A Random Comment

[birdog[_2_]]

Just got around to reviewing all the comments under "Simulators". I guess it
was inevitable that it ended up as disagreements with MX. While I don't want
to get involved with that dead end, I have had an experience that kind of
parallels.

As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay close to
aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and simulation. During my
brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a "flying" club that was quite
active. But more than a few radiologists, when they found out that I was a
licensed pilot, kinda sulled up - not actually defensive - just avoided me
as much as possible. I think they all wanted to be pilots, but for some
reason - finances (althought some of those models were more expensive than
some of our early planes), the wife, inertia, etc. I think the final straw
for me when I saw a picture in one of their magazines showing a modeler with
helmet, goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.

I think this kinda helps explain MX.

[birdog[_2_]]

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
> Just got around to reviewing all the comments under "Simulators". I guess
> it was inevitable that it ended up as disagreements with MX. While I don't
> want to get involved with that dead end, I have had an experience that
> kind of parallels.
>
> As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay close to
> aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and simulation. During my
> brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a "flying" club that was quite
> active. But more than a few radiologists, when they found out that I was a
> licensed pilot, kinda sulled up - not actually defensive - just avoided me
> as much as possible. I think they all wanted to be pilots, but for some
> reason - finances (althought some of those models were more expensive than
> some of our early planes), the wife, inertia, etc. I think the final straw
> for me when I saw a picture in one of their magazines showing a modeler
> with helmet, goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.
>
> I think this kinda helps explain MX.

I forgot to mention something that might be of interest. Learning to fly
these RC toys is about as hard as the real thing, and my piloting experience
helped me not one wit. Unless you want to tear up your expensive little
model, everyone gets help from an experienced modeler.
Duel lasts only long enough to be sure you can hit the runway, and not take
some by standers head off.

Is there an RC modeler out there who would like to challange MX on reality?
That might be interesting!

[Jim Logajan]

"birdog" > wrote:
> As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay close
> to aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and simulation.
> During my brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a "flying" club that
> was quite active. But more than a few radiologists, when they found
> out that I was a licensed pilot, kinda sulled up - not actually
> defensive - just avoided me as much as possible. I think they all
> wanted to be pilots, but for some reason - finances (althought some of
> those models were more expensive than some of our early planes), the
> wife, inertia, etc. I think the final straw for me when I saw a
> picture in one of their magazines showing a modeler with helmet,
> goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.

Interesting - I'd be curious to know what you think would transpire if you
tried posting the above paragraph to rec.models.rc.air.

It appears you formed a sweeping generalization of a whole class of people
based on a few subjective conclusions on your part. Any reason why you
ruled out the possibility that they avoided you was because you might have
been exhibiting a haughty or condescending attitude? In other words, if one
person avoids you, lacking anything other than speculation, it is equal
probability the fault lies with them or you. But when a whole group of
people avoids you, what do you think the probability is that a group having
only one thing in common would all be at fault for that behavior, but not
you?

[vaughn[_3_]]

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
> Learning to fly these RC toys is about as hard as the real thing, and my
> piloting experience helped me not one wit.

In the soaring world, I know of at least two cases where previous RC experience
seemed to transfer very well to the "real thing". Not so much in the actual
mechanics of learning how to solo, but in learning how to stay up and go
somewhere once solo in achieved.

Vaughn

[Ari[_2_]]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:15:24 -0400, birdog wrote:

> Just got around to reviewing all the comments under "Simulators". I guess it
> was inevitable that it ended up as disagreements with MX. While I don't want
> to get involved with that dead end, I have had an experience that kind of
> parallels.
>
> As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay close to
> aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and simulation. During my
> brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a "flying" club that was quite
> active. But more than a few radiologists, when they found out that I was a
> licensed pilot, kinda sulled up - not actually defensive - just avoided me
> as much as possible. I think they all wanted to be pilots, but for some
> reason - finances (althought some of those models were more expensive than
> some of our early planes), the wife, inertia, etc. I think the final straw
> for me when I saw a picture in one of their magazines showing a modeler with
> helmet, goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.
>
> I think this kinda helps explain MX.

No, MX is a highly functional troll with a long history outside of
RAP. Whether he wears a helmet, goggles and scarf, landing a model
biplane, I don't know.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[george]

On May 23, 7:42*am, "vaughn" > wrote:

> In the soaring world, I know of at least two cases where previous RC experience
> seemed to transfer very well to the "real thing". *Not so much in the actual
> mechanics of learning how to solo, but in *learning how to stay up and go
> somewhere once solo in achieved.
>
Mate of mine is a 10,000 hour plus ag pilot. His hobby is radio
controlled model aircraft.

