Question on Baron 58 prop control

[Mxsmanic]

On the real Baron 58, is there any forward thrust at all with the
props feathered (or set to zero)? I have a slider set to the prop
controls and if I set it to zero the plane will still drift forward
slowly as I advance the throttles.

I'm not clear on exactly what 0% does on the prop control. I notice
that it can actually go into negative percentages, but I have no idea
what that actually does to the props. Does anyone know? Does 0%
actually mean that the prop is feathered? I can see the prop pitch
change out the window, so it seems like it does (the blades are almost
parallel to the wind with props set to zero).

Also, can the props be feathered on a running engine, or is that not a
good thing?

If you are wondering how I got into this, I feathered the props after
simulating a dual engine failure, and forgot to set them back the next
time I started up and taxied out. I noticed the aircraft was
extremely sluggish until it dawned on me that I had not reset the prop
controls.

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

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I'm not clear on exactly what 0% does on the prop control. I notice
> that it can actually go into negative percentages, but I have no idea
> what that actually does to the props. Does anyone know? Does 0%
> actually mean that the prop is feathered? I can see the prop pitch
> change out the window, so it seems like it does (the blades are almost
> parallel to the wind with props set to zero).
>
> Also, can the props be feathered on a running engine, or is that not a
> good thing?

I can't imagine how/why you would feather the prop with the engine
still running. Certainly not something I have or would try. On most all
planes pulling the prop level all the way back feathers them. On some
older planes there was a feather button but nothing I've flown (DC-3,
etc)

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

You can feather the prop on a PT6 free-turbine engine and
this is a normal training and testing procedure. You do
this at idle or very low power settings. On a piston
engine, feathering the prop stops rotation, so the engine
quits.

On a PC game, the electrons stop flowing?


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| > I'm not clear on exactly what 0% does on the prop
control. I notice
| > that it can actually go into negative percentages, but I
have no idea
| > what that actually does to the props. Does anyone know?
Does 0%
| > actually mean that the prop is feathered? I can see the
prop pitch
| > change out the window, so it seems like it does (the
blades are almost
| > parallel to the wind with props set to zero).
| >
| > Also, can the props be feathered on a running engine, or
is that not a
| > good thing?
|
| I can't imagine how/why you would feather the prop with
the engine
| still running. Certainly not something I have or would
try. On most all
| planes pulling the prop level all the way back feathers
them. On some
| older planes there was a feather button but nothing I've
flown (DC-3,
| etc)
|
| -Robert
|

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> You can feather the prop on a PT6 free-turbine engine and
> this is a normal training and testing procedure. You do
> this at idle or very low power settings. On a piston
> engine, feathering the prop stops rotation, so the engine
> quits.
>
> On a PC game, the electrons stop flowing?

I wondered about that. In a turboprop the engine starts with the blades
feathered. However, I don't have the experience to comment on them.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> You can feather the prop on a PT6 free-turbine engine and
> this is a normal training and testing procedure. You do
> this at idle or very low power settings. On a piston
> engine, feathering the prop stops rotation, so the engine
> quits.
>
> On a PC game, the electrons stop flowing?

BTW: My kids got me MSFS X for my B-day. I honestly haven't had the
time to install it. However, my son and I played JetFighter IV
yesterday. Much more fun than MSFS. Not much of a simulator but its fun
learning how to use the different types of air-to-air missles and
air-to-ground bombs/missles/etc. The tactical avionics seems pretty
realistic although I don't have much comparison. The "fire and forget"
missles are much easier than the dumb bombs,.

-Robert

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> On the real Baron 58, is there any forward thrust at all with the
> props feathered (or set to zero)?

There probably is, if only because the feather doesn't turn the blades
completely parallel (it's often 85 - 87 degrees).

> Also, can the props be feathered on a running engine, or is that not a
> good thing?

Yes, and yes. There is a procedure to check the prop speed mechanism
during run-up to briefly move the prop lever through it's travel.
Intentionally running a prop to feather on an engine doesn't do it any
good, however, and if it gets slow enough, the engine can stall, or
heaven forbid the lock pins can fall in place (and then you're really
FUBAR'd, time for a mechanic). On a (free-turning) turboprop, it's less
of a concern, although I imagine the turbine guys won't thank you for it
if you do it too often.

TheSmokingGnu

[Allen[_1_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> You can feather the prop on a PT6 free-turbine engine and
>> this is a normal training and testing procedure. You do
>> this at idle or very low power settings. On a piston
>> engine, feathering the prop stops rotation, so the engine
>> quits.
>>
>> On a PC game, the electrons stop flowing?
>
> I wondered about that. In a turboprop the engine starts with the blades
> feathered. However, I don't have the experience to comment on them.
>
> -Robert

As Jim said the PW PT6 engine has no physical connection between the power
section and the drive section. When you turn the prop by hand you are not
turning the engine. Some actually have a prop brake so you can stop the
prop with the engine running to be able to run the accessories (AC and
generator).

The Garret turbine engines are direct drive, they have a driveshaft between
the engine and drive section. When you turn the you are turning the engine.
These engines will not start in the feathered position.

Allen

[Jim Macklin]

The PT6 and some other turboprop engines are "free turbines"
with a gas generator section that sends gas to a separate
turbine/gear box assembly. Until the engine develops oil
pressure, the prop is feathered. Other turbine engines, the
Garrett TPE331 being the most common example, has a solid
shaft that drives the prop from the gas section. These
engines are shutdown after locking the prop blades at near
zero pitch, otherwise the loads required to start the engine
would strain the starter motor. In-flight feather and
restarting requires that the prop be manually unfeathered
to restart the engine.

