Typical power settings during cruise and other phases of flight

[Mxsmanic]

Is it normal to have throttles set to the maximum during cruise, in
small aircraft? I always set them all the way forward because that
seems to get the best speed, and the engine parameters still stay in
the green areas, but I don't know if this is actually a good idea.
Obviously it would be a bad idea in a car, but perhaps aircraft
engines are specifically designed (?) to operate mainly at full
throttle during cruise.

In other phases of flight I use other settings: always full throttle
for take-off (the manual said so), and low settings or idle to
descend. Also if I'm not in a rush I use lower throttle settings at
cruise, as long as I (or the autopilot) don't have to keep the nose
too high to maintain altitude.

So what is the deal? Is it okay to run for several hours at full
throttle?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Huck]

It seems like sometimes that is the only way to keep that 150/152 in
the air and flying faster than 85kts. I would suggest you consult the
POH for your particular aircraft. Most manufacturers don't recommend
more than 75% power now that is not the same as 75% of your rpm which
would for your normal small trainer would be like 1850 rpm which is not
correct by any means. To answer another of your questions yes the
engines are designed for that higher rpm because they do often turn
2300-2400 rpm in curise for long periods. Another consideration
especially if you are borrowing/renting an airplanes is what the
owner's wishes are for operations. They may request a lower cruise
power setting such as 65% or 55% to help prolong engine life.
Truthfully in my experience though this really doesn't help the motor
all that much and proper leaning techniques are much more important.
Good luck to you.
Matt tiberii
Comm ASEL ASES AMEL
CFI CFII
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is it normal to have throttles set to the maximum during cruise, in
> small aircraft? I always set them all the way forward because that
> seems to get the best speed, and the engine parameters still stay in
> the green areas, but I don't know if this is actually a good idea.
> Obviously it would be a bad idea in a car, but perhaps aircraft
> engines are specifically designed (?) to operate mainly at full
> throttle during cruise.
>
> In other phases of flight I use other settings: always full throttle
> for take-off (the manual said so), and low settings or idle to
> descend. Also if I'm not in a rush I use lower throttle settings at
> cruise, as long as I (or the autopilot) don't have to keep the nose
> too high to maintain altitude.
>
> So what is the deal? Is it okay to run for several hours at full
> throttle?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay B]

Huck,

As others have pointed out, our little inquisitive friend is not
referring to real flight.

He's dealing with MSFS issues under the guise of being a pilot.

Don't waste the 1s and 0s ...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Kevin Clarke]

you can set them anywhere you want, when you are sitting on a coach.

KC


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is it normal to have throttles set to the maximum during cruise, in
> small aircraft? I always set them all the way forward because that
> seems to get the best speed, and the engine parameters still stay in
> the green areas, but I don't know if this is actually a good idea.
> Obviously it would be a bad idea in a car, but perhaps aircraft
> engines are specifically designed (?) to operate mainly at full
> throttle during cruise.
>
> In other phases of flight I use other settings: always full throttle
> for take-off (the manual said so), and low settings or idle to
> descend. Also if I'm not in a rush I use lower throttle settings at
> cruise, as long as I (or the autopilot) don't have to keep the nose
> too high to maintain altitude.
>
> So what is the deal? Is it okay to run for several hours at full
> throttle?
>

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Is it normal to have throttles set to the maximum during cruise, in
> small aircraft? I always set them all the way forward because that
> seems to get the best speed, and the engine parameters still stay in
> the green areas, but I don't know if this is actually a good idea.
> Obviously it would be a bad idea in a car, but perhaps aircraft
> engines are specifically designed (?) to operate mainly at full
> throttle during cruise.
>
> In other phases of flight I use other settings: always full throttle
> for take-off (the manual said so), and low settings or idle to
> descend. Also if I'm not in a rush I use lower throttle settings at
> cruise, as long as I (or the autopilot) don't have to keep the nose
> too high to maintain altitude.
>
> So what is the deal? Is it okay to run for several hours at full
> throttle?
>

At altitude in a normally aspirated engine, full throttle may not present
maximum engine power. As a sim guy, you probably don't need all the
details, and I'm not fully versed in the mechanics of it anyway. But
basically, as you climb, the air becomes less dense, and the amount of air
let into the system by the throttle is effectively reduced. The effective
result is that while the throttle is fully open, the amount of air getting
in is going down, as if you were very slowly closing the throttle.

From my experience with the planes that I fly, once you get up to 6500' or
so, the engine at full throttle will produce 75% power or less (less as
you go higher). Variance in temperature and pressure may have impact, but
that seems to be the "standard".

I have read that engine manufacturers actually do this on purpose because
they cannot precisely control how the air is restricted when the throttle
is partially closed, so it's best to run the engine with the throttle wide
open if possible (ie: if it will produce 75% power or less).

From what I have been taught, cruising at >75% power for an extended
period of time would be worse than partially restricting the airway with a
partiallly closed throttle, so if you're cruising at 2000', you probably
don't want the throttle wide open...

[Brian[_1_]]

As a rule of thumb, that probably developed from just where I see the
majority of pilots fly is to run about 2400 RPM and about 23 to 24
inches of Manifold pressure for Cruise. Every pilot develops there
prefered Power Settings for each airplane as they fly them more, But as
a Rule of them this is a good starting spot for Non-Turbocharged
engines with Constant Speed Propellers.

Also note that the Manifold pressure will decrease with altitude, so
you will have to increase throttle as you climb to maintian the 23-24
inches.

Most Engines are Rated for 100% power for up to 5 minutes. So you
should make these settings within 5 minutes of applying full power.
Most pilots do it either immediatly after lift off with runway
remaining to land on, or after climbing out to a point where they
could glide back to the runway if the engine quit.

Don't know for sure if it is valid or not but it has been said that it
is more likely to have a power failure while changing engine settings.
Makes some since if you figure that some engine failures are caused by
Mechanical failures of the controls or by misuse of the controls by the
pilot.

Also some pilots will either reduce the RPM setting either before take
off or immedialty after lift off when the engine has a particalary high
RPM setting and large prop. They do this to reduce the amount of noise
made during the take-off if they really don't need 100% power.

Yes I understand you are flying a simulator, But Learning is Learning.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Bob Moore]

Brian wrote
> Most Engines are Rated for 100% power for up to 5 minutes.

Most non-turbocharged GA engines are rated for 100% rated
power continuously.

