Coordinated turns without rudder, and autopilots [Archive]

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

May 28th 07, 08:53 PM

"Dan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 28, 10:26 am, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> On May 28, 11:59 am, Luke Skywalker > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 28, 8:11 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>>
>> > > Dan wrote:
>> > > > On May 27, 5:44 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > > >> How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot
>> > > >> control the
>> > > >> rudder?
>>
>> > > > If they don't control the rudder, they do not make coordinated
>> > > > turns!
>>
>> > > > --Dan
>>
>> > > Boy we have the blind leading the blind here.
>>
>> > > The whole point of that big vertical slab of metal sticking out of
>> > > the
>> > > ass-end of your airplane is to provide a natural tendency for the
>> > > aircraft to fly coordinated. The pedals are just there for the
>> > > outlying conditions (low speed, high AOA for example) and fine
>> > > adjustment.
>>
>> > Ron...
>>
>> > oh my goodness...get some time with a good book on the subject and
>> > then a CFI.
>>
>> > Robert- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Ron is correct. The vertical fin makes the airplane weather-vane into
>> the wind, and that's what co-ordination is all about. The rudder is
>> there only to help the vertical stab do this job.
>>
>> A perfect airplane will not need rudder.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So where is this perfect airplane? I don't know about you, but I need
> the rudder pedals to fly the aircraft.
>
> --Dan

Basically the vertical stabilizer is there for directional stability and to
control yaw; the rudder is there to change yaw. This is VERY basic, but you
can say that the rudder is there to keep the tail alligned with the nose
:-))
Rudder use to acheive the objective of keeping the tail lined up with the
nose can accurately be said to be relative to aircraft type and airspeed.
You need a fair amount of rudder to handle yawfor example in a typical light
general aviation type airplane to execute a coordinated turn entry and exit.
On the other hand however, in a T38, you can fly a complete aerobatic
sequence including point rolls with both feet planted firmly on the floor of
the rudder tunnels.
Dudley Henriques

Bob Moore

May 28th 07, 09:14 PM

Mxsmanic wrote
> How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control
> the rudder?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An unwanted side-effect of aileron operation is adverse yaw — a yawing
moment in the opposite direction to the turn generated by the ailerons. In
other words, using the ailerons to roll an aircraft to the right would
produce a yawing motion to the left. It is caused by an increase in induced
drag due to the greater effective camber of the wing with a downward-
deflected aileron, and the opposite effect on the other wing. Modern
aileron systems have minimal adverse yaw, such that it is barely noticeable
in most turns. This may be accomplished by the use of differential
ailerons, which have been rigged such that the downgoing aileron deflects
less than the upward-moving one. Frise ailerons achieve the same effect by
protruding beneath the wing of an upward deflected aileron, increasing drag
on that side. Ailerons may also use a combination of these methods.

Bob Moore

Matt Whiting

May 28th 07, 11:25 PM

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> On May 28, 11:59 am, Luke Skywalker > wrote:
>> On May 28, 8:11 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> On May 27, 5:44 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
>>>>> rudder?
>>>> If they don't control the rudder, they do not make coordinated turns!
>>>> --Dan
>>> Boy we have the blind leading the blind here.
>>> The whole point of that big vertical slab of metal sticking out of the
>>> ass-end of your airplane is to provide a natural tendency for the
>>> aircraft to fly coordinated. The pedals are just there for the
>>> outlying conditions (low speed, high AOA for example) and fine
>>> adjustment.
>> Ron...
>>
>> oh my goodness...get some time with a good book on the subject and
>> then a CFI.
>>
>> Robert- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>
> Ron is correct. The vertical fin makes the airplane weather-vane into
> the wind, and that's what co-ordination is all about. The rudder is
> there only to help the vertical stab do this job.
>
> A perfect airplane will not need rudder.

Not true. The vertical fin can only provide a weather-vane affect when
a slip or skid has been induced. In coordinated flight there is no slip
or skid and hence the fin provides no lateral force. When you begin a
turn, most airplanes will induce adverse yaw and the rudder can counter
than before a skid occurs. The fixed fin can only act once an
uncoordinated condition has been induced. Sure, it does mitigate the
skid or slip, but it absolutely can't prevent it as it can't provide a
force until uncoordinated flight is already established. The rudder can
do this and is why it is included.

The rudder isn't there to help the vertical stab do its job, it is there
to do a job that the vertical stab can't do.

Matt

Luke Skywalker

May 29th 07, 01:02 AM

On May 28, 12:26 pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> On May 28, 11:59 am, Luke Skywalker > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 8:11 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
> > > Dan wrote:
> > > > On May 27, 5:44 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > >> How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
> > > >> rudder?
>
> > > > If they don't control the rudder, they do not make coordinated turns!
>
> > > > --Dan
>
> > > Boy we have the blind leading the blind here.
>
> > > The whole point of that big vertical slab of metal sticking out of the
> > > ass-end of your airplane is to provide a natural tendency for the
> > > aircraft to fly coordinated. The pedals are just there for the
> > > outlying conditions (low speed, high AOA for example) and fine
> > > adjustment.
>
> > Ron...
>
> > oh my goodness...get some time with a good book on the subject and
> > then a CFI.
>
> > Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
> Ron is correct. The vertical fin makes the airplane weather-vane into
> the wind, and that's what co-ordination is all about. The rudder is
> there only to help the vertical stab do this job.
>
> A perfect airplane will not need rudder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No he is not. Mark W...said the word.

Robert

Paul kgyy

May 29th 07, 03:25 AM

On May 27, 7:44 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
> rudder?

As others have posted, most lightplane autopilots don't adjust the
rudder for adverse yaw when turning, so you do get a few seconds of
slightly uncoordinated flight. However at normal cruise speeds this
creates no hazard or discomfort.

If flying close to stall, the autopilot should be turned off even for
straight and level flight. If the airplane is on the verge of
stalling and starts to turn because of engine p-factor or any other
reason, the autopilot will attempt to correct with aileron. This may
actually induce stall on one wing, producing sudden wing drop and a
potential spin.

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 03:35 AM

Dan writes:

> So where is this perfect airplane? I don't know about you, but I need
> the rudder pedals to fly the aircraft.

But autopilots apparently do not, and that's what puzzles me.

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 03:36 AM

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Rudder use to acheive the objective of keeping the tail lined up with the
> nose can accurately be said to be relative to aircraft type and airspeed.
> You need a fair amount of rudder to handle yawfor example in a typical light
> general aviation type airplane to execute a coordinated turn entry and exit.

So how does the autopilot do it? As far as I understand, autopilots in small
aircraft don't generally have control over the rudder, and yet they can
execute coordinated turns.

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 03:37 AM

John Theune writes:

> What makes you think they do not control the rudder?

The absence of rudder movement, and the expense of providing servos for the
rudder as well as the ailerones. It's possible that autopilots on transport
aircraft do control the rudder, but the small ones for small aircraft
apparently do not.

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 03:40 AM

Bob Moore writes:

> Swept wing and some straight wing aircraft have independent Yaw Damper(s)
> that control the rudder(s). Their primary function is to control (prevent)
> dutch roll. They operate with the autopilot on or off.

I'm thinking along the lines of small aircraft such as a C172 or Baron. They
do not have AP control of the rudder, and yet the AP can still execute
coordinated turns.

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 03:41 AM

Bob Moore writes:

> An unwanted side-effect of aileron operation is adverse yaw â€” a yawing
> moment in the opposite direction to the turn generated by the ailerons. In
> other words, using the ailerons to roll an aircraft to the right would
> produce a yawing motion to the left. It is caused by an increase in induced
> drag due to the greater effective camber of the wing with a downward-
> deflected aileron, and the opposite effect on the other wing. Modern
> aileron systems have minimal adverse yaw, such that it is barely noticeable
> in most turns. This may be accomplished by the use of differential
> ailerons, which have been rigged such that the downgoing aileron deflects
> less than the upward-moving one. Frise ailerons achieve the same effect by
> protruding beneath the wing of an upward deflected aileron, increasing drag
> on that side. Ailerons may also use a combination of these methods.

Except I do see adverse yaw in turns in my (simulated) Baron, so either the
simulation is in error, or the AP knows something about making coordinated
turns without rudder input that I do not.

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 03:43 AM

Paul kgyy writes:

> As others have posted, most lightplane autopilots don't adjust the
> rudder for adverse yaw when turning, so you do get a few seconds of
> slightly uncoordinated flight. However at normal cruise speeds this
> creates no hazard or discomfort.

So in theory I should be able to turn myself with ailerons only in the same
way, without the need to use the rudder to stay coordinated. What's the
secret? Each time I try to turn at the same rate that the AP manages, I have
to use the rudder to stay coordinated.

> If flying close to stall, the autopilot should be turned off even for
> straight and level flight. If the airplane is on the verge of
> stalling and starts to turn because of engine p-factor or any other
> reason, the autopilot will attempt to correct with aileron. This may
> actually induce stall on one wing, producing sudden wing drop and a
> potential spin.

I have an aversion to stalls and I usually stay well away from them. The AP
will put the aircraft into a stall if airspeed is too low to maintain altitude
easily (I don't know if this is an artifact of simulation or just like the
real thing--I know my simulated autopilot doesn't have all the modes of the
real one).

Maxwell

May 29th 07, 06:14 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Paul kgyy writes:
>
>> As others have posted, most lightplane autopilots don't adjust the
>> rudder for adverse yaw when turning, so you do get a few seconds of
>> slightly uncoordinated flight. However at normal cruise speeds this
>> creates no hazard or discomfort.
>
> So in theory I should be able to turn myself with ailerons only in the
> same
> way, without the need to use the rudder to stay coordinated. What's the
> secret? Each time I try to turn at the same rate that the AP manages, I
> have
> to use the rudder to stay coordinated.
>
>> If flying close to stall, the autopilot should be turned off even for
>> straight and level flight. If the airplane is on the verge of
>> stalling and starts to turn because of engine p-factor or any other
>> reason, the autopilot will attempt to correct with aileron. This may
>> actually induce stall on one wing, producing sudden wing drop and a
>> potential spin.
>
> I have an aversion to stalls and I usually stay well away from them. The
> AP
> will put the aircraft into a stall if airspeed is too low to maintain
> altitude
> easily (I don't know if this is an artifact of simulation or just like the
> real thing--I know my simulated autopilot doesn't have all the modes of
> the
> real one).

It's honestly just one of those things that do not hold true to form on PC
simulators. But turns do not always have to be perfectly coordinated.
Especially shallow ones initiated by wing levelers or low end autopilots.

Ron Natalie

May 29th 07, 11:40 AM

Luke Skywalker wrote:
\
> Ron...
>
> oh my goodness...get some time with a good book on the subject and
> then a CFI.
>
> Robert
>

I have plenty of good books and practice on the subject.
You should find an aeronautical engineer and find out how
planes are designed to work.

Ron Natalie

May 29th 07, 11:43 AM

Dan wrote:
\
>
> So where is this perfect airplane? I don't know about you, but I need
> the rudder pedals to fly the aircraft.

Get in most any aircraft. Take it to a normal cruise airspeed.
Put your feet flat on the floor and roll her into a standard rate
turn. I can almost guarantee the ball will be centered. It
would be a highly inefficient and impractical design if it
doesn't fly coordinated without rudder impact in that
regime.

Ron Natalie

May 29th 07, 11:49 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> Not true. The vertical fin can only provide a weather-vane affect when
> a slip or skid has been induced.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The skid and slip are the
result of the airplane NOT weather vaning into the wind. There are
a number of reasons for this. The primary one in turns is the "adverse
yaw" due to the differing drag caused by the displaced ailerons. Many
designs do a lot of things to mitigate this. Still it takes a lot of
aileron displacement to overcome the natural desire for the airplane
to track into the wind (due to the vertical stab).

> In coordinated flight there is no slip
> or skid and hence the fin provides no lateral force.