The complications of the TPE331 over the PT6 are a prime
reason the PT6 is the preferred engine by most pilots. The
low cost and slightly high fuel specs make the TPE331 make
it popular with bookkeepers.

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-65189/turbine_engines/types_of_turbine_engines.htm

http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0_2/3_0_2_1_1.asp

http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/TPE331pics.html



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > You can feather the prop on a PT6 free-turbine engine
and
| > this is a normal training and testing procedure. You do
| > this at idle or very low power settings. On a piston
| > engine, feathering the prop stops rotation, so the
engine
| > quits.
| >
| > On a PC game, the electrons stop flowing?
|
| I wondered about that. In a turboprop the engine starts
with the blades
| feathered. However, I don't have the experience to comment
on them.
|
| -Robert
|

[Doug[_1_]]

Some seaplane props are featherable and reversable so the seaplane can
stop or backup and so the prop can be used as a brake. I believe the
Cessna Caravan in Seaplane config can do this, not sure.

[Jim Macklin]

The PT6 engine can be feathered or the blade angle can go to
a reverse setting and the plane can be backed up, as can the
King Air. The prop angle for feathering is about 90 degrees
while normal flight is in the range of 15-45 degrees. Blade
angles less than 15 degrees are called beta and when they
get to 0- [15] degrees they are reverse.

Those numbers are generally correct, but from my memory.
The blade angle is changed when the prop control is pulled
into the reverse range, which is before actually reaching 0
because of forward speed. Pulling the prop control further
spools the engine back into a power range. Reverse is
usually, but not always, locked out in flight. The Pilatus
can be put in reverse in flight as can certain other planes.
But some airplanes that can be reversed in flight are not
safe to do so. A Beech test pilot told me that he had put a
BE E90 in reverse in flight and the airplane did a very fast
flip. On the other hand he also said that the T-tailed King
Airs [f90-200-300] did not do this since the tail was not
blocked by the slipstream. This may or may not be true, it
is just something I was told.
On the ground, dirt ingestion and prop damage are the
limiting factors.



"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Some seaplane props are featherable and reversable so the
seaplane can
| stop or backup and so the prop can be used as a brake. I
believe the
| Cessna Caravan in Seaplane config can do this, not sure.
|

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I can't imagine how/why you would feather the prop with the engine
> still running.

Neither can I, but I was wondering if it would hurt anything.

> Certainly not something I have or would try. On most all
> planes pulling the prop level all the way back feathers them. On some
> older planes there was a feather button but nothing I've flown (DC-3,
> etc)

There's a red button on the sim, but it doesn't appear to be fully
simulated. It's the "minus" settings of the prop that puzzle me.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Allen writes:

> As Jim said the PW PT6 engine has no physical connection between the power
> section and the drive section.

How does power get from one to the other?

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

[Mxsmanic]

TheSmokingGnu writes:

> Yes, and yes. There is a procedure to check the prop speed mechanism
> during run-up to briefly move the prop lever through it's travel.
> Intentionally running a prop to feather on an engine doesn't do it any
> good, however, and if it gets slow enough, the engine can stall, or
> heaven forbid the lock pins can fall in place (and then you're really
> FUBAR'd, time for a mechanic). On a (free-turning) turboprop, it's less
> of a concern, although I imagine the turbine guys won't thank you for it
> if you do it too often.

Thanks. Another thing that confuses me is: Is a feathered prop
always edge to the wind, or flat to the wind, or does it vary by
aircraft? Edge to the wind would minimize drag on the aircraft, but
flat to the wind would minimize drag on the engine.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> Is a feathered prop
> always edge to the wind, or flat to the wind, or does it vary by
> aircraft? Edge to the wind would minimize drag on the aircraft, but
> flat to the wind would minimize drag on the engine.

Feathered is edge to the wind. The other is called "flat pitch".

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> How does power get from one to the other?
>

The turbine's output over a second series of fan blades, which are
connected to the propeller shaft. In effect, it's a giant torque
converter (if you're at all familiar with car technology).

In fact, you can hold, with your bare hand, the prop blade during start
up. Just don't let go of it, and don't try to catch it if it comes
loose! (Oh, and RUN!) >:D

> Is a feathered prop
> always edge to the wind, or flat to the wind

Edge to the wind. The thought is that the engine has already failed in
some capacity, and a windmilling prop causes massive cavitation and
drag, so the blade edge is aligned with the relative wind to stop it
from turning (although not fully, due to mechanical positioning issues,
they get really, really close).

[Doug[_1_]]

MT Propeller has a reversable prop the experimental guys put on Super
Cubs and that sort of plane. It is MOST useful with a Seaplane and can
be reversed on landing. It can't be reversed when you are over 1400 rpm
or some such and cant be reversed in the air. Both Beta (feather) and
reverse would be very useful in a Seaplane.

[Barrie]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> How does power get from one to the other?
>>
>
> The turbine's output over a second series of fan blades, which are
> connected to the propeller shaft. In effect, it's a giant torque converter
> (if you're at all familiar with car technology).
>
>
Interesting. Is that what gave rise to the old slang term "Propjet"?

How does this compare with the present form of propulsion, such as in the
B747, which I've heard being called "Fanjet"? Is it the same but turbine
blades replace propellor blades while serving a similar function?