Bob Moore

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Jay B wrote:
> Huck,
>
> As others have pointed out, our little inquisitive friend is not
> referring to real flight.
>
> He's dealing with MSFS issues under the guise of being a pilot.
>
> Don't waste the 1s and 0s ...
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ


Why are you being such a snob? The question he posed is legitimate
whether it is for a simulator or a real airplane. And many simmers
eventually go on to become pilots so it is in our best interest to be
receptive.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> So what is the deal? Is it okay to run for several hours at full
> throttle?
>

It depends on what the POH says. Many engines restrict full power to a
few minutes, such as after takeoff or go-around. 75% power is the
typically used power setting for continuous operations. However,
rental aircraft are probably flown at full power all the time.

[houstondan]

i have a thought or two about people who come here with questions after
playing with computer flying toys:

welcome!!

even if they pretend they're flying real planes i don't care. should we
really think the future of g.a. is riding his bicycle up to the fence
at the airfield whispering "golly" and "gee whiz" to skippy the frog in
his pocket????

also, when one of these guys asks a really dumb question some of us are
waiting for the answer with him 'cause we didn't want to look stupid
asking the same thing.

dan


Jay B wrote:
> Huck,
>
> As others have pointed out, our little inquisitive friend is not
> referring to real flight.
>
> He's dealing with MSFS issues under the guise of being a pilot.
>
> Don't waste the 1s and 0s ...
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ

[Doug[_1_]]

One concept you should understand is full throttle is only full power
at sealevel. As you climb, your manifold pressure guage will indicate a
lower reading. Also, you will not be able to obtain full power.
However, the air gets thinner, so you don't need full power to go as
fast a True Airpeed (TAS). A typical setting is somewhere around 24"
manifold pressure and 2400 on the tach. If you have a flight manual for
the plane look in it and pick one of those settings.

Also, remember that as the air gets thinner, you need less fuel. That
is why you need to lean the mixture as you climb.

[Spam Magnet]

In article om>,
Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
>Jay B wrote:
>> Huck,
>>
>> As others have pointed out, our little inquisitive friend is not
>> referring to real flight.
>>
>> He's dealing with MSFS issues under the guise of being a pilot.
>>
>> Don't waste the 1s and 0s ...
>>
>
>Why are you being such a snob? The question he posed is legitimate
>whether it is for a simulator or a real airplane. And many simmers
>eventually go on to become pilots so it is in our best interest to be
>receptive.
>

Check out some of the other threads started by Mxsmanic and you'll spot
a pattern. He asks what, at face value, appears to be a legitimate
question in the pursuit of knowledge. His questions are answered in a
helpful way. He then proceeds to pontificate, based on his hours
playing a video game, why they are all wrong and their ignorance will
eventually get them killed. He quotes out of context, completely missing
the point. His "discussion" style appears willful because nobody could
possibly be that dense.

It's futile and it does nothing but lower the signal to noise ratio in
the newsgroup. He's not here to learn. He's here to pretend that
playing MSFS is not only equivalent, but superior to flying a real plane.
Many of us have done both so we understand the strengths and weaknesses
of each. Mxsmanic hasn't and doesn't.

[Thomas Borchert]

Andrew,

> Why are you being such a snob?
>

Read a few early threads started by the guy. He is first class troll,
not the least bit interested in learning. In fact, there's another
active thread where he is lecturing on instrument flight. Every reason
to be snobbish.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> So what is the deal? Is it okay to run for several hours at full
> throttle?

Depends on the plane.

The planes I've flown are less efficient at WOT, but get there faster.

WOT is gentler on the engine, but if it's only a sim, fuel burn and engine
wear don't matter.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> As a rule of thumb, that probably developed from just where I see the
> majority of pilots fly is to run about 2400 RPM and about 23 to 24
> inches of Manifold pressure for Cruise. Every pilot develops there
> prefered Power Settings for each airplane as they fly them more, But as
> a Rule of them this is a good starting spot for Non-Turbocharged
> engines with Constant Speed Propellers.

The RPM I see in the cockpit is the speed of the propeller, right?
And the pitch adjusts the angle of attack of the propeller blades,
right? So if I increase the pitch, the propeller slows, but it pushes
the same amount of air. If I then increase the throttle until the
propeller gets back up to its former RPM, it's again spinning at the
same speed, but it is producing more power because of the deeper
pitch--right?

Is 2400-2500 RPM a magic number for propellers? I seem to see it a
lot in discussions of various different aircraft. Or maybe it's a
magic number for engines (?).

Do the aircraft I'm trying to fly have constant-speed propellers (A36,
Baron 58)? The fact that there's a pitch control implies not, if I
understand the principle of constant-speed propellers.

> Also note that the Manifold pressure will decrease with altitude, so
> you will have to increase throttle as you climb to maintian the 23-24
> inches.

Is the reading on the manifold pressure gauge constant, or do I have
to mentally adjust what it says for altitude? I know the altimeter
setting but I don't necessarily have the current external air pressure
figure floating in my head, so calculation would be difficult.

I'm also not clear on whether this pressure is below or above outside
air. Is it a vacuum created by the engine (which means it would be
increasingly below ambient pressure as the engine power increases), or
is it a pressure _above_ ambient pressure? The gauge seems to imply
that it's a positive pressure.

> Also some pilots will either reduce the RPM setting either before take
> off or immedialty after lift off when the engine has a particalary high
> RPM setting and large prop. They do this to reduce the amount of noise
> made during the take-off if they really don't need 100% power.

Are GA aircraft subject to all the noise-abatement rules, too?

> Yes I understand you are flying a simulator, But Learning is Learning.

Thanks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> Most non-turbocharged GA engines are rated for 100% rated
> power continuously.

And most GA engines are normally aspirated, right?

I note that this Baron 58 used to be available in a turbocharged
version, but apparently that is no longer made. I wonder why. Also I
guess there was a pressurized version, too. I can understand why that
might have died because pressurization systems are probably very
expensive and high in maintenance.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[LWG]

I agree. There was a long time between my sailplane and the airplane I have
now. The only way I could scratch my itch was with MSFS.

I used MSFS to plan and pre-fly my check ride (as much as I could). I have
used it to pre-fly flights to unfamiliar airports, setting the time, season
and various weather scenarios. I find it an excellent tool for a pilot, and
I could see where it would be a satisfactory hobby unto itself. When my son
starts college, the fate of the airplane is unclear. I might find myself
spending all my flight time with the downloaded model of my Sundowner.

