Attn Spam Can drivers: Need MS FlightSim reality check...

[wright1902glider]

If anyone out there will admit to driving a C-172, I have a question.
In MS FlightSim 2003, Rod the VR flight instructor tells me that I
should be controlling my altitude with the throtle, and my airspeed
with the elevator? Does that make sense?

In Microsoftland, I've got to constantly play with the throtle to hold
a consistant altitude. I don't recall ever seeing a pilot do that in
any plane I've ever flown in, but I could be wrong. Opinions?

I know that PPG's fly this way, and with gliders, down=fast, and
up=slow. But what about powered aircraft?

Harry Frey

[Jim Stewart]

wright1902glider wrote:
> If anyone out there will admit to driving a C-172, I have a question.
> In MS FlightSim 2003, Rod the VR flight instructor tells me that I
> should be controlling my altitude with the throtle, and my airspeed
> with the elevator? Does that make sense?

That's the quick answer. A better one is to
learn something about the theory of flight.

> In Microsoftland, I've got to constantly play with the throtle to hold
> a consistant altitude. I don't recall ever seeing a pilot do that in
> any plane I've ever flown in, but I could be wrong. Opinions?
>
> I know that PPG's fly this way, and with gliders, down=fast, and
> up=slow. But what about powered aircraft?

If you can't take lessons in an actual aircraft,
and indeed, even if you can, you should read the
book "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche.
An excellent book that will answer all your questions
and a lot more.

[rocky]

wright1902glider wrote:
> If anyone out there will admit to driving a C-172, I have a question.
> In MS FlightSim 2003, Rod the VR flight instructor tells me that I
> should be controlling my altitude with the throtle, and my airspeed
> with the elevator? Does that make sense?
>
> In Microsoftland, I've got to constantly play with the throtle to hold
> a consistant altitude. I don't recall ever seeing a pilot do that in
> any plane I've ever flown in, but I could be wrong. Opinions?
>
> I know that PPG's fly this way, and with gliders, down=fast, and
> up=slow. But what about powered aircraft?
>
> Harry Frey
>
If you don't bieleve it try to climb without power sometime. CFI is correct

[karel]

"wright1902glider" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> If anyone out there will admit to driving a C-172, I have a question.
> In MS FlightSim 2003, Rod the VR flight instructor tells me that I
> should be controlling my altitude with the throtle, and my airspeed
> with the elevator? Does that make sense?

It is certainly what I get taught on a Rans Coyote.
But then the idea is to fly it - driving might be different.

> In Microsoftland, I've got to constantly play with the throtle to hold
> a consistant altitude. I don't recall ever seeing a pilot do that in
> any plane I've ever flown in, but I could be wrong. Opinions?

Some planes have elevator trim, too. A handy feature!

> I know that PPG's fly this way, and with gliders, down=fast, and
> up=slow. But what about powered aircraft?

What d'you think? Up=fast & down=slow?

BTW what's a PPG? Piston Powered Glider? Premium Pollution Gas?

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"wright1902glider" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> If anyone out there will admit to driving a C-172, I have a question.

C-120, Beech Sport, C-150 -- close enough?

> In MS FlightSim 2003, Rod the VR flight instructor tells me that I
> should be controlling my altitude with the throtle, and my airspeed
> with the elevator? Does that make sense?

"Rod" is dispensing the conventional line. And that way of thinking works
well on final approch.

But, it's not like the two are independant. If you push on the wheel, you go
faster AND down, right? More power gives you speed AND climb.

>
> In Microsoftland, I've got to constantly play with the throtle to hold
> a consistant altitude. I don't recall ever seeing a pilot do that in
> any plane I've ever flown in, but I could be wrong. Opinions?

That's because once altitude is reached, every spam can driver I've ever
flown with mysteriously forgets the claim that altitude is controlled by
throttle, and airspeed by pitch. They all just set the throttle to get the
desired "cruise power" and adjust the elevator trim to hold altitude. Speed
ends up being whatever speed ends up being. Watch one of them on a bumpy
day - when they hit an updraft, they will push forward on the wheel to
maintain altitude (ignoring the increase in speed) and pull back in sink. Of
course, this is exactly wrong if you want to fly efficiently (max distance
for given fuel), but that's another topic...