This is the definition of coordinated flight, not cause and affect.

> The rudder isn't there to help the vertical stab do its job, it is there
> to do a job that the vertical stab can't do.

Sorry. The incorrect. You need the vertical stab to even fly
coordinated when you are not turning. If it is two small the
airplane will tend to yaw on it's own (the more bulbous your
fuselage, the more this is a probelm...there was a design Piper
tried that used an almost helicopter like bubble on the front...
without the slab sides to help the vertical stab, the plane
just would as well fly slipping as nromal).

The vertical stab is nearly always set up to get the aircraft
to fly coordinated in normal cruise level flight. It is frequently
slightly offset to correct for other aerodynamic unbalances.

The rudder is just at trim to handle other flight regimes.
It's mostly there for the high AOA regimes of Take-off and
landing.

Matt Whiting

May 29th 07, 12:16 PM

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Not true. The vertical fin can only provide a weather-vane affect
>> when a slip or skid has been induced.
>
> You have no clue what you are talking about. The skid and slip are the
> result of the airplane NOT weather vaning into the wind. There are
> a number of reasons for this. The primary one in turns is the "adverse
> yaw" due to the differing drag caused by the displaced ailerons. Many
> designs do a lot of things to mitigate this. Still it takes a lot of
> aileron displacement to overcome the natural desire for the airplane
> to track into the wind (due to the vertical stab).
>
>> In coordinated flight there is no slip or skid and hence the fin
>> provides no lateral force.
>
> This is the definition of coordinated flight, not cause and affect.
>
>> The rudder isn't there to help the vertical stab do its job, it is
>> there to do a job that the vertical stab can't do.
>
> Sorry. The incorrect. You need the vertical stab to even fly
> coordinated when you are not turning. If it is two small the
> airplane will tend to yaw on it's own (the more bulbous your
> fuselage, the more this is a probelm...there was a design Piper
> tried that used an almost helicopter like bubble on the front...
> without the slab sides to help the vertical stab, the plane
> just would as well fly slipping as nromal).
>
> The vertical stab is nearly always set up to get the aircraft
> to fly coordinated in normal cruise level flight. It is frequently
> slightly offset to correct for other aerodynamic unbalances.
>
> The rudder is just at trim to handle other flight regimes.
> It's mostly there for the high AOA regimes of Take-off and
> landing.

I don't know where you got your engineering degree, but you better
demand a refund. A vertical stabilizer does not provide any lateral
force unless there is some degree of slip or skid. In coordinated
flight, it is just along for the ride. Many airplanes will oscillate
slight in the yaw axis for this reason. It takes a very large vertical
stab to keep the excursions small enough to not be detectable,
especially in a longer fuselage airplane. The rudder can provide a side
force in anticipation of a slip or skid and thus maintain coordinated
flight and never allow the slip or skid to develop in the first place.

Matt

Matt Whiting

May 29th 07, 12:20 PM

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Luke Skywalker wrote:
> \
>> Ron...
>>
>> oh my goodness...get some time with a good book on the subject and
>> then a CFI.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
> I have plenty of good books and practice on the subject.
> You should find an aeronautical engineer and find out how
> planes are designed to work.

Then you should know that the vertical stab can't prevent yaw, it can
only help eliminate yaw once it occurs as it can't provide any restoring
force until some degree of yaw occurs. A rudder an prevent yaw from
occurring in the first place. Fundamental difference here.

Matt

Ron Natalie

May 29th 07, 12:35 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> A vertical stabilizer does not provide any lateral
> force unless there is some degree of slip or skid.

Precisely! Now you are beginning to understand. As soon
as uncoordinated flight occurs (skid or slip) the vertical stab
deflects the aircraft back into the coordinated flight.

That's it's job! It is the primary job to provide the primary
aerodynamic forces to keep the airplane coordinated.

> In coordinated flight, it is just along for the ride.

Yep, and as soon as something deflects the aircraft from coordinate
flight, it generates a force to correct it.

> Many airplanes will oscillate
> slight in the yaw axis for this reason.

And they oscillate in pitch, and they oscillate in roll. This is
one of the fundamental modes of stability.

> It takes a very large vertical
> stab to keep the excursions small enough to not be detectable,
> especially in a longer fuselage airplane. The rudder can provide a side
> force in anticipation of a slip or skid and thus maintain coordinated
> flight and never allow the slip or skid to develop in the first place.
>
Are you trying to tell me that you sit there and tweak the rudders
during flight continually to damp yaw oscillations? Don't think
anybody finds that fun. The few airplanes where it is a persistant
problem have autopilots that do that, but for most it's unnecessary
in normal flight regimes.

Ron Natalie

May 29th 07, 12:38 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> Then you should know that the vertical stab can't prevent yaw, it can
> only help eliminate yaw once it occurs as it can't provide any restoring
> force until some degree of yaw occurs. A rudder an prevent yaw from
> occurring in the first place. Fundamental difference here.
>

Nope. In most flight regimes if you displace the rudder you are
generating yaw not preventing it. What you are trying to wrap
your brain around is that you can use the rudder to accellerate
the responsiveness of the vertical stabs natural tendencies,
but by your own admission, in coordinated flight the stab is
streamlined.

Denny

May 29th 07, 01:11 PM

..
> On the other hand however, in a T38, you can fly a complete aerobatic
> sequence including point rolls with both feet planted firmly on the floor of
> the rudder tunnels.
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I've always wanted to fly a 38 but never had the opportunity...
My Super Viking was one of those few GA machines with adequate tail
volume that you could fly instrument approaches with your feet on the
floor... Conversely, you could fly the plane nicely without ailerons
just using that powerful rudder...

One of the little tricks I do when 'unbrain washing' the pilots I have
helped over the years, is to say to them that: "you have just snapped
the cables to the ailerons and the elevator... now fly me back to the
airport without touching the yoke!"... Some have been totally
helpless... A few have almost instantly figured it out.. And most need
only be shown how for a few seconds... The majority have been amazed
after they successfully herded the plane a dozen miles back to the
airport and it is gratifying to see the light bulb in their head
suddenly light up as they begin to understand how the controls
actually work...

denny

Paul kgyy

May 29th 07, 03:29 PM

> So in theory I should be able to turn myself with ailerons only in the same
> way, without the need to use the rudder to stay coordinated. What's the
> secret? Each time I try to turn at the same rate that the AP manages, I have
> to use the rudder to stay coordinated.
>

As Maxwell observes, this may just be a simulator limitation. In
actuality, a small amount of rudder should be applied when initiating
and recovering from a turn, but once in a constant bank turn, the
aircraft will normally be in coordinated flight without rudder
application.

Erik

May 29th 07, 07:14 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dan writes:
>
>
>>So where is this perfect airplane? I don't know about you, but I need
>>the rudder pedals to fly the aircraft.
>
>
> But autopilots apparently do not, and that's what puzzles me.

Autopilots in simulators do not. Actual (that's opposite of virtual)
light aircraft need a rudder. If you turn the yoke, the plane will
bank, turn and eventually become coordinated, but for a while in
the interim, you'll be flying uncoordinated.

Some of these differences are why I disregard anything you may say,
correct or not, because you don't understand the basics of actual
flight regardless of how much of a master h4xor you are in the
simulator.

Erik

May 29th 07, 07:15 PM

Andrew Sarangan

May 29th 07, 07:26 PM

On May 29, 7:16 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >> Not true. The vertical fin can only provide a weather-vane affect
> >> when a slip or skid has been induced.
>
> > You have no clue what you are talking about. The skid and slip are the
> > result of the airplane NOT weather vaning into the wind. There are
> > a number of reasons for this. The primary one in turns is the "adverse
> > yaw" due to the differing drag caused by the displaced ailerons. Many
> > designs do a lot of things to mitigate this. Still it takes a lot of
> > aileron displacement to overcome the natural desire for the airplane
> > to track into the wind (due to the vertical stab).
>
> >> In coordinated flight there is no slip or skid and hence the fin
> >> provides no lateral force.
>
> > This is the definition of coordinated flight, not cause and affect.
>
> >> The rudder isn't there to help the vertical stab do its job, it is
> >> there to do a job that the vertical stab can't do.
>
> > Sorry. The incorrect. You need the vertical stab to even fly
> > coordinated when you are not turning. If it is two small the
> > airplane will tend to yaw on it's own (the more bulbous your
> > fuselage, the more this is a probelm...there was a design Piper
> > tried that used an almost helicopter like bubble on the front...
> > without the slab sides to help the vertical stab, the plane
> > just would as well fly slipping as nromal).
>
> > The vertical stab is nearly always set up to get the aircraft
> > to fly coordinated in normal cruise level flight. It is frequently
> > slightly offset to correct for other aerodynamic unbalances.
>
> > The rudder is just at trim to handle other flight regimes.
> > It's mostly there for the high AOA regimes of Take-off and
> > landing.
>
> I don't know where you got your engineering degree, but you better
> demand a refund. A vertical stabilizer does not provide any lateral
> force unless there is some degree of slip or skid. In coordinated
> flight, it is just along for the ride. Many airplanes will oscillate
> slight in the yaw axis for this reason. It takes a very large vertical
> stab to keep the excursions small enough to not be detectable,
> especially in a longer fuselage airplane. The rudder can provide a side
> force in anticipation of a slip or skid and thus maintain coordinated
> flight and never allow the slip or skid to develop in the first place.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>

You are assuming that the primary role of the rudder is to fly co-
ordinated. I would argue the opposite. The primary role of the rudder
is to fly un-coordinated, such as in a cross-wind landing, forward
slip, spin etc.. An airplane that always flies perfectly co-ordinated
(with or without rudder) would be of little use.

Nevertheless, I don't believe your analysis is correct, even from an
engineering control system point of view. The vertical stab and yaw
can be thought of as a closed loop system. Yaw is the error signal.
The vertical stab creates a lateral force that minimizes the error
signal by providing a negative feedback. One could argue that a
vertical stab serves no purpose if there is no yaw. But no airplane
flies perfectly co-ordinated. They continuously slip and skid as they
fly, and it is the vertical stab that kicks in the feedback to
stabilize the system. Since the effect of the vertical stab is highly
dependent on the airspeed, at lower airspeed one would need a bigger
vertical stab. In other words, you would need an adaptive feedback.
Since it is clearly not practical to enlarge the vertical stab during
flight, the next best thing you can do is to rotate it, and this what
the rudder does. Simply put, a rudder provides the means to enhance
the effect of the vertical stab during flight.

The original statement that the rudder simply assists the vertical
stab at the outlying regions is correct. If a vertical stab could be
designed such that its effectiveness is independent of airspeed, then
a rudder won't be necessary to fly co-ordinated. But for reasons I
stated earlier, such an airplane would still not be very useful.

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 07:33 PM

Erik writes:

> Autopilots in simulators do not. Actual (that's opposite of virtual)
> light aircraft need a rudder.

Autopilots on light aircraft do not, and I'd like to know why.

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 07:34 PM

Ron Natalie writes:

> Get in most any aircraft. Take it to a normal cruise airspeed.
> Put your feet flat on the floor and roll her into a standard rate
> turn. I can almost guarantee the ball will be centered. It
> would be a highly inefficient and impractical design if it
> doesn't fly coordinated without rudder impact in that
> regime.

Then why would you ever need the rudder in a turn?

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 07:37 PM

Maxwell writes:

> It's honestly just one of those things that do not hold true to form on PC
> simulators.

Real autopilots on real aircraft do not necessarily have control over the real
rudders, and yet they execute real coordinated turns without those rudders.
How do they do it?

> But turns do not always have to be perfectly coordinated.

Why are they more coordinated when performed by the autopilot than when
performed by the pilot (without rudder)?

> Especially shallow ones initiated by wing levelers or low end autopilots.

Autopilots often put the aircraft into a standard-rate turn, which isn't
exactly shallow, even if it isn't terribly steep.