I think MSFS is much harder to fly than the real thing. I also find myself
doing the same wrong things on MSFS that I do in real flight.

The only seat I'll ever occupy in a 7x7 has a number and letter, but that
hasn't stopped me from flying them on MSFS. I track the tips here on flying
the big iron nonetheless.

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>i have a thought or two about people who come here with questions after
> playing with computer flying toys:
>
> welcome!!
>
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Spam Magnet wrote:
>
> It's futile and it does nothing but lower the signal to noise ratio in
> the newsgroup. He's not here to learn. He's here to pretend that
> playing MSFS is not only equivalent, but superior to flying a real plane.
> Many of us have done both so we understand the strengths and weaknesses
> of each. Mxsmanic hasn't and doesn't.


All true but you have to understand that the reason he's a "superior pilot" is
that he flies the big iron that few of us have ever even sat in the cockpit
of... like the B-737. The fact that the C-172 I flew Thursday was real can't
possibly compare against his many hours managing the mighty Boeing with just a
keyboard.

You know, I fly MSFS too. But when I do it, I fly the same aircraft that I fly
in real life. I just use it to keep my instrument scan active because I don't
fly instruments enough any more to feel comfortable without some help from the
sim.

He flies the airliners so he can lord it over you. What he doesn't realize is
that flying the crappiest piece of **** on the field is still better than the
"flight experience" you get with a computer sim.

He's playing all of you guys like fish on a hook. Wise up.

I tried to tell folks last week and some people came to his defense. I suspect
now they wish they'd just followed my suggestion: Ignore the troll.

I don't think it's censorship to point out he's pretty much taken over two
newsgroups with his crossposted questions. Not that it matters that the
questions get answered. When they disagree with his preconceived ideas he just
ignores them. We should return the favor.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> He's playing all of you guys like fish on a hook. Wise up.

He's just a ****in' troll... Somewhat of a subtle troll, at least
iniitially, but a troll none the less...

To make it worse, he's a French troll... One could argue that this is what
makes him think he is so superior to the rest of us while in fact being
inferior to the lowest time Cessna 150/152 student... Killfile the idiot and
be done with it...

[Mxsmanic]

LWG writes:

> When my son starts college, the fate of the airplane is unclear.
> I might find myself spending all my flight time with the
> downloaded model of my Sundowner.

Wouldn't that give you more time for real flight? Or have I
misunderstood?

> I think MSFS is much harder to fly than the real thing.

If so, then it would be good practice. If you can fly the simulator,
you can fly the aircraft. Although it doesn't look like I'll be
anywhere near a real aircraft in the foreseeable future.

> I also find myself doing the same wrong things on MSFS that
> I do in real flight.

Are they things that would be dangerous in real life?

> The only seat I'll ever occupy in a 7x7 has a number and letter, but that
> hasn't stopped me from flying them on MSFS. I track the tips here on flying
> the big iron nonetheless.

Large aircraft are interesting for procedures and instrument flight.
I've been trying all weekend to complete a flight with the FMS alone
but I haven't been able to escape flying by hand at some point, as I
seem to screw something up in the programming each time.

Of course private pilots aren't likely to ever use a flight management
system on their aircraft, so it's either the sim or nothing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> > I think MSFS is much harder to fly than the real thing.
>
> If so, then it would be good practice. If you can fly the simulator,
> you can fly the aircraft.

Walking to Chicago is harder than eating my lunch. Does that make walking to
Chicago good practice for eating my lunch. If I can walk to Chicago, I can
eat my lunch?

The two have no correlation.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > So what is the deal? Is it okay to run for several hours at full
> > throttle?
>
> Depends on the plane.
>
> The planes I've flown are less efficient at WOT, but get there faster.
>
> WOT is gentler on the engine, but if it's only a sim, fuel burn and engine
> wear don't matter.

OOPS! WOT is harder on the engine.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Walking to Chicago is harder than eating my lunch. Does that make walking to
> Chicago good practice for eating my lunch. If I can walk to Chicago, I can
> eat my lunch?

Not a good analogy. If walking to Chicago is harder than walking
across town, then walking to Chicago is good practice for walking
across town. It has nothing to do with eating lunch.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> OOPS! WOT is harder on the engine.

See? Aren't you glad I'm only flying a sim? Otherwise you might have
my crash on your conscience.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Barrow]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:KmPRg.6595$Iq5.1919@trndny02...
>> The planes I've flown are less efficient at WOT, but get there faster.
>>
>> WOT is gentler on the engine, but if it's only a sim, fuel burn and
>> engine
>> wear don't matter.
>
> OOPS! WOT is harder on the engine.
>

OWT.

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:KmPRg.6595$Iq5.1919@trndny02...
>>> The planes I've flown are less efficient at WOT, but get there faster.
>>>
>>> WOT is gentler on the engine, but if it's only a sim, fuel burn and
>>> engine
>>> wear don't matter.
>> OOPS! WOT is harder on the engine.
>>
>
> OWT.
>
>
>

Actually, on many engines WOT is better than slightly reduced throttle
settings. WOT on the carbs provide a bit of enrichment for cooling.

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> news:KmPRg.6595$Iq5.1919@trndny02...
>>
>>>> The planes I've flown are less efficient at WOT, but get there faster.
>>>>
>>>> WOT is gentler on the engine, but if it's only a sim, fuel burn and
>>>> engine
>>>> wear don't matter.
>>>
>>> OOPS! WOT is harder on the engine.
>>>
>>
>> OWT.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Actually, on many engines WOT is better than slightly reduced throttle
> settings. WOT on the carbs provide a bit of enrichment for cooling.

Hmmm, when at cruise, especially above 5K feet, I always bring the
throttle back to where the MP just moves down a bit. I am not wasting
fuel that is not needed and I have heard that the butterfly valve
slightly tilted helps in mixing. Don't know about the latter, but
certainly I have found better fuel burn numbers. In cruise, not sure you
have to worry about using fuel for cooling.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Peter R.]

Steve Foley > wrote:

> OOPS! WOT is harder on the engine.

Not according to Tornado Alley Turbo, the manufacturers of my
turbo-normalization system, it's not. In fact, running less than WOT
during cruise is discouraged by TATurbo:

http://www.taturbo.com/operation3.html

In the article, scroll down to the "Lean of Peak Cruise Operation of the
Turbonormalized (TN) IO-520/550" paragraph and read tips 3 and 4.