>
> I know that PPG's fly this way, and with gliders, down=fast, and
> up=slow. But what about powered aircraft?
>
> Harry Frey
>

I take it that the air show season is over?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Lamellae]

karel wrote:

> BTW what's a PPG? Piston Powered Glider? Premium Pollution Gas?

Powered ParaGlider, which fly at one speed.

[wright1902glider]

Lamellae wrote:
> karel wrote:
>
> > BTW what's a PPG? Piston Powered Glider? Premium Pollution Gas?
>
> Powered ParaGlider, which fly at one speed.




Correct. Powered ParaGlider, same as the older term "powered
parachute".

Its funny how things look when you aren't the one actually doing them.
I hadn't anticipated using as much throtle control as the FlightSim
seems to require. Of course, it is just a sim. And I'm sure having my
backside as a sensor, as well as the ability to look sideways without
having to wait for my comp. to change screen modes will make piloting a
powered machine a little easier.

In hang gliders, speed is controled mainly with pitch b/c power is
basicly fixed. Even in a thermal, you're still sinking through rising
air.

FYI, Wright Brothers Enterprises has been off the airshow circut since
December 2004. Early in 2005, while ferrying the plane to my new home
in Colorado, the trailer was rolled over by severe crosswinds. And
since severe crosswinds are a daily occurance on I-70 & I-25, the
problem is going to require a complete redesign and rebuild of the
trailer. I was unable to do this in 2005 due to my residence in a
townhouse. Earlier this year, we moved to a new home, but since then,
I've lost my father to complications from agent orange exposure, and my
cousin to a car accident. My Mother had cancer surgery a few weeks ago,
and my paternal Grandmother may not make it through the week. Its been
a rough year.

I may be back out next season depending on the schedule and the
progress on the trailer. For now, the glider and all of my equipment
remain stored.

Thanks for the advice.
Harry

[Morgans[_2_]]

"wright1902glider" > wrote

> Earlier this year, we moved to a new home, but since then,
> I've lost my father to complications from agent orange exposure, and my
> cousin to a car accident. My Mother had cancer surgery a few weeks ago,
> and my paternal Grandmother may not make it through the week. Its been
> a rough year.
>
> I may be back out next season depending on the schedule and the
> progress on the trailer. For now, the glider and all of my equipment
> remain stored.

Man, you just can't catch a break! Sorry to hear of all of the problems with
your family. I hope things are resolved in the best ways, as smoothly as
possible.

It might be possible to fix your trailer problems, without a total re-design.

Big tractor trailers get a large amount of their stability because of the weight
they carry. A lightly loaded trailer is much more likely to be blown over.

You could add a false floor, with a inch or two of concrete. Get that center of
gravity way down.

Also, a suspension trick could help out. A torsion bar, or sway bar added to
each axle would cause the whole trailer to "squat," and pull the high side down,
when it started to get light on one side, from the wind trying to lift that
upwind side up.
--
Jim in NC

[Scott[_1_]]

I was taught to fly with "control altitude with the throtle, and
airspeed with the elevator." It made sense to me as my instructor
showed me how to do slow flight. We would get to a slow speed by
pulling back on the yoke until we got our desired speed and then would
set the throttle to whatever RPM was necessary to maintain our given
altitude. Setting up for a landing is basically the same
thing...throttle back (and if trim setting is not changed, altitude
decreases at some rate), back on the yoke (or stick) to get desired
airspeed and then adjust throttle for desired rate of descent (500 FPM
seems pretty standard)...