Says the models are harder to fly than his Cresco

[birdog[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "birdog" > wrote:
>> As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay close
>> to aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and simulation.
>> During my brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a "flying" club that
>> was quite active. But more than a few radiologists, when they found
>> out that I was a licensed pilot, kinda sulled up - not actually
>> defensive - just avoided me as much as possible. I think they all
>> wanted to be pilots, but for some reason - finances (althought some of
>> those models were more expensive than some of our early planes), the
>> wife, inertia, etc. I think the final straw for me when I saw a
>> picture in one of their magazines showing a modeler with helmet,
>> goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.
>
> Interesting - I'd be curious to know what you think would transpire if you
> tried posting the above paragraph to rec.models.rc.air.
>
> It appears you formed a sweeping generalization of a whole class of people
> based on a few subjective conclusions on your part. Any reason why you
> ruled out the possibility that they avoided you was because you might have
> been exhibiting a haughty or condescending attitude? In other words, if
> one
> person avoids you, lacking anything other than speculation, it is equal
> probability the fault lies with them or you. But when a whole group of
> people avoids you, what do you think the probability is that a group
> having
> only one thing in common would all be at fault for that behavior, but not
> you?

Did I say the whole group? Did I say all? Why are you being defensive? While
I may be an obnoxious *******, I did make a few friends at the time, some
with whom I still communicate.

[a[_3_]]

On May 22, 12:15*pm, "birdog" > wrote:
> Just got around to reviewing all the comments under "Simulators". I guess it
> was inevitable that it ended up as disagreements with MX. While I don't want
> to get involved with that dead end, I have had an experience that kind of
> parallels.
>
> As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay close to
> aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and simulation. During my
> brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a "flying" club that was quite
> active. But more than a few radiologists, when they found out that I was a
> licensed pilot, kinda sulled up - not actually defensive - just avoided me
> as much as possible. I think they all wanted to be pilots, but for some
> reason - finances (althought some of those models were more expensive than
> some of our early planes), the wife, inertia, etc. I think the final straw
> for me when I saw a picture in one of their magazines showing a modeler with
> helmet, goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.
>
> I think this kinda helps explain MX.

There's a difference between simulate and stimulate: I choose M20J
over MSFS for stimulation of the aviation variety. Some pilots use
desk or laptop computer based simulators to improve a subset of their
skills, some non-pilots use them for other purposes, but you can't
commit aviation on a desk top simulator -- that is a fantasy world.
The confusion and argument here has to do with the difference between
subset skill improvement (unusual attitude recovery decoupled from
sensory input comes to mind, although aviators, not desktop simulated
aviators, understand overcoming sensory inputs is a large part of
unusual attitude recovery in the clouds) as opposed to gaming a
flight.

One area that would probably be useful is to simulate entering and
executing holding patterns with differing winds-- do the math in your
head, cross the fix within a few seconds of the 'expect further
clearance' time. Many of us might benefit from doing that for an hour
or two. Ditto NDB approaches with random winds. It saves the time and
cost of flying a real airplane, and I guess you can start out a few
miles from the marker time after time, without negotiating with
approach.

Of course I can't remember the last time I was given a "hold, expect
further clearance at" and the real world PITA about NDBs isn't the
flying of them -- it's the friggin communication -- little airports
in valleys, no line of sight to the center's antenna.

I don't buy into the idea of simulated approaches into new airports as
especially useful: There's very little difference from decision height
to the threshold on the ILSs I use.and a glance at the airport diagram
tells me how far from the threshold I should plan on touching down to
make the turn-off to the FBO I want to use. The most important part
of an approach, especially in the clouds, is formally brief yourself
(it helps if there are PX, you can brief them too) on what you're
going to do, especially if it's to near minimums, what to look for,
what will happen if you don't see the airport, that sort of thing. I
instruct the person in the right seat to say "You are visual" if (s)he
clearly sees the airport when we are well above minimums. I try very
hard not to peek until well within the reported ceiling/visibility, an
extra pair of eyes tends to make transition from instruments to visual
and then back again to instruments not as likely (although it's not a
big deal, is it?)