--
Peter

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> Walking to Chicago is harder than eating my lunch. Does that make walking
>> to
>> Chicago good practice for eating my lunch. If I can walk to Chicago, I
>> can
>> eat my lunch?
>
> Not a good analogy. If walking to Chicago is harder than walking
> across town, then walking to Chicago is good practice for walking
> across town. It has nothing to do with eating lunch.


You have been told by many pilots here that playing with a simulator is not
the same thing as, or even close to, flyine. Yet you continue to claim one
relates to the other.

You remind me of a Jethro Tull album with only one song on it. Who are you,
little Milty?

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> You have been told by many pilots here that playing with a simulator is not
> the same thing as, or even close to, flyine.

I've been told the opposite by pilots in real life. Clearly, there
are differences of opinion, and neither camp is "right." It depends
on what you mean by "close to" or "same thing."

If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to reply to me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> You have been told by many pilots here that playing with a simulator is
>> not
>> the same thing as, or even close to, flyine.
>
> I've been told the opposite by pilots in real life. Clearly, there
> are differences of opinion, and neither camp is "right." It depends
> on what you mean by "close to" or "same thing."
>
> If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to reply to me.

Please quote anyone else who believes "If you can fly the simulator, you can
fly the aircraft"

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

I've had enough seeing obnoxious and irrelevant comments from a know-it-all
armchair pilot. Is there a way to block posts from specific individuals?

Please help- it's killing the NG.

[C. Massey]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> I've had enough seeing obnoxious and irrelevant comments from a
> know-it-all armchair pilot. Is there a way to block posts from specific
> individuals?
>
> Please help- it's killing the NG.
>


Tools>Message Rules>News...>New

Then just fill out the info...




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0639-1, 09/25/2006
Tested on: 9/25/2006 5:21:15 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:10:06 GMT, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
>Is there a way to block posts from specific individuals?

http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/ie/oe6.htm
Message Rules, General Information (#msgrules)
Kill File / Blocked Senders / killfile

Click on the "Message" in the top menu bar and click on "Block
Sender" while highlighting the message. This is the simplest
message rule to implement. The from address is added to your
blocked senders list. You can modify, add, delete entries in you
blocked senders list to use any part of what you see in the from;
i.e. Richard Simmons, , spammer, @aol.com, aol.com

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> I've had enough seeing obnoxious and irrelevant comments from a
> know-it-all armchair pilot. Is there a way to block posts from specific
> individuals?
>
> Please help- it's killing the NG.

Effective immediately, I will stop responding to the know-nothing game
player.

[Jay Honeck]

> I think MSFS is much harder to fly than the real thing. I also find myself
> doing the same wrong things on MSFS that I do in real flight.

Agree 100%.

Every Tuesday night, we show free aviation movies in the theater of our
aviation theme-suite hotel. Before the main feature, we usually have
MSFS or X-Planes running on the 104-inch projection screen, with the
surround sound cranked.

Trust me, in a darkened room, it's pretty real. The sound is right,
the sight picture is right, the controls are right. The only things
wrong are:

a) You can't turn your head intuitively, even with the acorn cap (or
whatever the heck that's called), and...

b) There is no sense of motion. (Although with a screen that big, you
see the "pilots" really leaning into the turns!)

Incidentally, we've had many real pilots (Mary included) who absolutely
cannot land the sim planes. It is quite a bit harder to do than
landing the real plane, although the casual lack of concern about
bending metal makes it a bit easier on the digestion.

I've been a flight simmer since the very first ones came out in the
1980s. I still buy every single update of MSFS, and enjoy practicing
on it. It's what really piqued my curiosity and interest about flying,
back before I ever thought I could ever do it "for real".

IMHO, making fun of a "pilot wannabee" because all he can afford is
MSFS is NOT the best way for us to grow GA. And, trust me -- we NEED
to grow GA. Now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/25/06 15:47, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I think MSFS is much harder to fly than the real thing. I also find myself
>> doing the same wrong things on MSFS that I do in real flight.
>
> Agree 100%.
>
> Every Tuesday night, we show free aviation movies in the theater of our
> aviation theme-suite hotel. Before the main feature, we usually have
> MSFS or X-Planes running on the 104-inch projection screen, with the
> surround sound cranked.
>
> Trust me, in a darkened room, it's pretty real. The sound is right,
> the sight picture is right, the controls are right. The only things
> wrong are:
>
> a) You can't turn your head intuitively, even with the acorn cap (or
> whatever the heck that's called), and...
>
> b) There is no sense of motion. (Although with a screen that big, you
> see the "pilots" really leaning into the turns!)
>
> Incidentally, we've had many real pilots (Mary included) who absolutely
> cannot land the sim planes. It is quite a bit harder to do than
> landing the real plane, although the casual lack of concern about
> bending metal makes it a bit easier on the digestion.
>
> I've been a flight simmer since the very first ones came out in the
> 1980s. I still buy every single update of MSFS, and enjoy practicing
> on it. It's what really piqued my curiosity and interest about flying,
> back before I ever thought I could ever do it "for real".
>
> IMHO, making fun of a "pilot wannabee" because all he can afford is
> MSFS is NOT the best way for us to grow GA. And, trust me -- we NEED
> to grow GA. Now.

I don't think anyone has made fun of him because all he can afford is
MSFS. Perhaps you should read more of the threads to understand why
some folks are really irritated with this particular "simmer".

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Euan Kilgour]

LWG wrote:

> I think MSFS is much harder to fly than the real thing. I also find myself
> doing the same wrong things on MSFS that I do in real flight.

Well I disagree. I found that MSFS gave me terrible habits that my
instructors had to beat out of me (j/k). Fixation on instruments was
the main one.

Can you tell me from flying MSFS what it is like to control an aircraft
that is at MAUW and is loaded aft of the C of G? While the aircrafts
behaviour might be able to be simulated well, you have no idea of the
strength required to hold it straight and level, or the thousand
thoughts going through your head as your instructor asks you to perform
a wingdrop stall in that configuration. You have a lot more to lose at
3500 feet AGL than sitting at a PC.

[LWG]

I addressed this is another post. I find myself making similar mistakes in
MSFS as I do in real flight. I think it is great practice to concentrate on
reducing this tendency while simming.

I'm not saying that simming is the same as real flight in all respects. But
I stand by my assessment that for the most part, it's harder to fly in MSFS
than in my very simple and easy to fly Sundowner (even when I use the
Sundowner flight model on MSFS).