Barrie

[Doug[_1_]]

The "minus' button if what you push when you are in full speed cruise
:-) (Try it and see what happens!)

Nice thing about a sim, you can do stuff you CANT do on a real
airplane (like crash).

And that is why a sim will NEVER be like true flight. With a sim, if
you crash, you crashed and you are ok. With a real airplane, you
crashed, and that's IT! No more you. A different headspace, attitude,
whatever you want to call it.

[BT]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Allen writes:
>
>> As Jim said the PW PT6 engine has no physical connection between the
>> power
>> section and the drive section.
>
> How does power get from one to the other?
>
air pressure

[Barrie]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The "minus' button if what you push when you are in full speed cruise
> :-) (Try it and see what happens!)
>
> Nice thing about a sim, you can do stuff you CANT do on a real
> airplane (like crash).
>
> And that is why a sim will NEVER be like true flight. With a sim, if
> you crash, you crashed and you are ok. With a real airplane, you
> crashed, and that's IT! No more you. A different headspace, attitude,
> whatever you want to call it.
>
>
That echoes what I said when trying to explain what FS is to someone today.
That it's ultra-realistic but the big thing that's missing is any "fear
factor". If that was present, which of course it can't be, then our
decisions while simming would of course be very different.

Barrie

[Jim Macklin]

Air mass
"BT" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Allen writes:
| >
| >> As Jim said the PW PT6 engine has no physical
connection between the
| >> power
| >> section and the drive section.
| >
| > How does power get from one to the other?
| >
| air pressure
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

Barrie writes:

> How does this compare with the present form of propulsion, such as in the
> B747, which I've heard being called "Fanjet"? Is it the same but turbine
> blades replace propellor blades while serving a similar function?

Essentially, yes. A turbofan is a jet engine with a very large front
fan in a duct. This fan, which is driven by a turbine in the
combustion section that in turn is driven by hot exhaust gases,
provides most of the thrust. It's like a many-bladed propeller in a
duct (whence the term "ducted fan," which is occasionally used). It's
much more efficient than a pure turbojet, and it also has advantages
over an open prop. It's the preferred mode of propulsion for
commercial airliners these days.

However, turbofans don't work well at transonic and supersonic speeds,
although I understand that these problems have been fixed in recent
years. Likewise, they don't have significant advantages for low speed
flight like that of a small GA plane.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Doug writes:

> And that is why a sim will NEVER be like true flight. With a sim, if
> you crash, you crashed and you are ok. With a real airplane, you
> crashed, and that's IT! No more you. A different headspace, attitude,
> whatever you want to call it.

A good simulator can very rapidly make you forget that it's just a
simulator. This is hard with MSFS because it doesn't move or provide
the physical environment of a cockpit, but if it did, you'd start
mistaking it for real pretty quickly.

Even as it is, it can be stressful when things go wrong in the sim
environment.

If you prefer risking your life for real, that's your choice.
Personally, I see that as a drawback to real flight, not an advantage.

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

[A Lieberma]

"Doug" > wrote in news:1164680980.670569.130090
@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:

> And that is why a sim will NEVER be like true flight. With a sim, if
> you crash, you crashed and you are ok. With a real airplane, you
> crashed, and that's IT! No more you. A different headspace, attitude,
> whatever you want to call it.

Hey Doug,

Having been there done this with Mx (sim vs real world), you are wasting
your time with Mx as he is a troll (as you will note from his reply to
you). Just check out his recent postings and you will clearly see this.

You just may want to ignore Mx's postings and reply to those who really
appreciate the time you take in answering their questions.

Thanks!

Allen

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> I honestly haven't had the
> time to install it.
>

Well, let's hope you at least have the 15 Gig (!) of free HD space it
requires.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Doug writes:
>
>> And that is why a sim will NEVER be like true flight. With a sim, if
>> you crash, you crashed and you are ok. With a real airplane, you
>> crashed, and that's IT! No more you. A different headspace, attitude,
>> whatever you want to call it.
>
> A good simulator can very rapidly make you forget that it's just a
> simulator. This is hard with MSFS because it doesn't move or provide
> the physical environment of a cockpit, but if it did, you'd start
> mistaking it for real pretty quickly.
>
I've been in several "real" & full-motion simulators, and none of them
confused me about the reality of the experience. It is not the same at
all.

Neil

[Robert M. Gary]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > I honestly haven't had the
> > time to install it.
> >
>
> Well, let's hope you at least have the 15 Gig (!) of free HD space it
> requires.

So what? Disk space is basicly free nowadays.

-Robert

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

not in my laptop.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Robert,
>
> not in my laptop.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

The drives in most laptops are now interchangeable.

Check here:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=1277

[Dave[_1_]]

And the Lake "Renagade": amphib can also.... reverse pitch for
stopping and reversing.

Dave


On 27 Nov 2006 15:24:36 -0800, "Doug" >
wrote:

>Some seaplane props are featherable and reversable so the seaplane can
>stop or backup and so the prop can be used as a brake. I believe the
>Cessna Caravan in Seaplane config can do this, not sure.

[Dave[_1_]]

Well Al....

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect and appreciate that...

But....

Mx posted a good question, AND (in my opinion) got some good
answers...

AND

I learned some stuff about turbines from following this thread.

I am ahead, thanks to his question, and the responses that followed.