Mxsmanic

May 29th 07, 07:38 PM

Paul kgyy writes:

> As Maxwell observes, this may just be a simulator limitation. In
> actuality, a small amount of rudder should be applied when initiating
> and recovering from a turn, but once in a constant bank turn, the
> aircraft will normally be in coordinated flight without rudder
> application.

But the autopilot has no control over the rudder, and yet the turn is
coordinated. What is it doing to make this possible?

Ash Wyllie

May 29th 07, 07:51 PM

Mxsmanic opined

>Bob Moore writes:

>> An unwanted side-effect of aileron operation is adverse yaw â€” a yawing
>> moment in the opposite direction to the turn generated by the ailerons. In
>> other words, using the ailerons to roll an aircraft to the right would
>> produce a yawing motion to the left. It is caused by an increase in induced
>> drag due to the greater effective camber of the wing with a downward-
>> deflected aileron, and the opposite effect on the other wing. Modern
>> aileron systems have minimal adverse yaw, such that it is barely noticeable
>> in most turns. This may be accomplished by the use of differential
>> ailerons, which have been rigged such that the downgoing aileron deflects
>> less than the upward-moving one. Frise ailerons achieve the same effect by
>> protruding beneath the wing of an upward deflected aileron, increasing drag
>> on that side. Ailerons may also use a combination of these methods.

>Except I do see adverse yaw in turns in my (simulated) Baron, so either the
>simulation is in error, or the AP knows something about making coordinated
>turns without rudder input that I do not.

Looks like you found a simulator error.

Load a 172, and try very slow flight without using the rudder. Use power, hold
altitude and keep slowing until you stall.

You should emd up in a spin.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 08:48 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control
> the rudder?
>

They don't fjukkktard.

Just like you can't.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 08:50 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Rudder use to acheive the objective of keeping the tail lined up with
>> the nose can accurately be said to be relative to aircraft type and
>> airspeed. You need a fair amount of rudder to handle yawfor example
>> in a typical light general aviation type airplane to execute a
>> coordinated turn entry and exit.
>
> So how does the autopilot do it?

It doesn't, fjukkkwit.

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 08:51 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan writes:
>
>> So where is this perfect airplane? I don't know about you, but I need
>> the rudder pedals to fly the aircraft.
>
> But autopilots apparently do not, and that's what puzzles me.

Everything puzzles you fjukkwit, primarily because of your autistic
attitude.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 08:52 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> Autopilots in simulators do not. Actual (that's opposite of virtual)
>> light aircraft need a rudder.
>
> Autopilots on light aircraft do not, and I'd like to know why.
>

Why, , youre never going to fly one anyway, fjukkwit.

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 08:57 PM

Ron Natalie > wrote in news:465c02e7$0$30412
:

> Dan wrote:
> \
>>
>> So where is this perfect airplane? I don't know about you, but I
need
>> the rudder pedals to fly the aircraft.
>
> Get in most any aircraft. Take it to a normal cruise airspeed.
> Put your feet flat on the floor and roll her into a standard rate
> turn. I can almost guarantee the ball will be centered.

No, it won't, actually. The tendency towards adverse yaw is amelierated
in most modern light airplanes, but it's still there. It's just that
most modern airplanes ahve been dumbed down to allow almost co-ordinated
flight without rudder usage, but there isn't a conventional airplane
flying without CAR that is totally co-rdinated in when roll is
introduced, though many come close.
That includes airliners which we fly with feet on the floor most of the
time. Some, on approach, have some sort of third axis feature, but most
are two axis most of the time (exceptying FBW busses and the 777) The
yaw damper does a lot towards co-ordinating, but if you introduce a high
rate of roll, they'll yaw, at least momentarily, the worng direction.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 08:58 PM

Ron Natalie > wrote in news:465c026d$0$30412
:

> Luke Skywalker wrote:
> \
>> Ron...
>>
>> oh my goodness...get some time with a good book on the subject and
>> then a CFI.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
> I have plenty of good books and practice on the subject.

Me too.

You're wrong.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 08:58 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Theune writes:
>
>> What makes you think they do not control the rudder?
>
> The absence of rudder movement, and the expense of providing servos
> for the rudder as well as the ailerones. It's possible that
> autopilots on transport aircraft do control the rudder, but the small
> ones for small aircraft apparently do not.
>

Uou're a fjukkwit and you know nothing about airplanes.

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 08:59 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Moore writes:
>
>> Swept wing and some straight wing aircraft have independent Yaw
>> Damper(s) that control the rudder(s). Their primary function is to
>> control (prevent) dutch roll. They operate with the autopilot on or
>> off.
>
> I'm thinking along the lines of small aircraft such as a C172 or
> Baron. They do not have AP control of the rudder, and yet the AP can
> still execute coordinated turns.

No it can't, fjukkkwit.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 08:59 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Moore writes:
>
>> An unwanted side-effect of aileron operation is adverse yaw â€” a
>> yawing moment in the opposite direction to the turn generated by the
>> ailerons. In other words, using the ailerons to roll an aircraft to
>> the right would produce a yawing motion to the left. It is caused by
>> an increase in induced drag due to the greater effective camber of
>> the wing with a downward- deflected aileron, and the opposite effect
>> on the other wing. Modern aileron systems have minimal adverse yaw,
>> such that it is barely noticeable in most turns. This may be
>> accomplished by the use of differential ailerons, which have been
>> rigged such that the downgoing aileron deflects less than the
>> upward-moving one. Frise ailerons achieve the same effect by
>> protruding beneath the wing of an upward deflected aileron,
>> increasing drag on that side. Ailerons may also use a combination of
>> these methods.
>
> Except I do see adverse yaw in turns in my (simulated) Baron,

It's not a Baron, fjukktarfd, it;s a comnputer.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 09:00 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul kgyy writes:
>
>> As others have posted, most lightplane autopilots don't adjust the
>> rudder for adverse yaw when turning, so you do get a few seconds of
>> slightly uncoordinated flight. However at normal cruise speeds this
>> creates no hazard or discomfort.
>
> So in theory I should be able to turn myself with ailerons only in the
> same way, without the need to use the rudder to stay coordinated.
> What's the secret? Each time I try to turn at the same rate that the
> AP manages, I have to use the rudder to stay coordinated.
>
>> If flying close to stall, the autopilot should be turned off even for
>> straight and level flight. If the airplane is on the verge of
>> stalling and starts to turn because of engine p-factor or any other
>> reason, the autopilot will attempt to correct with aileron. This may
>> actually induce stall on one wing, producing sudden wing drop and a
>> potential spin.
>
> I have an aversion to stalls and I usually stay well away from them.

You're an idiot. You can't stall a computer, fjukkwit.

you can't fly a computer!

Asshole.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 09:02 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> It's honestly just one of those things that do not hold true to form
>> on PC simulators.
>
> Real autopilots on real aircraft do not necessarily have control over
> the real rudders, and yet they execute real coordinated turns without
> those rudders. How do they do it?
>

They don't fjukkwit.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 09:02 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul kgyy writes:
>
>> As Maxwell observes, this may just be a simulator limitation. In
>> actuality, a small amount of rudder should be applied when initiating
>> and recovering from a turn, but once in a constant bank turn, the
>> aircraft will normally be in coordinated flight without rudder
>> application.
>
> But the autopilot has no control over the rudder, and yet the turn is
> coordinated. What is it doing to make this possible?

Your mental condition, apparently.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 09:03 PM

Ron Natalie > wrote in
m:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Not true. The vertical fin can only provide a weather-vane affect
>> when a slip or skid has been induced.
>
> You have no clue what you are talking about. The skid and slip are
> the result of the airplane NOT weather vaning into the wind.

You're wrong, Matt's right.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 09:04 PM

Ron Natalie > wrote in
:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> A vertical stabilizer does not provide any lateral
>> force unless there is some degree of slip or skid.
>
> Precisely! Now you are beginning to understand. As soon
> as uncoordinated flight occurs (skid or slip) the vertical stab
> deflects the aircraft back into the coordinated flight.
>

No, it doesn't.

It can help guide it back towards coordinated flight but it won't center
it there.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 09:32 PM

Erik > wrote in news:135ore2nv2ugk87
@corp.supernews.com:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Dan writes:
>>
>>
>>>So where is this perfect airplane? I don't know about you, but I
need
>>>the rudder pedals to fly the aircraft.
>>
>>
>> But autopilots apparently do not, and that's what puzzles me.
>
> Where the hell is Bertie.
>
> Sorry about the troll thing, you were totally right.

I'm always right. You're forgiven. Your pennance is to bring me some
beer.

Bertie

Erik

May 29th 07, 09:42 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Erik writes:
>
>
>>Autopilots in simulators do not. Actual (that's opposite of virtual)
>>light aircraft need a rudder.
>
>
> Autopilots on light aircraft do not, and I'd like to know why.

See, this is why.

Yes, and you're the resident expert why? Here, here's what you do.
At the main screen (at least on 2004) go down to settings, find the
realism settings button. I know that most of yours are all set to
the most unrealistic, but at least uncheck the autorudder box.
That box is checked by default. Then turn off your damn computer
and shut the **** up.

****wit.

Erik

May 29th 07, 09:48 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

>

<ignorant nonsense snipped>

>

No, this is where you're comparing your simulator to
real life.

Again with the real doll scenario. They're not meant
to actually REPLACE a girlfriend. Oh, right, but you
have no interest in getting laid.

BTW, Anime doesn't count, either.

Erik

May 29th 07, 09:49 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> So in theory I should be able to turn myself with ailerons only in the same
> way, without the need to use the rudder to stay coordinated. What's the
> secret? Each time I try to turn at the same rate that the AP manages, I have
> to use the rudder to stay coordinated.

That's your simulator.

Moron.

Either go out and do it, or stfu

Erik

May 29th 07, 09:50 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> You're an idiot. You can't stall a computer, fjukkwit.
>

Oh, I don't know about that, I bet he could.

Viperdoc[_3_]

May 29th 07, 10:53 PM

The same is pretty much true for the F-16, at least from my less than 100
hours experience. It's usually feet on the floor, and the flight control
system works the various control surfaces..

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 29th 07, 11:12 PM

Is Mxsmanic a Terrorost or a wannabe > wrote in
:

> MXMORON WROTE:
>
>>I have an aversion to stalls and I usually stay well away from them.
>
> People often fear what they don't understand.
>
>

good point well made

bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

May 29th 07, 11:17 PM

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> .
>> On the other hand however, in a T38, you can fly a complete aerobatic
>> sequence including point rolls with both feet planted firmly on the floor
>> of
>> the rudder tunnels.
>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I've always wanted to fly a 38 but never had the opportunity...
> My Super Viking was one of those few GA machines with adequate tail
> volume that you could fly instrument approaches with your feet on the
> floor... Conversely, you could fly the plane nicely without ailerons
> just using that powerful rudder...
>
> One of the little tricks I do when 'unbrain washing' the pilots I have
> helped over the years, is to say to them that: "you have just snapped
> the cables to the ailerons and the elevator... now fly me back to the
> airport without touching the yoke!"... Some have been totally
> helpless... A few have almost instantly figured it out.. And most need
> only be shown how for a few seconds... The majority have been amazed
> after they successfully herded the plane a dozen miles back to the
> airport and it is gratifying to see the light bulb in their head
> suddenly light up as they begin to understand how the controls
> actually work...
>
> denny

I agree with this technique completely and have used it myself when teaching
all through my career.
Dudley Henriques

Maxwell

May 29th 07, 11:25 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> It's honestly just one of those things that do not hold true to form on
>> PC
>> simulators.
>
> Real autopilots on real aircraft do not necessarily have control over the
> real
> rudders, and yet they execute real coordinated turns without those
> rudders.
> How do they do it?

They don't.

>
>> But turns do not always have to be perfectly coordinated.
>
> Why are they more coordinated when performed by the autopilot than when
> performed by the pilot (without rudder)?