"Euan Kilgour" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> LWG wrote:
>
>> I think MSFS is much harder to fly than the real thing. I also find
>> myself
>> doing the same wrong things on MSFS that I do in real flight.
>
> Well I disagree. I found that MSFS gave me terrible habits that my
> instructors had to beat out of me (j/k). Fixation on instruments was
> the main one.
>
> Can you tell me from flying MSFS what it is like to control an aircraft
> that is at MAUW and is loaded aft of the C of G? While the aircrafts
> behaviour might be able to be simulated well, you have no idea of the
> strength required to hold it straight and level, or the thousand
> thoughts going through your head as your instructor asks you to perform
> a wingdrop stall in that configuration. You have a lot more to lose at
> 3500 feet AGL than sitting at a PC.
>

[John Clear]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>Incidentally, we've had many real pilots (Mary included) who absolutely
>cannot land the sim planes. It is quite a bit harder to do than
>landing the real plane, although the casual lack of concern about
>bending metal makes it a bit easier on the digestion.

I've never been able to land any of the PC flight sims, and I
started way back when on an Apple ][e. I don't play the PC flights
sims very often though, since the real thing is more fun.

The only sims I've been able to land were the shuttle sims at SpaceCamp.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Mxsmanic]

Euan Kilgour writes:

> Well I disagree. I found that MSFS gave me terrible habits that my
> instructors had to beat out of me (j/k). Fixation on instruments was
> the main one.

What were the others?

> Can you tell me from flying MSFS what it is like to control an aircraft
> that is at MAUW and is loaded aft of the C of G?

Difficult.

> While the aircrafts behaviour might be able to be simulated well,
> you have no idea of the strength required to hold it straight and level ...

The strength required depends on the aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> [...]
> Incidentally, we've had many real pilots (Mary included) who absolutely
> cannot land the sim planes. It is quite a bit harder to do than
> landing the real plane, although the casual lack of concern about
> bending metal makes it a bit easier on the digestion.

No doubt. Playing a game is a somewhat different skill than flying an
airplane. Some aspects of hand-eye coordination and procedures translate,
so it's not entirely orthogonal. But at the same time, there's no reason to
believe that someone good at flying an airplane would be good at flying a
PC-based flight-sim, just as there's no reason to believe that someone good
at flying a PC-based flight-sim would be good at flying an airplane.

> [...]
> IMHO, making fun of a "pilot wannabee" because all he can afford is
> MSFS is NOT the best way for us to grow GA. And, trust me -- we NEED
> to grow GA. Now.

First, as Mark says he's not being made fun of, nor is the scorn he gets
here related to his use of MSFS, except inasmuch as he falsely believes his
MSFS experience to grant him knowledge of all sorts of things he actually
knows nothing about.

It's pretty much just coincidence that he's using a flight sim. The main
problem is his willingless to form opinions in a vacuum and fail to revise
those opinions when presented with facts contrary to those opinions.

Second, the guy has absolutely no hope, nor intention, of ever being in the
pilot's seat. As you well know, economics is not truly an effective barrier
to entry into aviation. Those who truly desire it find a way. This guy
talks about economics as if it's insurmountable, when in fact the real issue
is that he is completely and absolutely scared ****less of airplanes.

I seriously doubt that justified, accurate criticisms of the guy is going to
have ANY negative effect on aviation. It may well improve the situation
(if, for example, those criticisms help someone else understand the reality
of the situation better, rather than relying on the guy's inaccurate
proclamations).

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Grumman-581,

> To make it worse, he's a French troll...
>

Actually, he is an American living in Paris, from what someone posted.
And what's worse about it? At least it's a country that's got its
war-going priorities right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/25/06 22:30, Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> [...]
>> Incidentally, we've had many real pilots (Mary included) who absolutely
>> cannot land the sim planes. It is quite a bit harder to do than
>> landing the real plane, although the casual lack of concern about
>> bending metal makes it a bit easier on the digestion.
>
> No doubt. Playing a game is a somewhat different skill than flying an
> airplane. Some aspects of hand-eye coordination and procedures translate,
> so it's not entirely orthogonal. But at the same time, there's no reason to
> believe that someone good at flying an airplane would be good at flying a
> PC-based flight-sim, just as there's no reason to believe that someone good
> at flying a PC-based flight-sim would be good at flying an airplane.
>
>> [...]
>> IMHO, making fun of a "pilot wannabee" because all he can afford is
>> MSFS is NOT the best way for us to grow GA. And, trust me -- we NEED
>> to grow GA. Now.
>
> First, as Mark says he's not being made fun of, nor is the scorn he gets
> here related to his use of MSFS, except inasmuch as he falsely believes his
> MSFS experience to grant him knowledge of all sorts of things he actually
> knows nothing about.
>
> It's pretty much just coincidence that he's using a flight sim. The main
> problem is his willingless to form opinions in a vacuum and fail to revise
> those opinions when presented with facts contrary to those opinions.
>
> Second, the guy has absolutely no hope, nor intention, of ever being in the
> pilot's seat. As you well know, economics is not truly an effective barrier
> to entry into aviation. Those who truly desire it find a way. This guy
> talks about economics as if it's insurmountable, when in fact the real issue
> is that he is completely and absolutely scared ****less of airplanes.
>
> I seriously doubt that justified, accurate criticisms of the guy is going to
> have ANY negative effect on aviation. It may well improve the situation
> (if, for example, those criticisms help someone else understand the reality
> of the situation better, rather than relying on the guy's inaccurate
> proclamations).
>
> Pete
>

In fact, I see more potential for negative impact as a result of his postings
to these aviation news groups, as he speaks as though he knows what he's
talking about, which could easily confuse or scare potential student pilots.

The best thing the aviation community could do for GA (in this regard) would
be to stop responding to his posts (IMHO). He's like a virus that's just never
going to go away otherwise.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Jay Honeck]

> Second, the guy has absolutely no hope, nor intention, of ever being in the
> pilot's seat. As you well know, economics is not truly an effective barrier
> to entry into aviation. Those who truly desire it find a way. This guy
> talks about economics as if it's insurmountable, when in fact the real issue
> is that he is completely and absolutely scared ****less of airplanes.

I agree 100% on your former comment, and I haven't read enough of his
posts to comment on the latter. If, indeed, he's got no intention of
ever becoming a pilot, well, that's really just a shame.