[Jim Logajan]

"birdog" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "birdog" > wrote:
>>> As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay
>>> close to aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and
>>> simulation. During my brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a
>>> "flying" club that was quite active. But more than a few
>>> radiologists, when they found out that I was a licensed pilot, kinda
>>> sulled up - not actually defensive - just avoided me as much as
>>> possible. I think they all wanted to be pilots, but for some reason
>>> - finances (althought some of those models were more expensive than
>>> some of our early planes), the wife, inertia, etc. I think the final
>>> straw for me when I saw a picture in one of their magazines showing
>>> a modeler with helmet, goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.
>>
>> Interesting - I'd be curious to know what you think would transpire
>> if you tried posting the above paragraph to rec.models.rc.air.
>>
>> It appears you formed a sweeping generalization of a whole class of
>> people based on a few subjective conclusions on your part. Any reason
>> why you ruled out the possibility that they avoided you was because
>> you might have been exhibiting a haughty or condescending attitude?
>> In other words, if one
>> person avoids you, lacking anything other than speculation, it is
>> equal probability the fault lies with them or you. But when a whole
>> group of people avoids you, what do you think the probability is that
>> a group having
>> only one thing in common would all be at fault for that behavior, but
>> not you?
>
> Did I say the whole group? Did I say all?

You wrote "I think they all wanted to be pilots," and while the context
is arguably ambiguous about who you meant to include in the "all" group,
it looked to me like you were dismissive of all.

But then I read your other post (which I didn't see till after I'd sent
mine) that indicated you had considerable respect for the skills needed
for their hobby.

> Why are you being defensive?

I want to make sure no one disrepects me should I someday decide to wear
a kilt while flying an RC model of a DC-3 with Scottish Airline markings.
;-)

However, I only ever tried - and failed - to fly an RC model airplane
once about 40 years ago. I'm lucky to get an HO scale model train around
a closed track without derailing it. (It never helped our cause, while I
was a kid, that what few plastic model planes my brothers and I did get
and build that they'd eventually find a lit cherry bomb in or attached to
them as their last rites.)

I just thought your post, had it appeared in an RC group, was uncannily
like the kind of post that, ahem, "endeared" Mxsmanic to so many people
on this group. Well, it does require the right kind of personality types
on both sides for an unending ping-pong "discussion."

> While I may be an obnoxious *******,

You have many peers in this newsgroup! :-) Still, no properly obnoxious
******* admits to being one, so if you aren't careful you'll be forced to
hand in your OB card. You're clearly a nice guy, but I'm willing to swear
on your behalf, should the case come up, that you were and are an OB.

> I did make a few friends at the time, some with whom I still
> communicate.

I'll pretend you never wrote that, considering your OB credentials are at
stake. :-)

[birdog[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "birdog" > wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "birdog" > wrote:
>>>> As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay
>>>> close to aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and
>>>> simulation. During my brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a
>>>> "flying" club that was quite active. But more than a few
>>>> radiologists, when they found out that I was a licensed pilot, kinda
>>>> sulled up - not actually defensive - just avoided me as much as
>>>> possible. I think they all wanted to be pilots, but for some reason
>>>> - finances (althought some of those models were more expensive than
>>>> some of our early planes), the wife, inertia, etc. I think the final
>>>> straw for me when I saw a picture in one of their magazines showing
>>>> a modeler with helmet, goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.
>>>
>>> Interesting - I'd be curious to know what you think would transpire
>>> if you tried posting the above paragraph to rec.models.rc.air.
>>>
>>> It appears you formed a sweeping generalization of a whole class of
>>> people based on a few subjective conclusions on your part. Any reason
>>> why you ruled out the possibility that they avoided you was because
>>> you might have been exhibiting a haughty or condescending attitude?
>>> In other words, if one
>>> person avoids you, lacking anything other than speculation, it is
>>> equal probability the fault lies with them or you. But when a whole
>>> group of people avoids you, what do you think the probability is that
>>> a group having
>>> only one thing in common would all be at fault for that behavior, but
>>> not you?
>>
>> Did I say the whole group? Did I say all?
>
> You wrote "I think they all wanted to be pilots," and while the context
> is arguably ambiguous about who you meant to include in the "all" group,
> it looked to me like you were dismissive of all.
>
> But then I read your other post (which I didn't see till after I'd sent
> mine) that indicated you had considerable respect for the skills needed
> for their hobby.
>
>> Why are you being defensive?
>
> I want to make sure no one disrepects me should I someday decide to wear
> a kilt while flying an RC model of a DC-3 with Scottish Airline markings.
> ;-)
>
> However, I only ever tried - and failed - to fly an RC model airplane
> once about 40 years ago. I'm lucky to get an HO scale model train around
> a closed track without derailing it. (It never helped our cause, while I
> was a kid, that what few plastic model planes my brothers and I did get
> and build that they'd eventually find a lit cherry bomb in or attached to
> them as their last rites.)
>
> I just thought your post, had it appeared in an RC group, was uncannily
> like the kind of post that, ahem, "endeared" Mxsmanic to so many people
> on this group. Well, it does require the right kind of personality types
> on both sides for an unending ping-pong "discussion."
>
>> While I may be an obnoxious *******,
>
> You have many peers in this newsgroup! :-) Still, no properly obnoxious
> ******* admits to being one, so if you aren't careful you'll be forced to
> hand in your OB card. You're clearly a nice guy, but I'm willing to swear
> on your behalf, should the case come up, that you were and are an OB.
>
>> I did make a few friends at the time, some with whom I still
>> communicate.
>
> I'll pretend you never wrote that, considering your OB credentials are at
> stake. :-)