Please respect the fact that some of us will reply,(it is our choice
and privilage) - I will if I have the time and feel I have something
meaningful to offer.

If Mx appreciates it , OK. If he does not, well, that's OK too...

But many "lurkers" learn much from replies in this group. and THEY
appreciate the responses. I can speak for only myself if you wish...I
have been a subscriber for so long I cannot remember, and have learned
and gained SO MUCH from the posts and replies in this group.

Regards, no flame intended.... :)


Dave





On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:09:37 GMT, A Lieberma >
wrote:

>"Doug" > wrote in news:1164680980.670569.130090
:
>
>> And that is why a sim will NEVER be like true flight. With a sim, if
>> you crash, you crashed and you are ok. With a real airplane, you
>> crashed, and that's IT! No more you. A different headspace, attitude,
>> whatever you want to call it.
>
>Hey Doug,
>
>Having been there done this with Mx (sim vs real world), you are wasting
>your time with Mx as he is a troll (as you will note from his reply to
>you). Just check out his recent postings and you will clearly see this.
>
>You just may want to ignore Mx's postings and reply to those who really
>appreciate the time you take in answering their questions.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Allen

[A Lieberma]

Dave > wrote in
:

> Mx posted a good question, AND (in my opinion) got some good
> answers...

Yes, I agree with you with the above Dave.

Here lies the problem, is that he will make assumptions that MSFS is like
the real deal, and when pilots call him to task (I.E. flying in IMC) he
creates unecessary noise. It's the extra noise level that needs to go
away.

I have said before and continue to say, he does ask good questions, and
gets good replies, but he does not respect the folks that have "been
there and done it" and that degrades every thread he has contributed to.

> I learned some stuff about turbines from following this thread.
>
> I am ahead, thanks to his question, and the responses that followed.

Agree, and probably because engines are not as dynamic as weather, real
world flying and the like. Engines are somewhat (note I say somewhat)
more cut and dry, and if you noticed, the noise level on this thread has
been very tolerable (though I have not been following it since it doesn't
interest me).

> Please respect the fact that some of us will reply,(it is our choice
> and privilage) - I will if I have the time and feel I have something
> meaningful to offer.

But why do this? He isn't giving you the time of the day on his replies?
I don't like disrespect, and you having been there and done it goes a lot
further then any MSFS experience. Correct? Do you like him telling you
that real world experiences is the same as a sim in IMC? You know it's
not the same so why battle it out with him. Take it to email if it goes
off tangent and let the rest of us enjoy the peace and tranquility the
group had before Mx's arrival.

> appreciate the responses. I can speak for only myself if you wish...I
> have been a subscriber for so long I cannot remember, and have learned
> and gained SO MUCH from the posts and replies in this group.

And I have too, I am the very first one to admit the above, thus my own
contributions to real world experiences, good and bad. If you only knew
the heat (maybe you do!) I took on landing with one landing brake on a
downwind situation. But I learned from it, and sure hope others did too!
(getting my on topic subject here) :-) Look up my posting history and you
will clearly see, not only do I try to help, but I also share my real
world experiences for others to learn from.

> Regards, no flame intended.... :)

Nah, your input is important, but unfortunately it doesn't change my
position that we need to get Mxmaniac off the rec.aviation newsgroups and
back to the sim groups, so I will continue to advise new comers that
they are dealing with a troll with the hopes they don't get drawn into
these long unecessary threads comparing sim vs real flight. Save that
for the sim groups.

Allen

[Thomas Borchert]

Steve,

> The drives in most laptops are now interchangeable.
>

I know, but laptop drives aren't as much in the "virtually free"
category as normal-size HDs.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave > posted:

> Well Al....
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect and appreciate that...
>
> But....
>
> Mx posted a good question, AND (in my opinion) got some good
> answers...
>
> AND
>
> I learned some stuff about turbines from following this thread.
>
> I am ahead, thanks to his question, and the responses that followed.
>
> If Mx appreciates it , OK. If he does not, well, that's OK too...
>
[...]
> But many "lurkers" learn much from replies in this group. and THEY
> appreciate the responses. I can speak for only myself if you wish...I
> have been a subscriber for so long I cannot remember, and have learned
> and gained SO MUCH from the posts and replies in this group.
>
I agree with you on the above. In most cases, the questions Mxsmanic asks
are on-topic for this group, and the answers from the vairous pilots have
been enlightening to me. While I understand the frustration and even the
anger of some in this group due to Mxsmanic's attitude, irresponsible
disregard for the harm that his misinformation might cause, and his
thinly-veiled insults, this is usenet. Anthony or others of his ilk will
pop up from time to time, and the best we can do is call B.S. on posts
that are factually incorrect and move on.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Thomas Borchert > posted:

> Steve,
>
>> The drives in most laptops are now interchangeable.
>>
>
> I know, but laptop drives aren't as much in the "virtually free"
> category as normal-size HDs.
>
Add to that the laptop's pre-installed OS with proprietary features and no
installation discs, and in many cases it is more of a hassle than it's
worth.

Neil

[Dave[_1_]]

Well MX, I don't consider myself risking my life at all when I climb
into our airplane.

Without exception I am off on a wonderful adventure, confident enough
in my skill, my training and my aircraft to bring my passengers and
self back to earth safely and for me, all to soon.

Now re sims..

I was one of the Early " Airwarrior" sim pilots, the original WWII
air combat sim.

(90% of the "players" (poor term, but it will do) were "real" pilots,
private, ATP, instructors, military.......