Of course, I still have hopes for Skylune becoming a pilot -- so I *am*
an eternal optimist!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Of course, I still have hopes for Skylune becoming a pilot -- so I *am*
> an eternal optimist!
>
> :-)

..........and don't forget; the day he gets his license, we all chip in and
get him a membership in AOPA!!!
:-))
Dudley

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> > Of course, I still have hopes for Skylune becoming a pilot -- so I *am*
> > an eternal optimist!
> >
> > :-)
>
> .........and don't forget; the day he gets his license, we all chip in and
> get him a membership in AOPA!!!


Does he need his license first?

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:l5bSg.6632$8j4.1651@trndny05...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>> > Of course, I still have hopes for Skylune becoming a pilot -- so I *am*
>> > an eternal optimist!
>> >
>> > :-)
>>
>> .........and don't forget; the day he gets his license, we all chip in
>> and
>> get him a membership in AOPA!!!
>
>
> Does he need his license first?

Not really, but wouldn't the proper thing to do on such a momentous occasion
as getting his license be to present him with a membership in the very
organization that has occupied his every thought both awake and asleep for
such a long............looooooooooong time :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> OOPS! WOT is harder on the engine.
>>>
>>
>> OWT.
>
> Actually, on many engines WOT is better than slightly reduced throttle
> settings.

Quite...use the mixture to set power. WOTSOPLOP.
> WOT on the carbs provide a bit of enrichment for cooling.

Actually, it creates turbulence in the induction that help the mixing for
better fuel distribution.

BTW, for those who are so adamant about not going LOP, our TNIO-550 just
passed the normal TBO of 1700 hours and a compression check ran
76/77/77/76/78/76. Zero evidence of lead fouling. My guess is we'll easily
get 2000 hours from this plant.

It's regularly run at 75-80%, 60-100LOP, and WOT.

I've been mulling the idea of trading up to a turbine twin as we either have
two aboard (in which case it's over kill to have a six passenger) or six or
seven (and I hate to cram in passengers, especially those who are 6-4 and
250 lbs...we have two of them).

So, what...a four place and a twin?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>> OWT.
>> Actually, on many engines WOT is better than slightly reduced throttle
>> settings. WOT on the carbs provide a bit of enrichment for cooling.
>
> Hmmm, when at cruise, especially above 5K feet, I always bring the
> throttle back to where the MP just moves down a bit. I am not wasting fuel
> that is not needed and I have heard that the butterfly valve slightly
> tilted helps in mixing. Don't know about the latter, but certainly I have
> found better fuel burn numbers. In cruise, not sure you have to worry
> about using fuel for cooling.

Try the throttle slightly closed and adjust power with a leaner mixture. You
might find you fuel flow decreased and the engine smoother.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:l5bSg.6632$8j4.1651@trndny05...
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >>
> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >>
> >> > Of course, I still have hopes for Skylune becoming a pilot -- so I
*am*
> >> > an eternal optimist!
> >> >
> >> > :-)
> >>
> >> .........and don't forget; the day he gets his license, we all chip in
> >> and
> >> get him a membership in AOPA!!!
> >
> >
> > Does he need his license first?
>
> Not really, but wouldn't the proper thing to do on such a momentous
occasion
> as getting his license be to present him with a membership in the very
> organization that has occupied his every thought both awake and asleep for
> such a long............looooooooooong time :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>
>

But I don't want to wait. I'd like to get him a membership now.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:ztbSg.6634$8j4.2278@trndny05...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> news:l5bSg.6632$8j4.1651@trndny05...
>> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> > link.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >>
>> >> > Of course, I still have hopes for Skylune becoming a pilot -- so I
> *am*
>> >> > an eternal optimist!
>> >> >
>> >> > :-)
>> >>
>> >> .........and don't forget; the day he gets his license, we all chip in
>> >> and
>> >> get him a membership in AOPA!!!
>> >
>> >
>> > Does he need his license first?
>>
>> Not really, but wouldn't the proper thing to do on such a momentous
> occasion
>> as getting his license be to present him with a membership in the very
>> organization that has occupied his every thought both awake and asleep
>> for
>> such a long............looooooooooong time :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>
> But I don't want to wait. I'd like to get him a membership now.

:-))) But wouldn't this be more "meaningful" if it came from the group???
:-))
DH

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:ztbSg.6634$8j4.2278@trndny05...
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> >> news:l5bSg.6632$8j4.1651@trndny05...
> >> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >> > link.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Of course, I still have hopes for Skylune becoming a pilot -- so I
> > *am*
> >> >> > an eternal optimist!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> .........and don't forget; the day he gets his license, we all chip
in
> >> >> and
> >> >> get him a membership in AOPA!!!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Does he need his license first?
> >>
> >> Not really, but wouldn't the proper thing to do on such a momentous
> > occasion
> >> as getting his license be to present him with a membership in the very
> >> organization that has occupied his every thought both awake and asleep
> >> for
> >> such a long............looooooooooong time :-))
> >> Dudley Henriques
> >>
> >>
> >
> > But I don't want to wait. I'd like to get him a membership now.
>
> :-))) But wouldn't this be more "meaningful" if it came from the group???
> :-))
> DH
>
>

It would be best if it were paid for by Phil Boyer himself.

[Jay Beckman]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:J4cSg.6946$Iq5.3787@trndny02...

> It would be best if it were paid for by Phil Boyer himself.

I could ask Phil when I'm in Palm Springs next month...

<evil grin>

Jay B

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley > wrote:
>
>> OOPS! WOT is harder on the engine.
>
> Not according to Tornado Alley Turbo, the manufacturers of my
> turbo-normalization system, it's not. In fact, running less than WOT
> during cruise is discouraged by TATurbo:
>
> http://www.taturbo.com/operation3.html
>
> In the article, scroll down to the "Lean of Peak Cruise Operation of the
> Turbonormalized (TN) IO-520/550" paragraph and read tips 3 and 4.
>
That applies to Turbo'd engines, but this is more specific:

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182085-1.html

(Note: This written was before Deakin added the TN to his Bo.)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> That applies to Turbo'd engines, but this is more specific:

The first line of the number 3 bullet point reads:

"Every internal combustion engine operates more efficiently with the
throttle wide open, than any other position."

My interpretation of "Every internal combustion engine" includes both turbo
and non-turbo piston engines.