Thank you for your endorcement re: my OB status. Everyone needs all the
support they can get.

Jim - when I first came on this NG not long ago, there seemed to be very
little on here pertaining to pilotage, etc. A couple of posts I put on here
generated comments, although the last one degenerated into a spitting
contest with MX - i.e. right back to my (personal) objection to start with.
My original post on this thread was intended as a feeble attempt to maybe
generate a discussion. It was in no way intended to denigrate anyone or
their hobby.

When I said that everyone in the RC club probably had a yen to fly the real
thing, those folks obviously have an intense interest in aviation - which
was the reason I got involved in the first place. I guess my point was that
there is no acceptable - for me at least - substitute for the real thing.

Amazingly, when I look back on years of flying, there really isn't many
incidents in my personal experience
that would be of interest to other pilots. Sure, I had a lot of
white-knuckle experiences, as any pilot has. I can't recall any instance
where I felt that I was in mortal danger.

Can I get some help here? Let's talk PILOTAGE!

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 24, 8:44*am, "birdog" > wrote:

> There's a difference between simulate and stimulate: I choose M20J
> over MSFS for stimulation of the aviation variety.

Liked your post.

I'm installing IP Trainer to practice approaches. Does anybody have
any experience with it?

[Mark]

On May 23, 5:45*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
(It never helped our cause, while I
> was a kid, that what few plastic model planes my brothers and I did get
> and build that they'd eventually find a lit cherry bomb in or attached to
> them as their last rites.)

When I was a kid there was a paved RC plane facility
near my house and people came from miles around. All
summer long we'd hear the buzzing of those little motors.
Some of my 12 yr. old friends took to shooting B-B guns
at them from afar. Finally my friend Mike crawled out into
the tall grass and laid in wait for the perfect shot with his
new pellet gun.

He shot one down, grabbed it and ran like hell. Funny thing,
Mike turned out to be an overachiever. Guess we saw that
coming. I still remember that red balsa wood plane.

---
Mark

[Frank Stutzman[_3_]]

Alpha Propellerhead > wrote:

> I'm installing IP Trainer to practice approaches. Does anybody have
> any experience with it?

Yup. Bought it and OnTop while I was doing my instrument training. OnTop
was bad, but IP Trainer was worse.

The thing is set up with a series of 'lessons' and you had to complete
one before you could move on to the next. I find flight simulators
twitchy compared to real planes and I reached a point where I found
IP Trainer impossible to work with. I think it was when the lesson
was to do with timed turns and you had to roll out on the desired
course within a few degrees. The hysteresis inherent in consumer grade
computer flight controls just made it impossible.

That was a few years ago, so it might have changed, but I wouldn't bet
on it.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Peter Dohm]