Scott
Corben Junior Ace

wright1902glider wrote:

> If anyone out there will admit to driving a C-172, I have a question.
> In MS FlightSim 2003, Rod the VR flight instructor tells me that I
> should be controlling my altitude with the throtle, and my airspeed
> with the elevator? Does that make sense?
>
> In Microsoftland, I've got to constantly play with the throtle to hold
> a consistant altitude. I don't recall ever seeing a pilot do that in
> any plane I've ever flown in, but I could be wrong. Opinions?
>
> I know that PPG's fly this way, and with gliders, down=fast, and
> up=slow. But what about powered aircraft?
>
> Harry Frey
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Gliders do it all the time! ;)

Scott



rocky wrote:


>>
> If you don't bieleve it try to climb without power sometime. CFI is correct

[Peter Dohm]

> I was taught to fly with "control altitude with the throtle, and
> airspeed with the elevator." It made sense to me as my instructor
> showed me how to do slow flight. We would get to a slow speed by
> pulling back on the yoke until we got our desired speed and then would
> set the throttle to whatever RPM was necessary to maintain our given
> altitude. Setting up for a landing is basically the same
> thing...throttle back (and if trim setting is not changed, altitude
> decreases at some rate), back on the yoke (or stick) to get desired
> airspeed and then adjust throttle for desired rate of descent (500 FPM
> seems pretty standard)...
>
> Scott
> Corben Junior Ace
>
Well.... Perhaps some of the CFIs care to speak out...

IIRC, the FAA was concerned with departure stall/spin accidents and also
with approach and landing accidents. The reasoning went that both classes
of accident would be drastically reduced if pilots remembered to stabilize
their aircraft the recommended climb speed on departure and at the
recommended approach speed for the final aproach. Of course, that also made
powered approaches and BIG patterns popular.

Peter

[Scott[_1_]]

Point taken :) I was thinking piston type engine since the original
post mentioned "throttle"...now in my years of glider flying, I don't
remember seeing a knob labeled throttle ;)

Scott


T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Scott > wrote:
>
>>>If you don't bieleve it try to climb without power sometime. CFI is correct
>>
>>Gliders do it all the time! ;)
>
>
> No we don't, we use power to climb, just like airplanes, we
> just don't use an internal combustion engine to produce the
> power, we use a thermonuclear fusion generator.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Well, I'm guilty of making postage size patterns ;) I was taught to
keep 'er in close in case a piston decides to try and convert the engine
into an EXTERNAL combustion engine! I've been asked by towers where I
am when I call on downwind and I have to tell them I'm over the taxiway
'cause they're looking 3 miles out :O

Scott


Peter Dohm wrote:

>>I was taught to fly with "control altitude with the throtle, and
>>airspeed with the elevator." It made sense to me as my instructor
>>showed me how to do slow flight. We would get to a slow speed by
>>pulling back on the yoke until we got our desired speed and then would
>>set the throttle to whatever RPM was necessary to maintain our given
>>altitude. Setting up for a landing is basically the same
>>thing...throttle back (and if trim setting is not changed, altitude
>>decreases at some rate), back on the yoke (or stick) to get desired
>>airspeed and then adjust throttle for desired rate of descent (500 FPM
>>seems pretty standard)...
>>
>>Scott
>>Corben Junior Ace
>>
>
> Well.... Perhaps some of the CFIs care to speak out...
>
> IIRC, the FAA was concerned with departure stall/spin accidents and also
> with approach and landing accidents. The reasoning went that both classes
> of accident would be drastically reduced if pilots remembered to stabilize
> their aircraft the recommended climb speed on departure and at the
> recommended approach speed for the final aproach. Of course, that also made
> powered approaches and BIG patterns popular.
>
> Peter
>
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "wright1902glider" > wrote:
>
> If you hold a constant speed and pitch attitude, changing
> the throttle changes altitude. More specifically, changing
> throttle changes your rate of climb/sink, and there's a
> single throttle position where the engine is adding as much
> energy to the aircraft as it is losing from drag. If you
> open the throttle, the engine will produce more power and
> you'll gain altitude. If you close it, you will descend.

Throttle controls thrust.
Elevator controls pitch.