--
Peter

[Kingfish]

Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> I could ask Phil when I'm in Palm Springs next month...
>

Ask Phil to sign a color 8x10 glossy of himself - "To Skylune -
Congratulations! Thanks for your unwavering support" or something like
that.

Try not to wet yourself from laughing too hard. : )

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:b9cSg.247$V6.52@fed1read06...
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:J4cSg.6946$Iq5.3787@trndny02...
>
>> It would be best if it were paid for by Phil Boyer himself.
>
> I could ask Phil when I'm in Palm Springs next month...
>
> <evil grin>
>
> Jay B

Sounds like a plan!!!
:-))
D

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Grumman-581,
>
>
>>To make it worse, he's a French troll...
>>
>
>
> Actually, he is an American living in Paris, from what someone posted.
> And what's worse about it? At least it's a country that's got its
> war-going priorities right.

If you mean letting others fight its wars, then I agree.

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Grumman-581,
>>
>>
>>>To make it worse, he's a French troll...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, he is an American living in Paris, from what someone posted.
>> And what's worse about it? At least it's a country that's got its
>> war-going priorities right.
>
> If you mean letting others fight its wars, then I agree.
>
> Matt

And surrender isn't exactly a war-going priority. But when you are good at
something I guess it makes sense to use it as often as possible.

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>> That applies to Turbo'd engines, but this is more specific:
>
> The first line of the number 3 bullet point reads:
>
> "Every internal combustion engine operates more efficiently with the
> throttle wide open, than any other position."
>
> My interpretation of "Every internal combustion engine" includes both
> turbo
> and non-turbo piston engines.

I don't see any disagreement in my response. So, do you run WOT during taxi,
during approach...?

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>> Grumman-581,
>>>
>>>
>>>>To make it worse, he's a French troll...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, he is an American living in Paris, from what someone posted.
>>> And what's worse about it? At least it's a country that's got its
>>> war-going priorities right.
>>
>> If you mean letting others fight its wars, then I agree.
>>
>> Matt
>
> And surrender isn't exactly a war-going priority. But when you are good
> at something I guess it makes sense to use it as often as possible.
If not, buy off the attackers.

[Marc Adler]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Is it normal to have throttles set to the maximum during cruise, in
> small aircraft?

You really should take a few of the lessons that come with FS2004. This
question is answered there.

Marc

[Marc Adler]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> And surrender isn't exactly a war-going priority. But when you are good at
> something I guess it makes sense to use it as often as possible.

If you're calling the French cowards, you should learn some history
before shooting off your mouth.

http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html

Marc

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>> And surrender isn't exactly a war-going priority. But when you are good
>> at
>> something I guess it makes sense to use it as often as possible.
>
> If you're calling the French cowards, you should learn some history
> before shooting off your mouth.
>
> http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html
>
> Marc
>

ROFL... You have to go to a Russian bloger to find someone that takes up for
France.

[Marc Adler]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> ROFL... You have to go to a Russian bloger to find someone that takes up for
> France.

"Russian bloger"?

Here's some good advice - go back to second grade, brush up on your
reading skills, and then read what I linked to (you can use the
dictionary, but you can't ask your mommy for help).

Now tell me: did a Russian "bloger" write that?

Marc

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> ROFL... You have to go to a Russian bloger to find someone that takes up
>> for
>> France.
>
> "Russian bloger"?
>
> Here's some good advice - go back to second grade, brush up on your
> reading skills, and then read what I linked to (you can use the
> dictionary, but you can't ask your mommy for help).
>
> Now tell me: did a Russian "bloger" write that?
>
> Marc
>

Well Marc would you like it better if I called it an anti-American Russian
alternative newspaper?

http://www.exile.ru/

And no it seems a little twit wrote the above. Unless of course you are just
talking about a missing g in the word blogger and then you are just an
asshole.

[Marc Adler]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Well Marc would you like it better if I called it an anti-American Russian
> alternative newspaper?

The writer is an American, and what's anti-American about the paper,
anyway?

Anyway, that and who or what kind of person wrote the article are
beside the point. Can you argue any of the points in the article
itself?

I'd like to see you try.

Marc

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> IMHO, making fun of a "pilot wannabee" because all he can afford is
> MSFS is NOT the best way for us to grow GA.
>

That's not at all the problem with this guy. Read the threads - or
you're talking about things you don't know about, just like him.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Not a good analogy.
>

Actually, it's a perfect analogy.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > While the aircrafts behaviour might be able to be simulated well,
> > you have no idea of the strength required to hold it straight and level ...
>
> The strength required depends on the aircraft.
>

How would you know?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> when in fact the real issue
> is that he is completely and absolutely scared ****less of airplanes.
>

Good analysis. And it seems that's by far not the only thing he is
scared of. Life, in general, comes to mind.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Steve,

> OOPS! WOT is harder on the engine.
>

Care to give us any kind of proof or evidence for that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> ROFL... You have to go to a Russian bloger to find someone that takes up for
> France.

A study of American history works pretty well, too.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Marc Adler writes:

> You really should take a few of the lessons that come with FS2004.

The lessons are in French, and I can't stand listening to them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Marc Adler]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> The lessons are in French, and I can't stand listening to them.

If you hate it so much, why don't you just get a relative in the US to
buy the game from Amazon and mail it to you?

A couple of mistranslations here and there shouldn't be such an
obstacle, however.

Marc

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> How would you know?

Because I learn.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Marc Adler writes:

> If you hate it so much, why don't you just get a relative in the US to
> buy the game from Amazon and mail it to you?

I've considered that, but it's hard to find anyone who would go to the
expense and trouble. Amazon won't mail it to me themselves (they
won't export software), and I don't have a credit card to pay for it,
anyway. Someone at the computer store swore to me that the latest
version of MSFS had a multilingual installation, but as usual, the
person at the computer store was wrong, so I'm still stuck with a
French version (which is very badly translated).

> A couple of mistranslations here and there shouldn't be such an
> obstacle, however.

It's hard to even look up information on MSFS when there are
references to things like menus in English and I have no idea how
those menus were (mis)translated into French.

In general, I hate to buy any software in any language other than the
original language of the developers. For anything from Microsoft,
that means English. Besides, French aviation is 30 years behind
American aviation, and I wouldn't want to learn "French exceptions"
that I'd have to unlearn to fly in the US.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

> Besides, French aviation is 30 years behind
> American aviation,

Huh?
What do you mean with that?

-Kees.