They are not.

>
>> Especially shallow ones initiated by wing levelers or low end autopilots.
>
> Autopilots often put the aircraft into a standard-rate turn, which isn't
> exactly shallow, even if it isn't terribly steep.

No, it's not.

Maxwell

May 29th 07, 11:28 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Paul kgyy writes:
>
>> As Maxwell observes, this may just be a simulator limitation. In
>> actuality, a small amount of rudder should be applied when initiating
>> and recovering from a turn, but once in a constant bank turn, the
>> aircraft will normally be in coordinated flight without rudder
>> application.
>
> But the autopilot has no control over the rudder, and yet the turn is
> coordinated. What is it doing to make this possible?

Nothing, the turns are not perfectly coordinated, they don't have to be.

Matt Whiting

May 30th 07, 01:19 AM

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> A vertical stabilizer does not provide any lateral force unless there
>> is some degree of slip or skid.
>
> Precisely! Now you are beginning to understand. As soon
> as uncoordinated flight occurs (skid or slip) the vertical stab
> deflects the aircraft back into the coordinated flight.

It does sounds like you are beginning to understand! With use of the
rudder, you can enter and exit a turn and maintain coordination at all
times. Without rudder and depending on the fin alone, you will be in
and out of coordinated flight as you enter and exit the turn. The
degree of departure from coordinated flight maybe be large or small
depending on the specific airplane and the rate at which you enter and
halt the turn, but without using the rudder, you will NOT be coordinated
at all times.

> That's it's job! It is the primary job to provide the primary
> aerodynamic forces to keep the airplane coordinated.
>
>> In coordinated flight, it is just along for the ride.
>
> Yep, and as soon as something deflects the aircraft from coordinate
> flight, it generates a force to correct it.

Yes, which is precisely what I said at the start. You have to enter
uncoordinated flight for the fin to work. With proper rudder use, you
can remain coordinated at all times (if you are good enough).

>> Many airplanes will oscillate slight in the yaw axis for this reason.
>
> And they oscillate in pitch, and they oscillate in roll. This is
> one of the fundamental modes of stability.

Yes, and that is one reason you have control surfaces, to stop these
oscillations or prevent them.

>> It takes a very large vertical stab to keep the excursions small
>> enough to not be detectable, especially in a longer fuselage
>> airplane. The rudder can provide a side force in anticipation of a
>> slip or skid and thus maintain coordinated flight and never allow the
>> slip or skid to develop in the first place.
>>
> Are you trying to tell me that you sit there and tweak the rudders
> during flight continually to damp yaw oscillations? Don't think
> anybody finds that fun. The few airplanes where it is a persistant
> problem have autopilots that do that, but for most it's unnecessary
> in normal flight regimes.

No, that is what yaw dampers are for. But, yes, I use the rudder and
ailerons and elevator to damp oscillations caused by turbulence when
they exceed a certain threshold. No sense in waiting through several
oscillations when you have the controls to stop it now.

Matt Whiting

May 30th 07, 01:36 AM

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> On May 29, 7:16 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Ron Natalie wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>> Not true. The vertical fin can only provide a weather-vane affect
>>>> when a slip or skid has been induced.
>>> You have no clue what you are talking about. The skid and slip are the
>>> result of the airplane NOT weather vaning into the wind. There are
>>> a number of reasons for this. The primary one in turns is the "adverse
>>> yaw" due to the differing drag caused by the displaced ailerons. Many
>>> designs do a lot of things to mitigate this. Still it takes a lot of
>>> aileron displacement to overcome the natural desire for the airplane
>>> to track into the wind (due to the vertical stab).
>>>> In coordinated flight there is no slip or skid and hence the fin
>>>> provides no lateral force.
>>> This is the definition of coordinated flight, not cause and affect.
>>>> The rudder isn't there to help the vertical stab do its job, it is
>>>> there to do a job that the vertical stab can't do.
>>> Sorry. The incorrect. You need the vertical stab to even fly
>>> coordinated when you are not turning. If it is two small the
>>> airplane will tend to yaw on it's own (the more bulbous your
>>> fuselage, the more this is a probelm...there was a design Piper
>>> tried that used an almost helicopter like bubble on the front...
>>> without the slab sides to help the vertical stab, the plane
>>> just would as well fly slipping as nromal).
>>> The vertical stab is nearly always set up to get the aircraft
>>> to fly coordinated in normal cruise level flight. It is frequently
>>> slightly offset to correct for other aerodynamic unbalances.
>>> The rudder is just at trim to handle other flight regimes.
>>> It's mostly there for the high AOA regimes of Take-off and
>>> landing.
>> I don't know where you got your engineering degree, but you better
>> demand a refund. A vertical stabilizer does not provide any lateral
>> force unless there is some degree of slip or skid. In coordinated
>> flight, it is just along for the ride. Many airplanes will oscillate
>> slight in the yaw axis for this reason. It takes a very large vertical
>> stab to keep the excursions small enough to not be detectable,
>> especially in a longer fuselage airplane. The rudder can provide a side
>> force in anticipation of a slip or skid and thus maintain coordinated
>> flight and never allow the slip or skid to develop in the first place.
>>
>> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> You are assuming that the primary role of the rudder is to fly co-
> ordinated. I would argue the opposite. The primary role of the rudder
> is to fly un-coordinated, such as in a cross-wind landing, forward
> slip, spin etc.. An airplane that always flies perfectly co-ordinated
> (with or without rudder) would be of little use.

I'm not assuming that at all nor did I ever say that. The rudder has
many roles. Coordinating turns is just one of the roles. My point was
simply that the vertical stabilizer alone will not provide a coordinated
turn with an airplane whose ailerons generate any adverse yaw at all.

> Nevertheless, I don't believe your analysis is correct, even from an
> engineering control system point of view. The vertical stab and yaw
> can be thought of as a closed loop system. Yaw is the error signal.
> The vertical stab creates a lateral force that minimizes the error
> signal by providing a negative feedback. One could argue that a
> vertical stab serves no purpose if there is no yaw. But no airplane
> flies perfectly co-ordinated. They continuously slip and skid as they
> fly, and it is the vertical stab that kicks in the feedback to
> stabilize the system. Since the effect of the vertical stab is highly
> dependent on the airspeed, at lower airspeed one would need a bigger
> vertical stab. In other words, you would need an adaptive feedback.
> Since it is clearly not practical to enlarge the vertical stab during
> flight, the next best thing you can do is to rotate it, and this what
> the rudder does. Simply put, a rudder provides the means to enhance
> the effect of the vertical stab during flight.

That is precisely what I said. As a controls engineer, I'm quite
familiar with the operation of control systems. My point was that you
must have an error (yaw) in order for the fin to provide any stabilizing
force. This means that you have to enter uncoordinated flight before it
does anything. The rudder can be used similar to feed-forward control
or model predictive control. When a turn is planned, the rudder can be
applied in coordination with the ailerons to exactly offset the adverse
yaw force and maintain coordination throughout the turn entry. With a
fin alone, the airplane will be uncoordinated during the turn entry and
will only enter coordinated flight again once the transient has been
damped. That is the entire point and is in contrast with Ron's earlier
comment about a rudder not being needed to provide coordinated flight
and only being needed for "outlying" conditions. I guess if you
consider turning the airplane to be an outlying condition, then Ron is
correct.

> The original statement that the rudder simply assists the vertical
> stab at the outlying regions is correct. If a vertical stab could be
> designed such that its effectiveness is independent of airspeed, then
> a rudder won't be necessary to fly co-ordinated. But for reasons I
> stated earlier, such an airplane would still not be very useful.

No, that statement is not correct. The rudder doesn't just assist the
vertical stab, it does things it can't do. The stab can't prevent
unbalanced forces from the ailerons from causing adverse yaw. It will
provide a restoring force once the adverse yaw exists, but it won't
return the airplane to coordinated flight until the unbalanced aileron
forces cease. The rudder CAN prevent adverse yaw by countering the
unbalanced aileron forces BEFORE coordinated flight has departed.

This is a simple concept. Is it really that hard to understand?

It is like the difference between controlling your speed manually in
hilly country vs. using cruise control. If I want to invest the
concentration, I can hold speed much more precisely on hills than can my
car's cruise control. The reason is that I can anticipate the hill and
start feeding in throttle before the car slows down. The cruise
control, OTOH, is like the vertical stab and can't do diddly until after
the car has already begun to slow down as it needs an error signal to
work with. I don't need an error signal and can thus control the speed
more tightly. Same when going over the crest of the hill. I can
anticipate this and back off the throttle before the car beings to gain
speed. Most cruise controls will overshoot at least 2-3 MPH going over
a hill as they need an error in order to start responding and the
natural lag in the system will cause overshoot.

Matt

Matt Whiting

May 30th 07, 01:38 AM

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Then you should know that the vertical stab can't prevent yaw, it can
>> only help eliminate yaw once it occurs as it can't provide any
>> restoring force until some degree of yaw occurs. A rudder an prevent
>> yaw from occurring in the first place. Fundamental difference here.
>>
>
> Nope. In most flight regimes if you displace the rudder you are
> generating yaw not preventing it. What you are trying to wrap
> your brain around is that you can use the rudder to accellerate
> the responsiveness of the vertical stabs natural tendencies,
> but by your own admission, in coordinated flight the stab is
> streamlined.

No, I'm trying to get you to wrap you brain around the fact that the
rudder can act preemptively to prevent a departure from coordinated
flight. The vertical stab can not act preemptively. Fundamental
difference.

Matt

Viperdoc[_4_]

May 30th 07, 01:43 AM

Hey Anthony you butthead- your basic premise is incorrect: the autopilot in
small planes (like the Baron I've flown for around 500 hours) does not do
coordinated turns. Just because there might be some anomalous behavior in
your game does not make is so in real life.

However, so little rudder is needed at speed, it makes no difference if the
ball is halfway out, in terms of comfort. Also, a standard rate turn is not
necessarily a coordinated turn, although some of your statements suggested
that you do not know the difference.

As good as you might think it is, do not mistake the flying model of a $50
computer game with real flying. Your presumed knowledge and the basis of
your questions are obviously limited by the shortcomings of MSFS.

Luke Skywalker

May 30th 07, 02:33 AM

On May 29, 5:40 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Luke Skywalker wrote:
>
> \
>
> > Ron...
>
> > oh my goodness...get some time with a good book on the subject and
> > then a CFI.
>
> > Robert
>
> I have plenty of good books and practice on the subject.
> You should find an aeronautical engineer and find out how
> planes are designed to work.

..Well...you build them, I will fly them and we need the rudder to
coordinate turns particularly but not exclusivly with ailerons.

Robert

Paul kgyy

May 30th 07, 03:40 AM

On May 29, 1:37 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> Why are they more coordinated when performed by the autopilot than when
> performed by the pilot (without rudder)?
>
> > Especially shallow ones initiated by wing levelers or low end autopilots.
>
> Autopilots often put the aircraft into a standard-rate turn, which isn't
> exactly shallow, even if it isn't terribly steep.

They also start the turn rather gradually, which minimizes the adverse
yaw.

If I hand-fly a standard rate turn, the rudder application only lasts
for maybe 3 seconds at the beginning and end of the turn.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

May 30th 07, 03:45 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Rudder use to acheive the objective of keeping the tail lined up with the
>> nose can accurately be said to be relative to aircraft type and airspeed.
>> You need a fair amount of rudder to handle yawfor example in a typical
>> light
>> general aviation type airplane to execute a coordinated turn entry and
>> exit.
>
> So how does the autopilot do it? As far as I understand, autopilots in
> small
> aircraft don't generally have control over the rudder, and yet they can
> execute coordinated turns.

What in the world makes you think that an autopilot can make a "coordinated"
turn without using the rudder if a pilot can't? That's complete and utter
nonsense.