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "birdog" > wrote:
-----------------much snipped---------------
>>>
>>> Did I say the whole group? Did I say all?
>>
>> You wrote "I think they all wanted to be pilots," and while the context
>> is arguably ambiguous about who you meant to include in the "all" group,
>> it looked to me like you were dismissive of all.
>>
>> But then I read your other post (which I didn't see till after I'd sent
>> mine) that indicated you had considerable respect for the skills needed
>> for their hobby.
>>
>>> Why are you being defensive?
>>
>> I want to make sure no one disrepects me should I someday decide to wear
>> a kilt while flying an RC model of a DC-3 with Scottish Airline markings.
>> ;-)
>>
>> However, I only ever tried - and failed - to fly an RC model airplane
>> once about 40 years ago. I'm lucky to get an HO scale model train around
>> a closed track without derailing it. (It never helped our cause, while I
>> was a kid, that what few plastic model planes my brothers and I did get
>> and build that they'd eventually find a lit cherry bomb in or attached to
>> them as their last rites.)
>>
>> I just thought your post, had it appeared in an RC group, was uncannily
>> like the kind of post that, ahem, "endeared" Mxsmanic to so many people
>> on this group. Well, it does require the right kind of personality types
>> on both sides for an unending ping-pong "discussion."
>>
>>> While I may be an obnoxious *******,
>>
>> You have many peers in this newsgroup! :-) Still, no properly obnoxious
>> ******* admits to being one, so if you aren't careful you'll be forced to
>> hand in your OB card. You're clearly a nice guy, but I'm willing to swear
>> on your behalf, should the case come up, that you were and are an OB.
>>
>>> I did make a few friends at the time, some with whom I still
>>> communicate.
>>
>> I'll pretend you never wrote that, considering your OB credentials are at
>> stake. :-)
>
> Thank you for your endorcement re: my OB status. Everyone needs all the
> support they can get.
>
> Jim - when I first came on this NG not long ago, there seemed to be very
> little on here pertaining to pilotage, etc. A couple of posts I put on
> here generated comments, although the last one degenerated into a spitting
> contest with MX - i.e. right back to my (personal) objection to start
> with. My original post on this thread was intended as a feeble attempt to
> maybe generate a discussion. It was in no way intended to denigrate anyone
> or their hobby.
>
> When I said that everyone in the RC club probably had a yen to fly the
> real thing, those folks obviously have an intense interest in aviation -
> which was the reason I got involved in the first place. I guess my point
> was that there is no acceptable - for me at least - substitute for the
> real thing.
>
> Amazingly, when I look back on years of flying, there really isn't many
> incidents in my personal experience
> that would be of interest to other pilots. Sure, I had a lot of
> white-knuckle experiences, as any pilot has. I can't recall any instance
> where I felt that I was in mortal danger.
>
> Can I get some help here? Let's talk PILOTAGE!
>
Not to pick excessively, but just enough to maintain my own OB status:
PILOTAGE normally refers to a method of visual navigation by means of
landmarks--frequently with additional reference to maps or charts and a
compass.

You might possibly have meant PILOTING.

Peter ;-)

[birdog[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>
> "birdog" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "birdog" > wrote:
> -----------------much snipped---------------
>>>>
>>>> Did I say the whole group? Did I say all?
>>>
>>> You wrote "I think they all wanted to be pilots," and while the context
>>> is arguably ambiguous about who you meant to include in the "all" group,
>>> it looked to me like you were dismissive of all.
>>>
>>> But then I read your other post (which I didn't see till after I'd sent
>>> mine) that indicated you had considerable respect for the skills needed
>>> for their hobby.
>>>
>>>> Why are you being defensive?
>>>
>>> I want to make sure no one disrepects me should I someday decide to wear
>>> a kilt while flying an RC model of a DC-3 with Scottish Airline
>>> markings.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> However, I only ever tried - and failed - to fly an RC model airplane
>>> once about 40 years ago. I'm lucky to get an HO scale model train around
>>> a closed track without derailing it. (It never helped our cause, while I
>>> was a kid, that what few plastic model planes my brothers and I did get
>>> and build that they'd eventually find a lit cherry bomb in or attached
>>> to
>>> them as their last rites.)
>>>
>>> I just thought your post, had it appeared in an RC group, was uncannily
>>> like the kind of post that, ahem, "endeared" Mxsmanic to so many people
>>> on this group. Well, it does require the right kind of personality types
>>> on both sides for an unending ping-pong "discussion."
>>>
>>>> While I may be an obnoxious *******,
>>>
>>> You have many peers in this newsgroup! :-) Still, no properly obnoxious
>>> ******* admits to being one, so if you aren't careful you'll be forced
>>> to
>>> hand in your OB card. You're clearly a nice guy, but I'm willing to
>>> swear
>>> on your behalf, should the case come up, that you were and are an OB.
>>>
>>>> I did make a few friends at the time, some with whom I still
>>>> communicate.
>>>
>>> I'll pretend you never wrote that, considering your OB credentials are
>>> at
>>> stake. :-)
>>
>> Thank you for your endorcement re: my OB status. Everyone needs all the
>> support they can get.
>>
>> Jim - when I first came on this NG not long ago, there seemed to be very
>> little on here pertaining to pilotage, etc. A couple of posts I put on
>> here generated comments, although the last one degenerated into a
>> spitting contest with MX - i.e. right back to my (personal) objection to
>> start with. My original post on this thread was intended as a feeble
>> attempt to maybe generate a discussion. It was in no way intended to
>> denigrate anyone or their hobby.
>>
>> When I said that everyone in the RC club probably had a yen to fly the
>> real thing, those folks obviously have an intense interest in aviation -
>> which was the reason I got involved in the first place. I guess my point
>> was that there is no acceptable - for me at least - substitute for the
>> real thing.
>>
>> Amazingly, when I look back on years of flying, there really isn't many
>> incidents in my personal experience
>> that would be of interest to other pilots. Sure, I had a lot of
>> white-knuckle experiences, as any pilot has. I can't recall any instance
>> where I felt that I was in mortal danger.
>>
>> Can I get some help here? Let's talk PILOTAGE!
>>
> Not to pick excessively, but just enough to maintain my own OB status:
> PILOTAGE normally refers to a method of visual navigation by means of
> landmarks--frequently with additional reference to maps or charts and a
> compass.
>
> You might possibly have meant PILOTING.
>
> Peter ;-)