Keep it simple................Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[[email protected]]

karl gruber wrote:
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "wright1902glider" > wrote:
> >
> > If you hold a constant speed and pitch attitude, changing
> > the throttle changes altitude. More specifically, changing
> > throttle changes your rate of climb/sink, and there's a
> > single throttle position where the engine is adding as much
> > energy to the aircraft as it is losing from drag. If you
> > open the throttle, the engine will produce more power and
> > you'll gain altitude. If you close it, you will descend.
>
> Throttle controls thrust.
> Elevator controls pitch.
>
> Keep it simple................Karl
> "Curator" N185KG

Attitude + Power = Performance. You can't say that one
control does only one thing. There's too much reductionism in flight
training and it creates inept pilots.

Dan

[Ron Webb]

Awww for crying out loud! The guy asks a simple question, and you either
confuse him with excess detail, or act like it's a stupid question, just
because YOU know the answer! Not very friendly!

Just to answer the question directly:

Your instructor is correct. Control altitude with throttle, and airspeed
with pitch. It sounds backwards, but that's what they teach. If you were to
take a Private Pilot ground school class tomorrow, they would have said that
in so many words before the end of the first week.

Of course, nothing is ever that easy in the real world, but you have to
start somewhere.



> wrote in message
...
> wright1902glider > spewed this unto the Network:
>> If anyone out there will admit to driving a C-172, I have a question.
>> In MS FlightSim 2003, Rod the VR flight instructor tells me that I
>> should be controlling my altitude with the throtle, and my airspeed
>> with the elevator? Does that make sense?
>
> Others have already answered this question.
>
>> In Microsoftland, I've got to constantly play with the throtle to hold
>> a consistant altitude. I don't recall ever seeing a pilot do that in
>> any plane I've ever flown in, but I could be wrong. Opinions?
>
> Real pilots of aircraft that have elevator trim (such as the C-172)
> tend to use it. In fact, if Rod's VR instruction was anything like
> real flight instruction, he'd scold you for not "trimming out" the
> aircraft. You should be able to completely let go of the controls
> and have the aircraft stay at the same altitude. You should assign
> two buttons on your joystick to operate the elevator trim.
>
> In a real aircraft, the yoke will actually stay in the same position
> when the aircraft is "trimmed out" (hence the references you'll hear to
> "trimming away the pressure"), but in the simulator you'll have to
> settle for the nose staying where you want it when the joystick is
> centered.
>

[[email protected]]

Ron Webb wrote:
> Awww for crying out loud! The guy asks a simple question, and you either
> confuse him with excess detail, or act like it's a stupid question, just
> because YOU know the answer! Not very friendly!
>
> Just to answer the question directly:
>
> Your instructor is correct. Control altitude with throttle, and airspeed
> with pitch. It sounds backwards, but that's what they teach.

Ah. So if I want to cruise faster, I leave the throttle alone and
pitch downward.

Dan

[Drew Dalgleish]

On 17 Nov 2006 09:18:06 -0800, wrote:

>
>Ron Webb wrote:
>> Awww for crying out loud! The guy asks a simple question, and you either
>> confuse him with excess detail, or act like it's a stupid question, just
>> because YOU know the answer! Not very friendly!
>>
>> Just to answer the question directly:
>>
>> Your instructor is correct. Control altitude with throttle, and airspeed
>> with pitch. It sounds backwards, but that's what they teach.
>
> Ah. So if I want to cruise faster, I leave the throttle alone and
>pitch downward.
>
> Dan
>
Yes but if you want to maintain the same altitude you'll also have to
add throttle.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 04:48:32 -0900, "Ron Webb" >
wrote:

>Awww for crying out loud! The guy asks a simple question, and you either
>confuse him with excess detail, or act like it's a stupid question, just
>because YOU know the answer! Not very friendly!
>
>Just to answer the question directly:
>
>Your instructor is correct. Control altitude with throttle, and airspeed
>with pitch. It sounds backwards, but that's what they teach. If you were to
>take a Private Pilot ground school class tomorrow, they would have said that
>in so many words before the end of the first week.

At a pilot proficency course the instructor showd me that either way
can work just as well. However even though it seems backwards the
pitch for airspeed, power for altitude apparently makes teaching
landings easier to start.


>
>Of course, nothing is ever that easy in the real world, but you have to
>start somewhere.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com