so he could both fly slowly, but also descend>rapidly.>>>I generally agree with you Ron. Certainly any study of the>power curve yields the knowledge that in certain conditions,>NO amount of available power will result in offsetting the>descent. Depending on prop blast to land more slowly in a twin sounds really dangerous. If one engine stuttered, you would not only lose control, but be near the ground at the same time. ><down all the way to the ground. In fact, wing mounted turbine>clearances have to be large enough to allow some roll left at>touchdown..>>>>Right Ron. Elsewhere in that document...which I mercifully>elected not to quote in its entirety, the need maintain some>down wing if the cross wind component is sufficiently high,>was mentioned...including the relative dangers of doing so>with low wing vs. high wing aircraft. There was a picture posted in the last couple of years of a 747 approaching a landing with one wing really down. I think at the Hong Kong airport.>Ron, I really have enjoyed this dialog. As I mentioned in>another post, you are one of the more respected members of the>sim community and have been the ultimate gentleman is this and>all other threads to which you have posted. >Fortunately for you, and because of your widespread>recognition in this community, few, if any posters "crack back>on you" when you post views contrary to other's.>Sincere regards,>Jim Now and then someone does. I watch, and often several others come to my rescue. It's always neat to let others do the dirty work. Certainly I'm not always right; if a discussion increases my understanding, so much the better. Just as long as I'm not dead wrong too often. ;) Just reading messages on flying often clarifies things to me. Ron

>>While Alex attempts the world record for being wrong in a>single thread,overexaggeration, childishness, hypocrisy, complete lack of respect, and the amazing ability to dodge everything with smart a-- remarks, yet never being "right" about anything (100 lbs huh? whos setting a world record again??)you just never give up, but this time I suggest you do. Stop being a little child

>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.Sorry, I don't intend to get back into this nonsensical dialogue but just to counter any misconception - YES, in Boeing aircraft even those with fly-by-wire like 777 there can be LARGE simulated forces on the yoke to tell pilot he may be close to exceeding normal flight regime. And YES, those forces can approach 100 lbs and even exceed this value. Anybody who read the Egypt Air 767 accident report that crashed in Atlantic after taking off from JFK could see what kind of forces the captain was imparting to the yoke.Just to quote a single sentence from this report:A pull from either control column of 50 to 100 lbs would result in sufficient movement of both elevators in a nose-up direction to either reverse or significantly slow the airplane's nose-down dive.Such forces do not exist in Airbus aircraft but we all know - Boeing and Airbus are two different beasts.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

This was used to "prove me wrong" even though 100 lbs was not my idea anyway"Part 23 (23.143) of the FARs specifies that for prolonged application the stick force shall not exceed 10 pounds. For short durations, using a yoke, Part 23 specifies that, using one hand, stick force shall not exceed 50 pounds and with two hands 75 pounds.>>

Well said,couldnt agree more.