I stand corrected. However, I don't think anyone misunderstood what I was
getting at.

[Mxsmanic]

birdog writes:

> I stand corrected. However, I don't think anyone misunderstood what I was
> getting at.

Maybe someone should now spend the next 200 posts telling you how wrong and
unqualified you are.

[Mxsmanic]

Frank Stutzman writes:

> The hysteresis inherent in consumer grade
> computer flight controls just made it impossible.

There isn't any hysteresis in PC flight controls, although simulation software
can certainly simulate this.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Frank Stutzman writes:
>
>> The hysteresis inherent in consumer grade
>> computer flight controls just made it impossible.
>
> There isn't any hysteresis in PC flight controls, although simulation software
> can certainly simulate this.

Delusional nonsense.

All but the very top of the line, and really expensive, PC flight controls
have hysteresis.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 16:45:41 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> "birdog" > wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "birdog" > wrote:
>>>> As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay
>>>> close to aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and
>>>> simulation. During my brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a
>>>> "flying" club that was quite active. But more than a few
>>>> radiologists, when they found out that I was a licensed pilot, kinda
>>>> sulled up - not actually defensive - just avoided me as much as
>>>> possible. I think they all wanted to be pilots, but for some reason
>>>> - finances (althought some of those models were more expensive than
>>>> some of our early planes), the wife, inertia, etc. I think the final
>>>> straw for me when I saw a picture in one of their magazines showing
>>>> a modeler with helmet, goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.
>>>
>>> Interesting - I'd be curious to know what you think would transpire
>>> if you tried posting the above paragraph to rec.models.rc.air.
>>>
>>> It appears you formed a sweeping generalization of a whole class of
>>> people based on a few subjective conclusions on your part. Any reason
>>> why you ruled out the possibility that they avoided you was because
>>> you might have been exhibiting a haughty or condescending attitude?
>>> In other words, if one
>>> person avoids you, lacking anything other than speculation, it is
>>> equal probability the fault lies with them or you. But when a whole
>>> group of people avoids you, what do you think the probability is that
>>> a group having
>>> only one thing in common would all be at fault for that behavior, but
>>> not you?
>>
>> Did I say the whole group? Did I say all?
>
> You wrote "I think they all wanted to be pilots," and while the context
> is arguably ambiguous about who you meant to include in the "all" group,
> it looked to me like you were dismissive of all.
>
> But then I read your other post (which I didn't see till after I'd sent
> mine) that indicated you had considerable respect for the skills needed
> for their hobby.
>
>> Why are you being defensive?
>
> I want to make sure no one disrepects me should I someday decide to wear
> a kilt while flying an RC model of a DC-3 with Scottish Airline markings.
> ;-)
>
> However, I only ever tried - and failed - to fly an RC model airplane
> once about 40 years ago. I'm lucky to get an HO scale model train around
> a closed track without derailing it. (It never helped our cause, while I
> was a kid, that what few plastic model planes my brothers and I did get
> and build that they'd eventually find a lit cherry bomb in or attached to
> them as their last rites.)
>
> I just thought your post, had it appeared in an RC group, was uncannily
> like the kind of post that, ahem, "endeared" Mxsmanic to so many people
> on this group. Well, it does require the right kind of personality types
> on both sides for an unending ping-pong "discussion."
>
>> While I may be an obnoxious *******,
>
> You have many peers in this newsgroup! :-) Still, no properly obnoxious
> ******* admits to being one, so if you aren't careful you'll be forced to
> hand in your OB card. You're clearly a nice guy, but I'm willing to swear
> on your behalf, should the case come up, that you were and are an OB.
>
>> I did make a few friends at the time, some with whom I still
>> communicate.
>
> I'll pretend you never wrote that, considering your OB credentials are at
> stake. :-)

When I was a kid there was a paved RC plane facility near my house
and people came from yards around. All summer long we'd hear the
buzzing of those little motors. One of my 12 yr. old friends, I only
had one for about fifteen minutes, took to shooting B-B guns at them
from afar.