If you have "observed" this then, either A) Your simulation falls a bit
short in terms of simulating how the simulated autopilot works - I assume
it's easier to program a simulated autopilot without adding the "make it
appear un-coordinated" feature. Or, B) You only think that the autopilot
does a much better job than a pilot does - perhaps you are a bit ham-fisted
with your simulation - without ever being in in airplane, it would be easy
to not realize what you are doing given the lack of feedback and the fact
that no one has ever "flown" with you - I find that I "overcontrol" when
flying a sim...

--
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.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

May 30th 07, 04:04 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> Except I do see adverse yaw in turns in my (simulated) Baron, so either
> the
> simulation is in error, or the AP knows something about making coordinated
> turns without rudder input that I do not.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. Either your simulation is in error, or you
havn't mastered the basics yet.

Mystery solved.

--
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.

Andrew Sarangan

May 30th 07, 05:07 AM

On May 29, 8:36 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > On May 29, 7:16 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> Ron Natalie wrote:
> >>> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >>>> Not true. The vertical fin can only provide a weather-vane affect
> >>>> when a slip or skid has been induced.
> >>> You have no clue what you are talking about. The skid and slip are the
> >>> result of the airplane NOT weather vaning into the wind. There are
> >>> a number of reasons for this. The primary one in turns is the "adverse
> >>> yaw" due to the differing drag caused by the displaced ailerons. Many
> >>> designs do a lot of things to mitigate this. Still it takes a lot of
> >>> aileron displacement to overcome the natural desire for the airplane
> >>> to track into the wind (due to the vertical stab).
> >>>> In coordinated flight there is no slip or skid and hence the fin
> >>>> provides no lateral force.
> >>> This is the definition of coordinated flight, not cause and affect.
> >>>> The rudder isn't there to help the vertical stab do its job, it is
> >>>> there to do a job that the vertical stab can't do.
> >>> Sorry. The incorrect. You need the vertical stab to even fly
> >>> coordinated when you are not turning. If it is two small the
> >>> airplane will tend to yaw on it's own (the more bulbous your
> >>> fuselage, the more this is a probelm...there was a design Piper
> >>> tried that used an almost helicopter like bubble on the front...
> >>> without the slab sides to help the vertical stab, the plane
> >>> just would as well fly slipping as nromal).
> >>> The vertical stab is nearly always set up to get the aircraft
> >>> to fly coordinated in normal cruise level flight. It is frequently
> >>> slightly offset to correct for other aerodynamic unbalances.
> >>> The rudder is just at trim to handle other flight regimes.
> >>> It's mostly there for the high AOA regimes of Take-off and
> >>> landing.
> >> I don't know where you got your engineering degree, but you better
> >> demand a refund. A vertical stabilizer does not provide any lateral
> >> force unless there is some degree of slip or skid. In coordinated
> >> flight, it is just along for the ride. Many airplanes will oscillate
> >> slight in the yaw axis for this reason. It takes a very large vertical
> >> stab to keep the excursions small enough to not be detectable,
> >> especially in a longer fuselage airplane. The rudder can provide a side
> >> force in anticipation of a slip or skid and thus maintain coordinated
> >> flight and never allow the slip or skid to develop in the first place.
>
> >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > You are assuming that the primary role of the rudder is to fly co-
> > ordinated. I would argue the opposite. The primary role of the rudder
> > is to fly un-coordinated, such as in a cross-wind landing, forward
> > slip, spin etc.. An airplane that always flies perfectly co-ordinated
> > (with or without rudder) would be of little use.
>
> I'm not assuming that at all nor did I ever say that. The rudder has
> many roles. Coordinating turns is just one of the roles. My point was
> simply that the vertical stabilizer alone will not provide a coordinated
> turn with an airplane whose ailerons generate any adverse yaw at all.
>
> > Nevertheless, I don't believe your analysis is correct, even from an
> > engineering control system point of view. The vertical stab and yaw
> > can be thought of as a closed loop system. Yaw is the error signal.
> > The vertical stab creates a lateral force that minimizes the error
> > signal by providing a negative feedback. One could argue that a
> > vertical stab serves no purpose if there is no yaw. But no airplane
> > flies perfectly co-ordinated. They continuously slip and skid as they
> > fly, and it is the vertical stab that kicks in the feedback to
> > stabilize the system. Since the effect of the vertical stab is highly
> > dependent on the airspeed, at lower airspeed one would need a bigger
> > vertical stab. In other words, you would need an adaptive feedback.
> > Since it is clearly not practical to enlarge the vertical stab during
> > flight, the next best thing you can do is to rotate it, and this what
> > the rudder does. Simply put, a rudder provides the means to enhance
> > the effect of the vertical stab during flight.
>
> That is precisely what I said. As a controls engineer, I'm quite
> familiar with the operation of control systems. My point was that you
> must have an error (yaw) in order for the fin to provide any stabilizing
> force. This means that you have to enter uncoordinated flight before it
> does anything. The rudder can be used similar to feed-forward control
> or model predictive control. When a turn is planned, the rudder can be
> applied in coordination with the ailerons to exactly offset the adverse
> yaw force and maintain coordination throughout the turn entry. With a
> fin alone, the airplane will be uncoordinated during the turn entry and
> will only enter coordinated flight again once the transient has been
> damped. That is the entire point and is in contrast with Ron's earlier
> comment about a rudder not being needed to provide coordinated flight
> and only being needed for "outlying" conditions. I guess if you
> consider turning the airplane to be an outlying condition, then Ron is
> correct.
>
> > The original statement that the rudder simply assists the vertical
> > stab at the outlying regions is correct. If a vertical stab could be
> > designed such that its effectiveness is independent of airspeed, then
> > a rudder won't be necessary to fly co-ordinated. But for reasons I
> > stated earlier, such an airplane would still not be very useful.
>
> No, that statement is not correct. The rudder doesn't just assist the
> vertical stab, it does things it can't do. The stab can't prevent
> unbalanced forces from the ailerons from causing adverse yaw. It will
> provide a restoring force once the adverse yaw exists, but it won't
> return the airplane to coordinated flight until the unbalanced aileron
> forces cease. The rudder CAN prevent adverse yaw by countering the
> unbalanced aileron forces BEFORE coordinated flight has departed.
>
> This is a simple concept. Is it really that hard to understand?
>
> It is like the difference between controlling your speed manually in
> hilly country vs. using cruise control. If I want to invest the
> concentration, I can hold speed much more precisely on hills than can my
> car's cruise control. The reason is that I can anticipate the hill and
> start feeding in throttle before the car slows down. The cruise
> control, OTOH, is like the vertical stab and can't do diddly until after
> the car has already begun to slow down as it needs an error signal to
> work with. I don't need an error signal and can thus control the speed
> more tightly. Same when going over the crest of the hill. I can
> anticipate this and back off the throttle before the car beings to gain
> speed. Most cruise controls will overshoot at least 2-3 MPH going over
> a hill as they need an error in order to start responding and the
> natural lag in the system will cause overshoot.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your analogy with driving tells me a little about your line of
thinking. In that case, why does the car to slow down when it hits a
steep hill? It is due to the inability of the engine to respond fast
enough for the sudden demand in power. Obviously, the cruise control
does a pretty good job over small hills otherwise we would not be
using them at all. If the engine were powerful enough and had a quick
response, it should be able to maintain a constant speed over a steep
hill. When you manually apply some extra throttle in anticipation of
the approaching the hill, you are in fact 'helping' the cruise control
do its job better. You are not doing something the cruise control is
inherently incapable of doing. You are simply reducing the transient
period. If left to its own device, the cruise control should
eventually reach the set cruise speed over the hill, unless the engine
is too small for the hill.

Consider an imaginary airplane with an infinitely large vertical fin.
Would it need rudder to fly co-ordinated? I hope you would agree that
the answer is no. The infinitely sized fin will generate an infinite
restoring force, which really means the airplane will never deviate
from co-ordinated flight. Now reduce the fin size to something smaller
and practical. The restoring force will also scale down. In this case,
the force may not be large enough to restore co-ordinated flight in
all possible scenarios, such as slow flight and steep turns. In some
cases it may experience a longer transient, and in some cases it may
not reach co-ordinated flight at all. It all depends on how large the
fin is, and how much air is flowing around it. In such cases where the
fin can't do its job satisfactorily, the rudder is used to help it
along.

So I still do not see your line of thinking.

P.S. I am continuing this discussion only because you seem to be
capable of carrying on a civil discussion even though we disagree.
Please do not be influenced by "Bertie the Bunyip", "Maxwell" and
"Erik" etc.. who have never had anything useful to say.

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 06:03 AM

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:

> What in the world makes you think that an autopilot can make a "coordinated"
> turn without using the rudder if a pilot can't?

Presumably a pilot can; I want to know how. And nobody has been able to tell
me thus far.

> If you have "observed" this then, either A) Your simulation falls a bit
> short in terms of simulating how the simulated autopilot works - I assume
> it's easier to program a simulated autopilot without adding the "make it
> appear un-coordinated" feature. Or, B) You only think that the autopilot
> does a much better job than a pilot does - perhaps you are a bit ham-fisted
> with your simulation - without ever being in in airplane, it would be easy
> to not realize what you are doing given the lack of feedback and the fact
> that no one has ever "flown" with you - I find that I "overcontrol" when
> flying a sim...

Or (C) nobody here has a clue and nobody wants to admit it, even though their
argument among themselves makes it obvious.

Do you know how it's done, or don't you?

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 06:06 AM

Ash Wyllie writes:

> Looks like you found a simulator error.
>
> Load a 172, and try very slow flight without using the rudder. Use power, hold
> altitude and keep slowing until you stall.
>
> You should emd up in a spin.

Why would I do that? It has nothing to do with my question: How can
autopilots make coordinated turns without control of the rudder?

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 06:07 AM

Paul kgyy writes:

> They also start the turn rather gradually, which minimizes the adverse
> yaw.

They turn quickly considering that they are not touching the rudder. I want
to know how they do it.

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 06:08 AM

Maxwell writes:

> Nothing, the turns are not perfectly coordinated, they don't have to be.

The ball hardly moves. It moves a lot more if I attempt to roll into a turn
myself without using the rudder. Why?

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 06:08 AM

Is Mxsmanic a Terrorost or a wannabe writes:

> People often fear what they don't understand.

People often fear things that they should fear, too.

Maxwell

May 30th 07, 06:11 AM

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> P.S. I am continuing this discussion only because you seem to be
> capable of carrying on a civil discussion even though we disagree.
> Please do not be influenced by "Bertie the Bunyip", "Maxwell" and
> "Erik" etc.. who have never had anything useful to say.

Perhaps you should read a little more and type a little less yourself.

MX posts a stupid and useless question, in a single sentence no less, like:

"How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
rudder?

And you morons struggle for days, wasting hours of your time, nit picking
every possible aspect of the issue literally to DEATH - while he sits back
enjoying the party and contemplates his next one liner. And just because
some of us don't chime in and join the useless "nit pick", you want to
openly accuse us of having nothing useful to add.

Wake up and smell the coffee chump, you are being played like a grand piano
by simple social outcast with minimal trolling skills.

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 06:11 AM

Viperdoc writes:

> Hey Anthony you butthead- your basic premise is incorrect: the autopilot in
> small planes (like the Baron I've flown for around 500 hours) does not do
> coordinated turns. Just because there might be some anomalous behavior in
> your game does not make is so in real life.

There is no anomaly in the game. The only anomaly I see is that nobody here
knows the answer. Lots of people strutting about and claiming to be experts,
and calling each other stupid, but nobody really knows, and that is pretty
glaringly obvious to the observer.

> However, so little rudder is needed at speed, it makes no difference if the
> ball is halfway out, in terms of comfort.

Then my attempts to keep it centered with the rudder are not necessary,
either.

> Also, a standard rate turn is not
> necessarily a coordinated turn, although some of your statements suggested
> that you do not know the difference.

I know the difference.