I have flown on 2 - 3 hr "missions" escorting bomber groups, ground
attack missions and others that left me totally wiped but so wound up
that sleep was impossible.

A good sim can make you forget you are grounded.The fights were fast,
furious and the sim aircraft were accurately modeled, so you had to
know how to fly each different aircraft, it's strengths and
weaknesses. - and you could die without getting hurt! :)

Sims have their place. I picked a friend just after he went through a
"sim" session, (He was training in a new type, 737 I think)

He was a MESS! They had piled several failures on him, he had to
change his clothes, he was soaked, and actually shaking a bit, and
his voice was unsteady. Maybe a sim, but what they put him through
was "real" enough! (he passed)

I may just dig out my old HOTAS stuff someday...

Dave


On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:06:19 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Doug writes:
>
>> And that is why a sim will NEVER be like true flight. With a sim, if
>> you crash, you crashed and you are ok. With a real airplane, you
>> crashed, and that's IT! No more you. A different headspace, attitude,
>> whatever you want to call it.
>
>A good simulator can very rapidly make you forget that it's just a
>simulator. This is hard with MSFS because it doesn't move or provide
>the physical environment of a cockpit, but if it did, you'd start
>mistaking it for real pretty quickly.
>
>Even as it is, it can be stressful when things go wrong in the sim
>environment.
>
>If you prefer risking your life for real, that's your choice.
>Personally, I see that as a drawback to real flight, not an advantage.

[A Lieberma]

Dave > wrote in
:

> Sims have their place. I picked a friend just after he went through a
> "sim" session, (He was training in a new type, 737 I think)
>
> He was a MESS! They had piled several failures on him, he had to
> change his clothes, he was soaked, and actually shaking a bit, and
> his voice was unsteady. Maybe a sim, but what they put him through
> was "real" enough! (he passed)

Probably two factors that brought on the sweat factor (and realism).

A. It probably was a full motion sim (or sim where he sat in it rather
then in front of a computer)

B. He had a job riding on the outcome

Much different then sitting in front of a computer monitor PLAYING MSFS

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Dave writes:

> A good sim can make you forget you are grounded.

Yup. And it is surprising how simple the simulation can be in order
to accomplish this. Not every single detail need be simulated; if the
right details are simulated, your brain will fill in the rest, often
in a way that's at least as vivid as the real thing.

> The fights were fast,
> furious and the sim aircraft were accurately modeled, so you had to
> know how to fly each different aircraft, it's strengths and
> weaknesses. - and you could die without getting hurt! :)

My little adventure a few days ago trying to fly IFR from Boston to
JFK was quite taxing. The mere fact that I don't smell the jet fuel
or feel the aircraft rumbling along the taxiway beneath me didn't
matter very much.

I notice that serious simmers are careful not to "step out of
character." Everything is done as in real life, and after a while you
forget that it's not real life. If a controller has to deal with a
pilot who has declared a serious emergency, it gets very draining to
bring him in to a safe landing. The fact that he simply made up the
emergency and then everyone played along with it doesn't matter.

To some extent, I think that people who have trouble taking simulation
seriously may also have trouble taking the real thing seriously. And
simulation also requires following certain rules and exercising a
certain amount of discipline; people who cannot do that for the
purposes of simulation may also have trouble doing it in other
situations ... including while flying a real plane. "Oh, I don't need
to listen to that controller--I know what I'm doing and he's just
following some stupid procedure."

> Sims have their place. I picked a friend just after he went through a
> "sim" session, (He was training in a new type, 737 I think)
>
> He was a MESS! They had piled several failures on him, he had to
> change his clothes, he was soaked, and actually shaking a bit, and
> his voice was unsteady. Maybe a sim, but what they put him through
> was "real" enough! (he passed)

Full-motion sims have an evil reputation, perhaps in part because the
instructors operating them seem to often have a sadistic streak. But
I think that pilots who have been through the wringer in a sim will
still agree that it's worth the trouble.

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Probably two factors that brought on the sweat factor (and realism).
>
> A. It probably was a full motion sim (or sim where he sat in it rather
> then in front of a computer)
>
> B. He had a job riding on the outcome

No, there's one important factor that does it all: He was capable of
taking simulation seriously. Some people aren't. And that's
unfortunate, because it prevents them from learning things in
simulation that could save their lives, and sometimes it causes them
to lose their jobs.

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

[Dave[_1_]]

I agree Neill..

As long as the posts are on topic, I have no issue...

And.. I must confess, I can stand a little "OT" sometimes if it is
interesting... :)

Mx sure gets some interesting threads started.. :)

And his questions sure get some people thinking..and some answers are
coming from (I believe) very knowledgable people..

I read, I ignore the BS, I learn... been that way here (for me)
since 1993.

I "morphed" to this group from FIDO... anybody remember that?

Cheers!