Finally my friend Mike crawled out into the tall grass and
laid in wait for the perfect shot with his new pellet gun. I was
thrilled! Mike likes me!! He really does!!!!

He shot one down, grabbed it and ran like hell. Funny thing, Mike
turned out to be an pedophile. Guess we saw that coming. I still
remember that red balsa wood plane. And sniffing the glue.
---
Mark

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>Maybe someone should now spend the next 200 posts telling you how wrong and
>unqualified you are.


There is no need for that. In response to a politely-phrased clarification he
stated _I stand corrected_.

There is one contributor here who instead would have insulted the one
offering the correction, accused him of commenting out of blind emotion and
ego, and claimed unyieldingly to be correct, no matter how many contributors
chimed in to support the one who was clearly correct. Somewhere along the
line, this contributor would turn his argument around, pretending it was the
other who had made the initial mistake, and lamenting that the whole world is
deriding him, only demonstrating their wholesale incompetence. He would then
resort to a _prove it, correct it_ diatribe, claiming to be _always right_
rejecting all responses, including those which clearly traced the initial
error and reasonable correction.

[[email protected]]

On May 25, 12:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> birdog writes:
> > I stand corrected. However, I don't think anyone misunderstood what I was
> > getting at.
>
> Maybe someone should now spend the next 200 posts telling you how wrong and
> unqualified you are.

No need....

A. FACT He admitted the errs of his ways

B. UNLIKE YOU, birdog talks real world experience. Much more
qualified then you in this group.

Do you remember? You are posting in a real world flying newsgroup.
Do you remember? You have no PIC time by FAA standards
Do you remember? You are not CGI.
Do you remember? You pretend you are something you are not.

Therefore in light of the above FACTS, you have NO qualifications to
comment on real world flying.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> All but the very top of the line, and really expensive, PC flight controls
> have hysteresis.

It's the other way around: if you want hysteresis, you have to build it in.

MSFS introduces a modicum of hysteresis into the controls if the sensitivity
setting for them is less than the maximum.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> All but the very top of the line, and really expensive, PC flight controls
>> have hysteresis.
>
> It's the other way around: if you want hysteresis, you have to build it in.

Babbling nonsense.

Apparently you have no clue what hysteresis is or what causes it.

It takes precision machined parts to eliminate both backlash and hysteresis
in a mechanical system and you don't get that with the injection molded parts
in less than the most expensive PC flight controls.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On May 26, 2:08*pm, wrote:

> > It's the other way around: if you want hysteresis, you have to build it in.
>
> Babbling nonsense.
>
> Apparently you have no clue what hysteresis is or what causes it.

**shock** :-))

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> birdog writes:
>
>> I stand corrected. However, I don't think anyone misunderstood what I was
>> getting at.
>
> Maybe someone should now spend the next 200 posts telling you how wrong
> and
> unqualified you are.

You, sir, are an oxygen theif and an exhaler of greenhouse gas!

[Brian Whatcott]

Peter Dohm wrote:
....
> You, sir, are an oxygen thief and an exhaler of greenhouse gas!
>
>
>
How unkind! How cruel! You are no gentleman....

:-)

Brian W

[Ron]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 06:30:36 -0500, brian whatcott
> wrote:

>Peter Dohm wrote:
>...
>> You, sir, are an oxygen thief and an exhaler of greenhouse gas!
>>
>>
>>
>How unkind! How cruel! You are no gentleman....
>
>:-)
>
>Brian W

However... he is accurate. ;-)

Ron

[Mark]

On May 27, 11:24*pm, Ron > wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 06:30:36 -0500, brian whatcott
>
> > wrote:
> >Peter Dohm wrote:
> >...
> >> You, sir, are an oxygen thief and an exhaler of greenhouse gas!
>
> >How unkind! How cruel! You are no gentleman....
>
> >:-)
>
> >Brian W
>
> However... he is accurate. *;-)
>
> Ron

Well, not entirely.