> As good as you might think it is, do not mistake the flying model of a $50
> computer game with real flying. Your presumed knowledge and the basis of
> your questions are obviously limited by the shortcomings of MSFS.

Do not assume that every anomaly is a simulator defect. The simulator is a
lot better than you think. Indeed, it predicts the behavior of an aircraft a
lot better than anyone here does.

Maxwell

May 30th 07, 06:18 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
>> What in the world makes you think that an autopilot can make a
>> "coordinated"
>> turn without using the rudder if a pilot can't?
>
> Presumably a pilot can; I want to know how. And nobody has been able to
> tell
> me thus far.
>
>> If you have "observed" this then, either A) Your simulation falls a bit
>> short in terms of simulating how the simulated autopilot works - I assume
>> it's easier to program a simulated autopilot without adding the "make it
>> appear un-coordinated" feature. Or, B) You only think that the autopilot
>> does a much better job than a pilot does - perhaps you are a bit
>> ham-fisted
>> with your simulation - without ever being in in airplane, it would be
>> easy
>> to not realize what you are doing given the lack of feedback and the fact
>> that no one has ever "flown" with you - I find that I "overcontrol" when
>> flying a sim...
>
> Or (C) nobody here has a clue and nobody wants to admit it, even though
> their
> argument among themselves makes it obvious.
>
> Do you know how it's done, or don't you?

BS, you're just trying to fuel the nit fest.

Maxwell

May 30th 07, 06:19 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ash Wyllie writes:
>
>> Looks like you found a simulator error.
>>
>> Load a 172, and try very slow flight without using the rudder. Use power,
>> hold
>> altitude and keep slowing until you stall.
>>
>> You should emd up in a spin.
>
> Why would I do that? It has nothing to do with my question: How can
> autopilots make coordinated turns without control of the rudder?

They don't moron, and you have been told. It's just not necessary. Sorry
your sim can't duplicate it.

Maxwell

May 30th 07, 06:20 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Paul kgyy writes:
>
>> They also start the turn rather gradually, which minimizes the adverse
>> yaw.
>
> They turn quickly considering that they are not touching the rudder. I
> want
> to know how they do it.

They don't and you know it. You're just trolling.

Maxwell

May 30th 07, 06:20 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Nothing, the turns are not perfectly coordinated, they don't have to be.
>
> The ball hardly moves. It moves a lot more if I attempt to roll into a
> turn
> myself without using the rudder. Why?

HELLO!!! YOU'RE FLYING A DESK YOU MORON!!!!

[email protected]

May 30th 07, 06:25 AM

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

> Your analogy with driving tells me a little about your line of
> thinking. In that case, why does the car to slow down when it hits a
> steep hill? It is due to the inability of the engine to respond fast
> enough for the sudden demand in power.

No, it is because there is always a lag in a real world feedback control
system or it goes into oscillation.

The lag is due to what is called the margin of stability.

It is possible to design a control system that is virtually instantaneous.

This is called a critically damped system.

The problem with that is that if anything changes, like linkages wear,
the system can easily go underdamped and it goes into oscillation.

You don't want to be in a vehicle at 65 MPH with the cruise control
going into oscillation.

So for safety, cruise control systems are over damped, i.e. have a
large margin of stability.

For a fair explanation of control systems and stability, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory

<snip rest>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Maxwell

May 30th 07, 06:32 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then my attempts to keep it centered with the rudder are not necessary,
> either.

That's correct, and if you sim doesn't work that way, it's wrong.

>
>> Also, a standard rate turn is not
>> necessarily a coordinated turn, although some of your statements
>> suggested
>> that you do not know the difference.
>
> I know the difference.

Apparently not.

>
>> As good as you might think it is, do not mistake the flying model of a
>> $50
>> computer game with real flying. Your presumed knowledge and the basis of
>> your questions are obviously limited by the shortcomings of MSFS.
>
> Do not assume that every anomaly is a simulator defect. The simulator is
> a
> lot better than you think. Indeed, it predicts the behavior of an
> aircraft a
> lot better than anyone here does.

Only in your mind, moron, only in you mind.

John Theune

May 30th 07, 11:21 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
>> What in the world makes you think that an autopilot can make a "coordinated"
>> turn without using the rudder if a pilot can't?
>
> Presumably a pilot can; I want to know how. And nobody has been able to tell
> me thus far.
>
>> If you have "observed" this then, either A) Your simulation falls a bit
>> short in terms of simulating how the simulated autopilot works - I assume
>> it's easier to program a simulated autopilot without adding the "make it
>> appear un-coordinated" feature. Or, B) You only think that the autopilot
>> does a much better job than a pilot does - perhaps you are a bit ham-fisted
>> with your simulation - without ever being in in airplane, it would be easy
>> to not realize what you are doing given the lack of feedback and the fact
>> that no one has ever "flown" with you - I find that I "overcontrol" when
>> flying a sim...
>
> Or (C) nobody here has a clue and nobody wants to admit it, even though their
> argument among themselves makes it obvious.
>
> Do you know how it's done, or don't you?
Or D: Nobody wants to answer your question.

Matt Whiting

May 30th 07, 11:57 AM

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Your analogy with driving tells me a little about your line of
> thinking. In that case, why does the car to slow down when it hits a
> steep hill? It is due to the inability of the engine to respond fast
> enough for the sudden demand in power. Obviously, the cruise control
> does a pretty good job over small hills otherwise we would not be
> using them at all. If the engine were powerful enough and had a quick
> response, it should be able to maintain a constant speed over a steep
> hill. When you manually apply some extra throttle in anticipation of
> the approaching the hill, you are in fact 'helping' the cruise control
> do its job better. You are not doing something the cruise control is
> inherently incapable of doing. You are simply reducing the transient
> period. If left to its own device, the cruise control should
> eventually reach the set cruise speed over the hill, unless the engine
> is too small for the hill.

No, it still isn't the same. No matter how large the engine, or how
fast it responds, the end result is that a control system takes no
action until an error is present. So at least SOME loss or gain in
speed is required for the cruise to work, that is inherent in any
feedback control system. Sure, if you can measure the error with
greater resolution, and have a very large actuator with very fast
response, you can make the amount of divergence from set point ever
smaller, but you can't take it to zero.

> Consider an imaginary airplane with an infinitely large vertical fin.
> Would it need rudder to fly co-ordinated? I hope you would agree that
> the answer is no. The infinitely sized fin will generate an infinite
> restoring force, which really means the airplane will never deviate
> from co-ordinated flight. Now reduce the fin size to something smaller
> and practical. The restoring force will also scale down. In this case,
> the force may not be large enough to restore co-ordinated flight in
> all possible scenarios, such as slow flight and steep turns. In some
> cases it may experience a longer transient, and in some cases it may
> not reach co-ordinated flight at all. It all depends on how large the
> fin is, and how much air is flowing around it. In such cases where the
> fin can't do its job satisfactorily, the rudder is used to help it
> along.

Same here. An infinitely large fin has infinite drag and thus the
airplane would not fly so stability would not be an issue. :-)
However, for any practical airplane with any adverse yaw forces during a
turn, a fin alone will not maintain coordinated flight. A larger fin on
a longer tail will get closer to be sure, but at least SOME yaw
divergence is required for the fin to work. It is inherent in the way
it works. There simply is not way to eliminate that fact. A rudder
works differently since it gets its ability to act from other than
aerodynamic forces (the pilot pushing on the rudder provides the
actuation force). The rudder than thus provide yaw forces independent
of any yaw displacement. The fin simply can't do this.

> So I still do not see your line of thinking.

Well, I've given it my best shot, so I'll sign off now. I can't think
of any other way to explain it.

Matt

Ash Wyllie

May 30th 07, 12:28 PM

Mxsmanic opined

>Ash Wyllie writes:

>> Looks like you found a simulator error.
>>
>> Load a 172, and try very slow flight without using the rudder. Use power,
>> hold altitude and keep slowing until you stall.
>>
>> You should emd up in a spin.

>Why would I do that? It has nothing to do with my question: How can
>autopilots make coordinated turns without control of the rudder?

1) To test the simulator.

2) Newer light aircraft are designed so that at cruise speed and small aileron
deflections rudder input is not needed.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 01:05 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Hey Anthony you butthead- your basic premise is incorrect: the
>> autopilot in small planes (like the Baron I've flown for around 500
>> hours) does not do coordinated turns. Just because there might be
>> some anomalous behavior in your game does not make is so in real
>> life.
>
> There is no anomaly in the game. The only anomaly I see is that
> nobody here knows the answer.

Yeah, right, fjukktyard

Berti e

Viperdoc[_4_]

May 30th 07, 01:05 PM

Just to reiterate- the autopilot does not do a coordinated turn. It may do
so in your game. It may be different when hand flying versus while on
autopilot, but this is in your game.

I have many hours in a real Baron and this is how it works. Some real
planes require more or less rudder, as others have pointed out. My Extra
takes a little rudder pressure for a coordinated turn, while even with my
limited time in F-16's, it's pretty much feet on the floor.

You try to look for answers based upon some premise that your game is a real
representation of an actual flying experience. Yet, MSFS is notably week in
some areas, like the Extra, where the roll rate and flying model are nowhere
close to reality. The Baron model is far from accurate, and even the
multimillion dollar one I rode in at Simcomm wasn't that close.

Why can't you accept this and stop trolling? As good as it might be, it is
still just a game you're playing.
..

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 01:06 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Is Mxsmanic a Terrorost or a wannabe writes:
>
>> People often fear what they don't understand.
>
> People often fear things that they should fear, too.
>

Which is why you never come out of your room.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 01:07 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul kgyy writes:
>
>> They also start the turn rather gradually, which minimizes the
>> adverse yaw.
>
> They turn quickly considering that they are not touching the rudder.
> I want to know how they do it.

Tough ****, noone is going to tell you.

Unless you send me $300

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 01:08 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ash Wyllie writes:
>
>> Looks like you found a simulator error.
>>
>> Load a 172, and try very slow flight without using the rudder. Use
>> power, hold altitude and keep slowing until you stall.
>>
>> You should emd up in a spin.
>
> Why would I do that? It has nothing to do with my question: How can
> autopilots make coordinated turns without control of the rudder?

it has everythign to do wiht your question, fjukktard.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 01:10 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
>> What in the world makes you think that an autopilot can make a
>> "coordinated" turn without using the rudder if a pilot can't?
>
> Presumably a pilot can; I want to know how. And nobody has been able
> to tell me thus far.
>

I can, but I won;t because you're an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 01:11 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Nothing, the turns are not perfectly coordinated, they don't have to
>> be.
>
> The ball hardly moves.

There's no ball, there's no ruddrr. there's no airplane, fjukkwit.

it's a computer..

Bertie

Andrew Sarangan

May 30th 07, 04:26 PM

On May 30, 1:11 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> Perhaps you should read a little more and type a little less yourself.
>
> MX posts a stupid and useless question, in a single sentence no less, like:
>
> "How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
> rudder?
>
> And you morons struggle for days, wasting hours of your time, nit picking
> every possible aspect of the issue literally to DEATH - while he sits back
> enjoying the party and contemplates his next one liner. And just because
> some of us don't chime in and join the useless "nit pick", you want to
> openly accuse us of having nothing useful to add.
>
> Wake up and smell the coffee chump, you are being played like a grand piano
> by simple social outcast with minimal trolling skills.

You and your friends have been cluttering up this newsgroup far more
than MX, and your posts are more abusive. I have never seen MX call
anyone a moron, but you seem to have no difficulty coming up with
creative was to abuse others.