Dave


On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:16:58 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Recently, Dave > posted:
>
>> Well Al....
>>
>> You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect and appreciate that...
>>
>> But....
>>
>> Mx posted a good question, AND (in my opinion) got some good
>> answers...
>>
>> AND
>>
>> I learned some stuff about turbines from following this thread.
>>
>> I am ahead, thanks to his question, and the responses that followed.
>>
>> If Mx appreciates it , OK. If he does not, well, that's OK too...
>>
>[...]
>> But many "lurkers" learn much from replies in this group. and THEY
>> appreciate the responses. I can speak for only myself if you wish...I
>> have been a subscriber for so long I cannot remember, and have learned
>> and gained SO MUCH from the posts and replies in this group.
>>
>I agree with you on the above. In most cases, the questions Mxsmanic asks
>are on-topic for this group, and the answers from the vairous pilots have
>been enlightening to me. While I understand the frustration and even the
>anger of some in this group due to Mxsmanic's attitude, irresponsible
>disregard for the harm that his misinformation might cause, and his
>thinly-veiled insults, this is usenet. Anthony or others of his ilk will
>pop up from time to time, and the best we can do is call B.S. on posts
>that are factually incorrect and move on.
>
>Neil
>

[Dave[_1_]]

Hehe.. both good points!

But the way he talked about the experience, I think it was a bit more
than that!

He was an experienced pilot then, and continued to fly heavies for the
rest of his career.

But he remarked (after I asked him "what the H--- happened?") he
related the experience was more "real" than he could have
imagined...

He said this experience suspended the reality of the sim, only to
return after the "landing" and the instructor turned the lights on...

He already had the job....

Dave


On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:54:52 GMT, A Lieberma >
wrote:

>Dave > wrote in
:
>
>> Sims have their place. I picked a friend just after he went through a
>> "sim" session, (He was training in a new type, 737 I think)
>>
>> He was a MESS! They had piled several failures on him, he had to
>> change his clothes, he was soaked, and actually shaking a bit, and
>> his voice was unsteady. Maybe a sim, but what they put him through
>> was "real" enough! (he passed)
>
>Probably two factors that brought on the sweat factor (and realism).
>
>A. It probably was a full motion sim (or sim where he sat in it rather
>then in front of a computer)
>
>B. He had a job riding on the outcome
>
>Much different then sitting in front of a computer monitor PLAYING MSFS
>
>Allen

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote

> I know, but laptop drives aren't as much in the "virtually free"
> category as normal-size HDs.

I see that USB hard driver are now available for .1 AMU's.

Amazing, to me!
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

A real full motion flight sim can kill you. There are
reports of serious injuries and broken bones. I even know
of at least one simulator that ripped the mounting bolts out
of the concrete and really crashed.

Seat belts are not optional.



"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
| Dave > wrote in
| :
|
| > Sims have their place. I picked a friend just after he
went through a
| > "sim" session, (He was training in a new type, 737 I
think)
| >
| > He was a MESS! They had piled several failures on him,
he had to
| > change his clothes, he was soaked, and actually shaking
a bit, and
| > his voice was unsteady. Maybe a sim, but what they put
him through
| > was "real" enough! (he passed)
|
| Probably two factors that brought on the sweat factor (and
realism).
|
| A. It probably was a full motion sim (or sim where he sat
in it rather
| then in front of a computer)
|
| B. He had a job riding on the outcome
|
| Much different then sitting in front of a computer monitor
PLAYING MSFS
|
| Allen

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> A real full motion flight sim can kill you. There are
> reports of serious injuries and broken bones.

So I've heard. But that is the result of poor design.

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

[Kingfish]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The Pilatus can be put in reverse in flight as can certain other planes.
> But some airplanes that can be reversed in flight are not
> safe to do so.

The PC12 POH warns against reversing pitch in-flight. My training
captain beat that into my head when I was first training in the
airplane. There are three situations when reverse should not be used
IIRC. In flight, when the engine is shut down, and ... dammit, can't
remeber the third... back to the books I go : )

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> To some extent, I think that people who have trouble taking simulation
> seriously may also have trouble taking the real thing seriously. And
> simulation also requires following certain rules and exercising a
> certain amount of discipline; people who cannot do that for the
> purposes of simulation may also have trouble doing it in other
> situations ... including while flying a real plane. "Oh, I don't need
> to listen to that controller--I know what I'm doing and he's just
> following some stupid procedure."

OK, here's where your reality disconnect shows itself... I can't
imagine *any* pilot not taking "the real thing" seriously. True, some
may have attitudes that are more cavalier than they should, but anytime
you strap your butt into an airplane and slip the surly bonds you're
taking a risk. A measured risk maybe, but still a risk. There is no
100% guarantee that you & the airplane will make it back in one piece.
Good pilots manage this risk. In addition, NO pilot I've ever
instructed or talked to has EVER shown that attitude of disregarding
ATC. That kind of behavior will get you in deep shiite quickly.


> Full-motion sims have an evil reputation, perhaps in part because the
> instructors operating them seem to often have a sadistic streak. But
> I think that pilots who have been through the wringer in a sim will
> still agree that it's worth the trouble.

Training sim operators have a sadistic streak because they know that
failures, while somewhat rare, do happen and that the pilot must be
able to handle the aircraft with failed systems (sometimes multiple).
The lives of the paying customers in back depend on it. Try and
separate full motion sims from PC-based machines (technically they're
Flight Training Devices) one is a learning tool - the other (while it
has its uses) is essentially a toy.

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> However, turbofans don't work well at transonic and supersonic speeds,
> although I understand that these problems have been fixed in recent
> years. Likewise, they don't have significant advantages for low speed
> flight like that of a small GA plane.

Turbofans work very well at transonic & SS speeds. The engines in the
F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35 (you get the idea) are turbofans (w/
afterburners). The F-22 engines are so efficient they allow supersonic
flight without the burners lit (supercruise) The difference is they are
low-bypass turbofans compared to the big high-bypass engines on
transport category aircraft - (Boeing, Airbus)

Turbines burn lotsa fuel at low altitudes and are most efficient at
high alts, which normally requires pressurization. Your typical GA
plane doesn't fly at high enough altitudes to get the most benefit from
turbine power.