He said theif, not thief.

---
Mark

[Flaps_50!]

On May 28, 11:17*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On May 27, 11:24*pm, Ron > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010 06:30:36 -0500, brian whatcott
>
> > > wrote:
> > >Peter Dohm wrote:
> > >...
> > >> You, sir, are an oxygen thief and an exhaler of greenhouse gas!
>
> > >How unkind! How cruel! You are no gentleman....
>
> > >:-)
>
> > >Brian W
>
> > However... he is accurate. *;-)
>
> > Ron
>
> Well, not entirely.
>
> He said theif, not thief.
>

And he should have said gasses not gas.

:-P

Cheers

[Dave[_19_]]

FWIW..

I have been flying RC Models since '63, full size since '82....

Many skills from RC models transfer easily to full size aircraft
poiloting, and skilled RC pilots can progress rapidly through the
"flying" part of pilot training.

Full size pilots usually take LONGER to be comfortable flying RC,
usually due to the lack of sensory inputs from stall, airspeed and
attitude indicators and their "butt". The interpetation of speeds and
attitudes all (and only) visually at a distance is difficult.

I have trained several to fly RC and there is some "unlearning"
involved.

And there are some that think that after several hundred hours in a
full size plane this "toy" airplane should be a "no brainer" to
fly!...

BIG mistake!!

Dave



On Sat, 22 May 2010 15:42:27 -0400, "vaughn"
> wrote:

>
>"birdog" > wrote in message
...
>> Learning to fly these RC toys is about as hard as the real thing, and my
>> piloting experience helped me not one wit.
>
>In the soaring world, I know of at least two cases where previous RC experience
>seemed to transfer very well to the "real thing". Not so much in the actual
>mechanics of learning how to solo, but in learning how to stay up and go
>somewhere once solo in achieved.
>
>Vaughn
>

[a[_3_]]

On May 22, 12:15*pm, "birdog" > wrote:
> Just got around to reviewing all the comments under "Simulators". I guess it
> was inevitable that it ended up as disagreements with MX. While I don't want
> to get involved with that dead end, I have had an experience that kind of
> parallels.
>
> As I mentioned before, after I lost my medical, I tried to stay close to
> aviation (to no avail) by trying radio control and simulation. During my
> brief sojurn in radio control, I joined a "flying" club that was quite
> active. But more than a few radiologists, when they found out that I was a
> licensed pilot, kinda sulled up - not actually defensive - just avoided me
> as much as possible. I think they all wanted to be pilots, but for some
> reason - finances (althought some of those models were more expensive than
> some of our early planes), the wife, inertia, etc. I think the final straw
> for me when I saw a picture in one of their magazines showing a modeler with
> helmet, goggles and scarf, landing a model biplane.
>
> I think this kinda helps explain MX.

I had a long ago pilot friend who owned a C 172. He was careful to
wear his 'pilot boots' and gloves when he flew (no goggles though).
That was one extreme. I might have been another -- many years ago I
traded safety pilot time for a guy working on his instrument rating
for him spending some time with me teaching aerobatics. At the time I
managed a group of professionals at a company a very short distance
from the airport. My guys would see me leave at noon with Jim, both of
us in our 'corporate uniforms' of suit jacket and tie. When we came
back an hour and a half later Jim would still look neat and
professional, I'd be a pale shade of green. sweated, tie askew,.shirt
wrinkled from the parachute straps, looking like I'd been beat up.
Now that I think about those days,I would not be surprised to learn if
a group member or two didn't conspire with Jim to end each session
with an outside or other negative G maneuver.

[Mark]

On May 28, 10:47*pm, Dave > wrote:

> Full size pilots usually take LONGER to be comfortable *flying RC,

Full-sized pilots?

Wha chu talkin' bout Willis?

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 9:47*pm, Dave > wrote:

> Full size pilots usually take LONGER to be comfortable *flying RC,
> usually due to the lack of sensory inputs from stall, airspeed and
> attitude indicators and their "butt". *The interpetation of speeds and
> attitudes *all (and only) visually at a distance is difficult.
>
> I have trained several to fly RC and there is some "unlearning"
> involved.
>
> And there are some that think that after several hundred hours in a
> full size plane *this "toy" airplane should be a "no brainer" to
> fly!...
>
> BIG mistake!!
>

Yep, all the above applied to me. Fortunately my crash and burns
didn't require a second mortgage though part of the fun for me was the
construction.

What was even harder flying the durn thing was correlating control
inputs as mirror image when the plane was coming TOWARD me.