Maxwell

May 30th 07, 04:37 PM

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 30, 1:11 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>> Perhaps you should read a little more and type a little less yourself.
>>
>> MX posts a stupid and useless question, in a single sentence no less,
>> like:
>>
>> "How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control
>> the
>> rudder?
>>
>> And you morons struggle for days, wasting hours of your time, nit picking
>> every possible aspect of the issue literally to DEATH - while he sits
>> back
>> enjoying the party and contemplates his next one liner. And just because
>> some of us don't chime in and join the useless "nit pick", you want to
>> openly accuse us of having nothing useful to add.
>>
>> Wake up and smell the coffee chump, you are being played like a grand
>> piano
>> by simple social outcast with minimal trolling skills.
>
> You and your friends have been cluttering up this newsgroup far more
> than MX, and your posts are more abusive. I have never seen MX call
> anyone a moron, but you seem to have no difficulty coming up with
> creative was to abuse others.
>

And I suppose you never considered that many others feel your relentless
nick picking of one of MXs senseless questions is considered just as much
clutter. Your just feeding the troll.

Andrew Sarangan

May 30th 07, 06:58 PM

On May 30, 11:37 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 1:11 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> >> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> >> Perhaps you should read a little more and type a little less yourself.
>
> >> MX posts a stupid and useless question, in a single sentence no less,
> >> like:
>
> >> "How do autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control
> >> the
> >> rudder?
>
> >> And you morons struggle for days, wasting hours of your time, nit picking
> >> every possible aspect of the issue literally to DEATH - while he sits
> >> back
> >> enjoying the party and contemplates his next one liner. And just because
> >> some of us don't chime in and join the useless "nit pick", you want to
> >> openly accuse us of having nothing useful to add.
>
> >> Wake up and smell the coffee chump, you are being played like a grand
> >> piano
> >> by simple social outcast with minimal trolling skills.
>
> > You and your friends have been cluttering up this newsgroup far more
> > than MX, and your posts are more abusive. I have never seen MX call
> > anyone a moron, but you seem to have no difficulty coming up with
> > creative was to abuse others.
>
> And I suppose you never considered that many others feel your relentless
> nick picking of one of MXs senseless questions is considered just as much
> clutter. Your just feeding the troll.- Hide quoted text -
>

Opionions of people with fictitous names don't mean a thing, because
they don't carry any responsibility for what they say. No one takes
these posts seriously. There are many of us who have participated here
for over a decade using our true identity. No, Bertie the Bunyip is
not one of them.

I have given you more time than you are worth, so I will stop now.

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 06:58 PM

John Theune writes:

> Or D: Nobody wants to answer your question.

Rest assured, if some of the most vocal posters here actually knew the correct
answer, their egos would compel them to immediately provide it for all to see.
It's much more satisfying to such people to post a correct answer than it is
for them to pretend they have the answer and just don't want to reveal it.

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 07:00 PM

Ash Wyllie writes:

> 2) Newer light aircraft are designed so that at cruise speed and small aileron
> deflections rudder input is not needed.

But the AP aileron deflections do not appear to be small, as it rolls the
aircraft rapidly and smoothly into a coordinated turn. And this is on an
aircraft designed sixty years ago.

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 07:04 PM

Viperdoc writes:

> Just to reiterate- the autopilot does not do a coordinated turn.

Yes, it does, at least according to the turn indicator.

> I have many hours in a real Baron and this is how it works. Some real
> planes require more or less rudder, as others have pointed out. My Extra
> takes a little rudder pressure for a coordinated turn, while even with my
> limited time in F-16's, it's pretty much feet on the floor.

I was talking about the autopilot, not the human pilot.

> You try to look for answers based upon some premise that your game is a real
> representation of an actual flying experience.

Some try to conceal their lack of answers by claiming that a simulation isn't
like real life. But my simulator predicts the behavior of an aircraft a lot
better than anyone here apparently can.

> Yet, MSFS is notably week in
> some areas, like the Extra, where the roll rate and flying model are nowhere
> close to reality.

I'm not flying an Extra.

> The Baron model is far from accurate, and even the
> multimillion dollar one I rode in at Simcomm wasn't that close.

What errors are there in the simulated model? Be specific.

> Why can't you accept this and stop trolling? As good as it might be, it is
> still just a game you're playing.

Because I know I'm right. The more huffing and puffing I see here, the more
proof I see that I'm right.

Someone who actually knows doesn't have to pretend.

Mxsmanic

May 30th 07, 07:04 PM

Nomen Nescio writes:

> How many goddam times do we have to tell you that the rudder / yaw response
> is poorly modeled in MSFS.

No number of times will change anything unless you can substantiate your
claims.

BDS[_2_]

May 30th 07, 07:18 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> But the AP aileron deflections do not appear to be small, as it rolls the
> aircraft rapidly and smoothly into a coordinated turn. And this is on an
> aircraft designed sixty years ago.

Piper, Mooney, and Beechcraft (to name a few) all produced aircraft with
mechanically coupled rudder/aileron systems at one time or another, and may
still do so.

If you're really interested in which aircraft models had them and how they
work I suggest a web search - the info is out there.

BDS

Gig 601XL Builder

May 30th 07, 07:26 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Because I know I'm right. The more huffing and puffing I see here,
> the more proof I see that I'm right.
>

What are you right about? You asked a question. Several folks answered it.

Bob Crawford

May 30th 07, 07:27 PM

On May 30, 2:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:
> > How many goddam times do we have to tell you that the rudder / yaw response
> > is poorly modeled in MSFS.
>
> No number of times will change anything unless you can substantiate your
> claims.

How do you substantiate your initial claim that "[Real life GA]
autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
rudder"?

The only proof of this supposed phenomenon you've provided is that it
occurs in MSFS.
Additionally you've offered no proof that MSFS models autopilot
behaviour correctly in this respect. (If you could provide such
proof, I suspect it would also provide an answer to your own original
question).

With that in mind, and given the statements from real life pilots that
real life autopilots do not behave as you describe the MSFS autopilot
doing, a poorly modelled rudder / yaw response or AP seems like a
perfectly logical conclusion.

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 07:48 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Just to reiterate- the autopilot does not do a coordinated turn.
>
> Yes, it does, at least according to the turn indicator.

no it doesn,t and that's not a turn coordintsaor it';s a bunch of
electrons.

>
>> I have many hours in a real Baron and this is how it works. Some
>> real planes require more or less rudder, as others have pointed out.
>> My Extra takes a little rudder pressure for a coordinated turn, while
>> even with my limited time in F-16's, it's pretty much feet on the
>> floor.
>
> I was talking about the autopilot, not the human pilot.

No, you;'re toaling about a computer.

>
>> You try to look for answers based upon some premise that your game is
>> a real representation of an actual flying experience.
>
> Some try to conceal their lack of answers by claiming that a
> simulation isn't like real life. But my simulator predicts the
> behavior of an aircraft a lot better than anyone here apparently can.
>
>> Yet, MSFS is notably week in
>> some areas, like the Extra, where the roll rate and flying model are
>> nowhere close to reality.
>
> I'm not flying an Extra.

You're not flying anything.

>
>> The Baron model is far from accurate, and even the
>> multimillion dollar one I rode in at Simcomm wasn't that close.
>
> What errors are there in the simulated model? Be specific.
>
>> Why can't you accept this and stop trolling? As good as it might be,
>> it is still just a game you're playing.
>
> Because I know I'm right. The more huffing and puffing I see here,
> the more proof I see that I'm right.

You're an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 07:49 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> How many goddam times do we have to tell you that the rudder / yaw
>> response is poorly modeled in MSFS.
>
> No number of times will change anything unless you can substantiate
> your claims.
>

And that's all folks.

Bertie

Maxwell

May 30th 07, 07:52 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Theune writes:
>
>> Or D: Nobody wants to answer your question.
>
> Rest assured, if some of the most vocal posters here actually knew the
> correct
> answer, their egos would compel them to immediately provide it for all to
> see.
> It's much more satisfying to such people to post a correct answer than it
> is
> for them to pretend they have the answer and just don't want to reveal it.

They you go, appeal to their egos!

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 08:00 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ash Wyllie writes:
>
>> 2) Newer light aircraft are designed so that at cruise speed and
>> small aileron
>> deflections rudder input is not needed.
>
> But the AP aileron deflections do not appear to be small, as it rolls
> the aircraft rapidly and smoothly into a coordinated turn. And this
> is on an aircraft designed sixty years ago.

You're a kno nothing idiot.

Berit e

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 30th 07, 08:01 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Theune writes:
>
>> Or D: Nobody wants to answer your question.
>
> Rest assured, if some of the most vocal posters here actually knew the
> correct answer, their egos would compel them to immediately provide it
> for all to see.

Nope, I know and i'm not going to tell you because it would be a wast e of
time, wheras i get a great deal of enjoyment form calling you a fjukkwit.

Besides, some have actualy posted the correect answer and because of your
autistic view of the world you can't see it.

Fjukkwit.

Bertie

george

May 30th 07, 09:56 PM

On May 29, 2:43 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I have an aversion to stalls and I usually stay well away from them.

Why don't you like flying real aeroplanes?
Solution
you are afraid of stalling so you'd never be able to land

Snowbird

May 30th 07, 10:51 PM

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
> What errors are there in the simulated model? Be specific.
>

MSFS has for a long time been known to have a rather inaccurate flight
model. MS tends to focus on the eye candy aspects of simulation.

In my own experience, the stall/spin entry behavior is an easily explored
area which quite clearly reveals the inadequacies of MSFS' flight modeling
as compared to the real world. And it reflects of course as well in other
areas of the flight envelope.

Years ago I flew extensively with a popular WWII networked combat airplane
simulator (Warbirds). One of its claims to fame was that its flight dynamics
model was based on actual real-time calculation of the motional differential
equations that govern the flight dynamics of an aircraft. This in contrast
to the "simplistic table-driven flight dynamics model of the mainstream PC
simulators" probably referring to MSFS.
Marketing talk aside, I found that simulator MUCH more realistic in the
flight dynamics modeling than MSFS. Especially at the edges of the flight
envelope, where the differences between different airplanes were very
significant. Different airplanes bite you in different ways ;-)

[email protected]

May 30th 07, 10:55 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Theune writes:

> > Or D: Nobody wants to answer your question.

> Rest assured, if some of the most vocal posters here actually knew the correct
> answer, their egos would compel them to immediately provide it for all to see.
> It's much more satisfying to such people to post a correct answer than it is
> for them to pretend they have the answer and just don't want to reveal it.

Or most posters have decided that you are such an arrogant, self-righteous,
nit-picking, trolling, whinny, thick-headed, obnoxious snot you can
go **** up a rope.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

May 30th 07, 11:08 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
<...>
> Do you know how it's done, or don't you?

Yes I do. And I will repeat the answer one last time.

Your simulated autopilot in your simulated Baron appears to make
"coordinated turns" without using the simulated rudder because that's how
Microsoft wrote the software. (I had considered the posibility that you were
having problems flying, but based on other comments it now appears to me
that the problem really is with the autopilot code in your simulator).

Flesh and blood Barons do _not_, however, make coordinated turns without
using the rudder when flown by _either_ the human or auto pilots. (Confirmed
by Mr. Viperodoc who happens to actually own one - as you know). However, in
this case, the turns are close enough for government work.
Other aircraft are different. Some use things like Friese ailerons or
aileron/rudder interconnects to make it easy for the pilot and will make
coordinated turns across a limited speed range without the use of the
rudder. Some aircraft don't even have rudder pedals for the pilot to use.

Many very efficient aircraft (e.g. Nimbus III, ASH-25) typically require
LOTS of rudder to keep turns coordinated because they are designed to be
efficient, not to make it easy for lazy pilots. Adding an autopilot will not
change this. However, a simulated Nimbus could be made to do whatever the
programmer wants.

In summary - the answer to your original question is: "Your simulated
autopilot does not reflect actual aircraft capability and/or behavior."

--
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.