[Thomas Borchert]

Marc,

> If you're calling the French cowards, you should learn some history
> before shooting off your mouth.
>

How un-American that would be!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> The lessons are in French, and I can't stand listening to them.
>

So why do you live in a country whose language you despise?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Marc Adler]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> How un-American that would be!

Unfortunately you're right, but there's something to be said for a
nation that can't remember any history further back than the last
presidential election. We look at Europe, and (when we're in an ironic
kind of mood) rhetorically ask ourselves "Slesvig-Holsten?
Elsaß-Lothringen? Olivença?"

Even France and Italy both claim Mont Blanc! And don't even get me
started on the Balkans.

So, there's some good and some bad in being "historiographically
challenged." In the end it all balances out.

Marc

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Huh?
> What do you mean with that?

Exactly what I said. As in most technological areas, France is behind
the U.S. in aviation. Yes, I know that some leading-edge aviation
technology comes out of France (although I don't know that I'd include
Airbus in that), but in terms of practical everyday aviation, the
country is behind the U.S., like the rest of the world.

This is one reason why I'd hesitate strongly about trying to get a
license in France. I don't want to be compelled to learn all about
the "French exceptions," and then have to start over to fly anywhere
else (particularly in the United States).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> So why do you live in a country whose language you despise?

That's not what I said.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> ...
> This is one reason why I'd hesitate strongly about trying to get a
> license in France. I don't want to be compelled to learn all about
> the "French exceptions," and then have to start over to fly anywhere
> else (particularly in the United States).

It would be hard to do here in the U.S. anyway, if you find
comparable work here. You long ago posted that you cleared only
$647 in a month.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> It would be hard to do here in the U.S. anyway, if you find
> comparable work here. You long ago posted that you cleared only
> $647 in a month.

It isn't enough to live on in France, either. It certainly wouldn't
cover the $15,000 or so required to get a PPL.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Marc Adler]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Exactly what I said. As in most technological areas, France is behind
> the U.S. in aviation.

What? France is no further behind the US than any other European
country, and certainly not by "30 years" (whatever that's supposed to
mean).

Marc

[Mxsmanic]

Marc Adler writes:

> What? France is no further behind the US than any other European
> country, and certainly not by "30 years" (whatever that's supposed to
> mean).

They are all behind the U.S.; but France also has the handicap of its
insistence on doing everything its own way, plus its inability to
speak English.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stefan]

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> ...
>> This is one reason why I'd hesitate strongly about trying to get a
>> license in France. I don't want to be compelled to learn all about
>> the "French exceptions," and then have to start over to fly anywhere
>> else (particularly in the United States).

I guess when it comes to standards (as in ICAO), then the country with
the most exceptions is the USA...

Stefan

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > Huh?
> > What do you mean with that?
>
> Exactly what I said. As in most technological areas, France is behind
> the U.S. in aviation. Yes, I know that some leading-edge aviation
> technology comes out of France (although I don't know that I'd include
> Airbus in that), but in terms of practical everyday aviation, the
> country is behind the U.S., like the rest of the world.
>
> This is one reason why I'd hesitate strongly about trying to get a
> license in France. I don't want to be compelled to learn all about
> the "French exceptions," and then have to start over to fly anywhere
> else (particularly in the United States).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

What French exceptions?
There are few exceptions with regard to ICAO.
One French exeption I'm very happy about.
That's the one about filling VFR flight plans, the French use minimal
half an hour before leaving instead of one hour.

And when it comes to exceptions, the US have their own too. Every
country have them.
It is part of the fun.

-Kees

PS. I rather fly French light planes than US makes.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

As a corporate pilot who spends a lot of time in Europe I can attest that
the French controllers speak MUCH better English than the English
controllers.

Karl


Further, Dassault makes the finest corporate jets available, especially from
a pilot's perspective.





"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Marc Adler writes:
>
>> What? France is no further behind the US than any other European
>> country, and certainly not by "30 years" (whatever that's supposed to
>> mean).
>
> They are all behind the U.S.; but France also has the handicap of its
> insistence on doing everything its own way, plus its inability to
> speak English.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Marc Adler]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> They are all behind the U.S.; but France also has the handicap of its
> insistence on doing everything its own way, plus its inability to
> speak English.

Whatever.

Marc

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> I guess when it comes to standards (as in ICAO), then the country with
> the most exceptions is the USA...

It's still the center of the aviation world, and the leading edge of
aviation as well. Europe is a backwater by comparison, as in most
domains.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

karl gruber writes:

> As a corporate pilot who spends a lot of time in Europe I can attest that
> the French controllers speak MUCH better English than the English
> controllers.

I've heard that French controllers are derisively referred to as
"keskeedees," because they are always saying "Qu'est-ce qu'il dit?"
("What did he say?") in the background to their colleagues when
guiding aircraft in English.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What French exceptions?

Everything.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Stewart]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>but France also has the handicap of its
>>insistence on doing everything its own way, plus its inability to
>>speak English.
>
>
> The same is true for the United States.

We can speak English. Well, we can speak
American if you ask the Brits (:

[Judah]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in news:1159455349.487660.23170
@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Unfortunately you're right, but there's something to be said for a
> nation that can't remember any history further back than the last
> presidential election. We look at Europe, and (when we're in an ironic

This is hogwash. There is not a single American over the age of 30 who
doesn't remember the "Hanging Chad" election!

And I bet there's not a single American over the age of 40 who doesn't
remeber the "Read My Lips" election.

Remembering the American Revolution incident, however, stopped being a useful
memory to most living Americans after about 1977.

[Jim Stewart]

Judah wrote:

> "Marc Adler" > wrote in news:1159455349.487660.23170
> @i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>Unfortunately you're right, but there's something to be said for a
>>nation that can't remember any history further back than the last
>>presidential election. We look at Europe, and (when we're in an ironic
>
>
> This is hogwash. There is not a single American over the age of 30 who
> doesn't remember the "Hanging Chad" election!
>
> And I bet there's not a single American over the age of 40 who doesn't
> remeber the "Read My Lips" election.
>
> Remembering the American Revolution incident, however, stopped being a useful
> memory to most living Americans after about 1977.

And a few of us chanted:

"Dump the chump,
End the freeze,
Bring Nixon to his knees"

In our youth.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> The same is true for the United States.

An inability to speak English is not a problem for the U.S., and since
it represents most of the market, doing things its own way also tends
to be doing things the majority way.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > What French exceptions?
>
> Everything.
>

You have again no idea what you are talking about.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)