[Barrie]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> The Pilatus can be put in reverse in flight as can certain other planes.
>> But some airplanes that can be reversed in flight are not
>> safe to do so.
>
> The PC12 POH warns against reversing pitch in-flight. My training
> captain beat that into my head when I was first training in the
> airplane. There are three situations when reverse should not be used
> IIRC. In flight, when the engine is shut down, and ... dammit, can't
> remeber the third... back to the books I go : )
>
When there's something behind you?

Barrie

[Kingfish]

Barrie wrote:
> >
> > The PC12 POH warns against reversing pitch in-flight. My training
> > captain beat that into my head when I was first training in the
> > airplane. There are three situations when reverse should not be used
> > IIRC. In flight, when the engine is shut down, and ... dammit, can't
> > remeber the third... back to the books I go : )
> >
> When there's something behind you?
>

THAT'S IT!! Thanks Barrie : )

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I even know
> of at least one simulator that ripped the mounting bolts out
> of the concrete and really crashed.

If I was "flying" that thing, I'd have to look at the event as some sort
of sign. <G>

Rodney Dangerfield in flight training!

[TheSmokingGnu]

Barrie wrote:
>> The PC12 POH warns against reversing pitch in-flight. My training
>> captain beat that into my head when I was first training in the
>> airplane. There are three situations when reverse should not be used
>> IIRC. In flight, when the engine is shut down, and ... dammit, can't
>> remeber the third... back to the books I go : )
>>
> When there's something behind you?
>

When the backup bell is inop!

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> OK, here's where your reality disconnect shows itself... I can't
> imagine *any* pilot not taking "the real thing" seriously.

A vast number of dead pilots make it clear that many pilots don't take
the real thing seriously.

> Try and
> separate full motion sims from PC-based machines (technically they're
> Flight Training Devices) one is a learning tool - the other (while it
> has its uses) is essentially a toy.

They are just variations on the same theme.

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

[Jim Macklin]

PC 6 high wing STOL bush plane
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.quiberonairclub.com/Images/2003-03-16-Pilatus%2520PC-6%2520(3).jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.quiberonairclub.com/QACnews017.htm&h=768&w=1024&sz=77&hl=en&start=6&tbnid=NZ_moKXuUuYnNM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpilatus%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3 Dlang_en%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGLJ ,GGLJ:2006-42,GGLJ:en%26sa%3DN



"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The Pilatus can be put in reverse in flight as can
certain other planes.
| > But some airplanes that can be reversed in flight are
not
| > safe to do so.
|
| The PC12 POH warns against reversing pitch in-flight. My
training
| captain beat that into my head when I was first training
in the
| airplane. There are three situations when reverse should
not be used
| IIRC. In flight, when the engine is shut down, and ...
dammit, can't
| remeber the third... back to the books I go : )
|

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Levin writes:

> according to that logic the space shuttle and a paper airplane are just
> variations on a theme.

Yes, that's what the engineers say.

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

[Jim Macklin]

better link
http://www.quiberonairclub.com/Images/2003-03-16-Pilatus%20PC-6%20(3).jpg



"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message ...
| PC 6 high wing STOL bush plane
|
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.quiberonairclub.com/Images/2003-03-16-Pilatus%2520PC-6%2520(3).jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.quiberonairclub.com/QACnews017.htm&h=768&w=1024&sz=77&hl=en&start=6&tbnid=NZ_moKXuUuYnNM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpilatus%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3 Dlang_en%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGLJ ,GGLJ:2006-42,GGLJ:en%26sa%3DN
|
|
|
| "Kingfish" > wrote in message
|
ups.com...
||
|| Jim Macklin wrote:
|| > The Pilatus can be put in reverse in flight as can
| certain other planes.
|| > But some airplanes that can be reversed in flight are
| not
|| > safe to do so.
||
|| The PC12 POH warns against reversing pitch in-flight. My
| training
|| captain beat that into my head when I was first training
| in the
|| airplane. There are three situations when reverse should
| not be used
|| IIRC. In flight, when the engine is shut down, and ...
| dammit, can't
|| remeber the third... back to the books I go : )
||
|
|

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Kingfish writes:
>
>> OK, here's where your reality disconnect shows itself... I can't
>> imagine *any* pilot not taking "the real thing" seriously.
>
> A vast number of dead pilots make it clear that many pilots don't take
> the real thing seriously.
>
By that logic, everyone who ever lived is either dead, or will die, so
they must not be taking life seriously.

You can't presume to know what a pilot's attitude was from the fatality
statistics. Things happen that are beyond anyone's control. As well, human
beings tend to overestimate their own abilities. Take your posts of this
nature, for example.

Neil

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> A vast number of dead pilots make it clear that many pilots don't
> take the real thing seriously.

I realize some here in rec.aviation.* don't wish to see
responses, but you are some piece of work.

F--

[Dave[_1_]]

Yikes!

I have heard of this..

I was in A CH 46 chopper full motion sim, and somehow got it into a
retreating blade stall, and it DID shake!

HARD!

Dave


On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:45:06 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>A real full motion flight sim can kill you. There are
>reports of serious injuries and broken bones. I even know
>of at least one simulator that ripped the mounting bolts out
>of the concrete and really crashed.
>
>Seat belts are not optional.
>
>
>
>"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
>| Dave > wrote in
>| :
>|
>| > Sims have their place. I picked a friend just after he
>went through a
>| > "sim" session, (He was training in a new type, 737 I
>think)
>| >
>| > He was a MESS! They had piled several failures on him,
>he had to
>| > change his clothes, he was soaked, and actually shaking
>a bit, and
>| > his voice was unsteady. Maybe a sim, but what they put
>him through
>| > was "real" enough! (he passed)
>|
>| Probably two factors that brought on the sweat factor (and
>realism).
>|
>| A. It probably was a full motion sim (or sim where he sat
>in it rather
>| then in front of a computer)
>|
>| B. He had a job riding on the outcome
>|
>| Much different then sitting in front of a computer monitor
>PLAYING MSFS
>|
>| Allen
>

[Jim Macklin]

The one I heard was a pilot wanted to see if the sim could
do a snap roll and it did.



"Dave" > wrote in message
...
| Yikes!
|
| I have heard of this..
|
| I was in A CH 46 chopper full motion sim, and somehow
got it into a
| retreating blade stall, and it DID shake!
|
| HARD!
|
| Dave
|
|
| On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:45:06 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >A real full motion flight sim can kill you. There are
| >reports of serious injuries and broken bones. I even
know
| >of at least one simulator that ripped the mounting bolts
out
| >of the concrete and really crashed.
| >
| >Seat belts are not optional.
| >
| >
| >
| >"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
| . 18...
| >| Dave > wrote in
| >| :
| >|
| >| > Sims have their place. I picked a friend just after
he
| >went through a
| >| > "sim" session, (He was training in a new type, 737 I
| >think)
| >| >
| >| > He was a MESS! They had piled several failures on
him,
| >he had to
| >| > change his clothes, he was soaked, and actually
shaking
| >a bit, and
| >| > his voice was unsteady. Maybe a sim, but what they
put
| >him through
| >| > was "real" enough! (he passed)
| >|
| >| Probably two factors that brought on the sweat factor
(and
| >realism).
| >|
| >| A. It probably was a full motion sim (or sim where he
sat
| >in it rather
| >| then in front of a computer)
| >|
| >| B. He had a job riding on the outcome
| >|
| >| Much different then sitting in front of a computer
monitor
| >PLAYING MSFS
| >|
| >| Allen
| >
|

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> By that logic, everyone who ever lived is either dead, or will die, so
> they must not be taking life seriously.

The dead pilots to whom I referred had died in air accidents due to
their own mistakes.

> You can't presume to know what a pilot's attitude was from the fatality
> statistics.

You can when you read the accident reports or the CVR transcripts.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> By that logic, everyone who ever lived is either dead, or will die,
>> so they must not be taking life seriously.
>
> The dead pilots to whom I referred had died in air accidents due to
> their own mistakes.
>
Human beings make mistakes. Take any number of your posts, for examples.

>> You can't presume to know what a pilot's attitude was from the
>> fatality statistics.
>
> You can when you read the accident reports or the CVR transcripts.
>
Such reports only tell you the presumptions of the reporters, and CVR
transcripts generally only tell you the resolution process after some
problem has arisen. The rest is your imagination.

Neil

[Dave[_3_]]

I was just about to ask! :)

I heard a story about a (sim) real hard landing that blew a seal in a
hyd cylinder..

The sim here (talked my way into that in return for a "demo" flight
with one of my Radio controlled helis) could shake you really good if
you were pushing it...

Cheers!

D


On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:49:10 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>The one I heard was a pilot wanted to see if the sim could
>do a snap roll and it did.
>
>
>
>"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>| Yikes!
>|
>| I have heard of this..
>|
>| I was in A CH 46 chopper full motion sim, and somehow
>got it into a
>| retreating blade stall, and it DID shake!
>|
>| HARD!
>|
>| Dave
>|
>|
>| On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:45:06 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
>| > wrote:
>|
>| >A real full motion flight sim can kill you. There are
>| >reports of serious injuries and broken bones. I even
>know
>| >of at least one simulator that ripped the mounting bolts
>out
>| >of the concrete and really crashed.
>| >
>| >Seat belts are not optional.
>| >
>| >
>| >
>| >"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
>| . 18...
>| >| Dave > wrote in
>| >| :
>| >|
>| >| > Sims have their place. I picked a friend just after
>he
>| >went through a
>| >| > "sim" session, (He was training in a new type, 737 I
>| >think)
>| >| >
>| >| > He was a MESS! They had piled several failures on
>him,
>| >he had to
>| >| > change his clothes, he was soaked, and actually
>shaking
>| >a bit, and
>| >| > his voice was unsteady. Maybe a sim, but what they
>put
>| >him through
>| >| > was "real" enough! (he passed)
>| >|
>| >| Probably two factors that brought on the sweat factor
>(and
>| >realism).
>| >|
>| >| A. It probably was a full motion sim (or sim where he
>sat
>| >in it rather
>| >| then in front of a computer)
>| >|
>| >| B. He had a job riding on the outcome
>| >|
>| >| Much different then sitting in front of a computer
>monitor
>| >PLAYING MSFS
>| >|
>| >| Allen
>| >
>|
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> However, turbofans
>
> Turbines burn lotsa

You had to give in to the dark side, huh?

So sorry. :-(
--
Jim in NC