Kloudy via AviationKB.com

May 30th 07, 11:08 PM

jesus...this is a bizarre thread.
I have never seen a troller so well fed.

wrote:
>> > Or D: Nobody wants to answer your question.
>
>> Rest assured, if some of the most vocal posters here actually knew the correct
>> answer, their egos would compel them to immediately provide it for all to see.
>> It's much more satisfying to such people to post a correct answer than it is
>> for them to pretend they have the answer and just don't want to reveal it.
>
>Or most posters have decided that you are such an arrogant, self-righteous,
>nit-picking, trolling, whinny, thick-headed, obnoxious snot you can
>go **** up a rope.
>

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

Viperdoc[_4_]

May 30th 07, 11:45 PM

OK- one more time: I fly a real Baron with an autopilot, and I can
categorically tell you that the autopilot does not command a coordinated
turn. However, the plane itself does not have a lot of adverse yaw, and even
at a standard rate turn it only goes around half a ball into the turn on the
TC. It is not noticeable by any seat of the pants criteria.

This is the way a real Baron flies, and I have been in more than a few.

If you believe that your game is more accurate than a real plane with a real
pilot, you are more delusional than you appear. Your game lacks an accurate
representation of the actual behavior of a real plane, as it also does for
the Extra, where it is especially weak.

Unless you've flown a real Baron (or Extra) as well as played MSFS, you have
no basis of comparison.

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 01:51 AM

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
news:nPSdnV8rxqg8aMDbnZ2dnUVZ_qiqnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>>
> <...>
>> Do you know how it's done, or don't you?
>
> Yes I do. And I will repeat the answer one last time.
>
> Your simulated autopilot in your simulated Baron appears to make
> "coordinated turns" without using the simulated rudder because that's
> how Microsoft wrote the software. (I had considered the posibility
> that you were having problems flying, but based on other comments it
> now appears to me that the problem really is with the autopilot code
> in your simulator).
>
> Flesh and blood Barons do _not_, however, make coordinated turns
> without using the rudder when flown by _either_ the human or auto
> pilots. (Confirmed by Mr. Viperodoc who happens to actually own one -
> as you know). However, in this case, the turns are close enough for
> government work. Other aircraft are different. Some use things like
> Friese ailerons or aileron/rudder interconnects to make it easy for
> the pilot and will make coordinated turns across a limited speed range
> without the use of the rudder. Some aircraft don't even have rudder
> pedals for the pilot to use.
>
> Many very efficient aircraft (e.g. Nimbus III, ASH-25) typically
> require LOTS of rudder to keep turns coordinated because they are
> designed to be efficient, not to make it easy for lazy pilots. Adding
> an autopilot will not change this. However, a simulated Nimbus could
> be made to do whatever the programmer wants.
>
> In summary - the answer to your original question is: "Your simulated
> autopilot does not reflect actual aircraft capability and/or
> behavior."
>

wow, talk about wasting band width, d00d.

?want to try and explain it to my pet stoat next?

He'd have a better chance of understanding it.

Bertie

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

May 31st 07, 02:08 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
<...>
>What errors are there in the simulated model? Be specific.

The autopilot makes coordinated turns even though it is not supposed to be
connected to the rudder.

Specific enough?

--
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.

Luke Skywalker

May 31st 07, 02:08 AM

On May 30, 5:57 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > Your analogy with driving tells me a little about your line of
> > thinking. In that case, why does the car to slow down when it hits a
> > steep hill? It is due to the inability of the engine to respond fast
> > enough for the sudden demand in power. Obviously, the cruise control
> > does a pretty good job over small hills otherwise we would not be
> > using them at all. If the engine were powerful enough and had a quick
> > response, it should be able to maintain a constant speed over a steep
> > hill. When you manually apply some extra throttle in anticipation of
> > the approaching the hill, you are in fact 'helping' the cruise control
> > do its job better. You are not doing something the cruise control is
> > inherently incapable of doing. You are simply reducing the transient
> > period. If left to its own device, the cruise control should
> > eventually reach the set cruise speed over the hill, unless the engine
> > is too small for the hill.
>
> No, it still isn't the same. No matter how large the engine, or how
> fast it responds, the end result is that a control system takes no
> action until an error is present. So at least SOME loss or gain in
> speed is required for the cruise to work, that is inherent in any
> feedback control system. Sure, if you can measure the error with
> greater resolution, and have a very large actuator with very fast
> response, you can make the amount of divergence from set point ever
> smaller, but you can't take it to zero.
>
> > Consider an imaginary airplane with an infinitely large vertical fin.
> > Would it need rudder to fly co-ordinated? I hope you would agree that
> > the answer is no. The infinitely sized fin will generate an infinite
> > restoring force, which really means the airplane will never deviate
> > from co-ordinated flight. Now reduce the fin size to something smaller
> > and practical. The restoring force will also scale down. In this case,
> > the force may not be large enough to restore co-ordinated flight in
> > all possible scenarios, such as slow flight and steep turns. In some
> > cases it may experience a longer transient, and in some cases it may
> > not reach co-ordinated flight at all. It all depends on how large the
> > fin is, and how much air is flowing around it. In such cases where the
> > fin can't do its job satisfactorily, the rudder is used to help it
> > along.
>
> Same here. An infinitely large fin has infinite drag and thus the
> airplane would not fly so stability would not be an issue. :-)
> However, for any practical airplane with any adverse yaw forces during a
> turn, a fin alone will not maintain coordinated flight. A larger fin on
> a longer tail will get closer to be sure, but at least SOME yaw
> divergence is required for the fin to work. It is inherent in the way
> it works. There simply is not way to eliminate that fact. A rudder
> works differently since it gets its ability to act from other than
> aerodynamic forces (the pilot pushing on the rudder provides the
> actuation force). The rudder than thus provide yaw forces independent
> of any yaw displacement. The fin simply can't do this.
>
> > So I still do not see your line of thinking.
>
> Well, I've given it my best shot, so I'll sign off now. I can't think
> of any other way to explain it.
>
> Matt

Matt.

Consistently excellent explanations. It is amazing to me how people
tend to view (in its simplist form) that a fixed torque can overcome
consistently a variable one under "all" circumstances.

Nice job.

Robert

Ash Wyllie

May 31st 07, 03:24 AM

Mxsmanic opined

>Ash Wyllie writes:

>> 2) Newer light aircraft are designed so that at cruise speed and small
>> aileron
>> deflections rudder input is not needed.

>But the AP aileron deflections do not appear to be small, as it rolls the
>aircraft rapidly and smoothly into a coordinated turn. And this is on an
>aircraft designed sixty years ago.

force variess with the velocity squared. Think about it.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 03:30 AM

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
news:ttOdnbCk1rJ_gsPbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> Specific enough?
>

Wouldn't have thought so.

Bertie

ManhattanMan

May 31st 07, 03:31 AM

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
> jesus...this is a bizarre thread.
> I have never seen a troller so well fed.
>

EXACTLY what I was thinking - f**king unbelievable............

Mx must be exalted at his triumphant return after laying low several days
setting up his prey...

d:->))

Mxsmanic

May 31st 07, 03:53 AM

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:

> Your simulated autopilot in your simulated Baron appears to make
> "coordinated turns" without using the simulated rudder because that's how
> Microsoft wrote the software.

No, that's not it. That would require special coding. I can't imagine
writing special code just to simulate something that doesn't match real life,
when not writing the code would result in behavior that _does_ match real
life.

And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.

Mxsmanic

May 31st 07, 03:59 AM

george writes:

> Why don't you like flying real aeroplanes?

Not having piloted a real airplane, I cannot say with certainty that I would
not like it. However, I can think of several disadvantages:

- It takes too much time to get a license.
- It costs too much to get a license.
- It's too hard to get a medical.
- Owning a real aircraft is financially unrealistic.
- Renting a real aircraft is financially unrealistic.
- Real airplanes go places, and I don't like to travel.
- Real airplanes can crash, especially small tin cans with their unreliable
components and frequently poor maintenance.
- You cannot stop a real flight if you get tired of flying.
- There is no way to control real-world weather.
- You can only fly from places you are, so you can't fly out of London for an
hour and then switch to LAX.
- The environment inside an aircraft isn't always comfortable.
- You have to worry about hypoxia at altitude.
- If the aircraft moves a lot you may become airsick.
- Real flying is limited to tiny tin cans that you can afford; transport
aircraft are out of reach unless you fly for a living.

These are just a few of the potential problems. Now, I don't know if they
would actually add up to a negative experience, but it wouldn't surprise me
given their number and magnitude.

Simulation provides many of the advantages and none of the disadvantages
(although it has some disadvantages of its own). For me it's a good
compromise. I can't speak for others. Those who dismiss it out of hand,
though, generally don't know what they are talking about.

Mxsmanic

May 31st 07, 04:04 AM

Snowbird writes:

> MSFS has for a long time been known to have a rather inaccurate flight
> model. MS tends to focus on the eye candy aspects of simulation.

Which aspects are inaccurate?

> In my own experience, the stall/spin entry behavior is an easily explored
> area which quite clearly reveals the inadequacies of MSFS' flight modeling
> as compared to the real world. And it reflects of course as well in other
> areas of the flight envelope.

A coordinated turn is neither a stall nor a spin.

> Years ago I flew extensively with a popular WWII networked combat airplane
> simulator (Warbirds). One of its claims to fame was that its flight dynamics
> model was based on actual real-time calculation of the motional differential
> equations that govern the flight dynamics of an aircraft. This in contrast
> to the "simplistic table-driven flight dynamics model of the mainstream PC
> simulators" probably referring to MSFS.

Table-driven models are often more accurate. They don't have to calculate
anything; they just look up the data taken from the real aircraft. They don't
work in exceptional regimes of flight because the data for those in the tables
are either absent or incorrect (as the real aircraft may have never been flown
in those regimes to gather the data). But they work better than physics
calculations in normal regimes of flight because they are guaranteed to match
the real aircraft--after all, they are just reproducing what the real aircraft
did in those cases.

Physics models are better at handling all regimes of flight, since they
calculate behavior on the fly. However, they rarely match the real aircraft
precisely, because inaccuracies in the model are extremely difficult to
correct completely enough to reproduce real-world behavior in flight,
especially in real time. It's much easier to just measure the real aircraft
and put that in a table. Additionally, if you want to certify a simulation,
table-driven simulation is a lot easier to certify because it's very easy to
make the simulation match a specific real-world aircraft.

> Marketing talk aside, I found that simulator MUCH more realistic in the
> flight dynamics modeling than MSFS. Especially at the edges of the flight
> envelope, where the differences between different airplanes were very
> significant.

See above. I don't fly at the edges of the envelope--on that path lies
danger.

Mxsmanic

May 31st 07, 04:22 AM

Viperdoc writes:

> OK- one more time: I fly a real Baron with an autopilot, and I can
> categorically tell you that the autopilot does not command a coordinated
> turn. However, the plane itself does not have a lot of adverse yaw, and even
> at a standard rate turn it only goes around half a ball into the turn on the
> TC. It is not noticeable by any seat of the pants criteria.

I'm in the Baron right now. With altitude and heading hold set, the ball
moves about 3/4 out of its cage as the AP rolls into a turn, then settles at
about 1/5 of the way out of the cage during the turn. It moves about 2/3 out
of the cage as the aircraft rolls back to level flight.

If I turn off the altitude hold, the excursions are a bit worse, and the
aircraft loses 1200 feet or so in altitude during a 90-120-degree turn (from
stable flight at 3000).

> This is the way a real Baron flies, and I have been in more than a few.

See above.

> If you believe that your game is more accurate than a real plane with a real
> pilot, you are more delusional than you appear.

If you believe the simulation is grossly inaccurate, you haven't tried the
simulation.

> Unless you've flown a real Baron (or Extra) as well as played MSFS, you have
> no basis of comparison.

My main handicap is that I don't know what the excursions of the ball
represent in terms of magnitude. The ball is pegged to the right and left
stops during even the gentlest turns on the taxiway, which implies that it
must be very sensitive, but since I have no sensation in this sim I try to
keep it centered, and that is not easy.

I'll have to practice turns with no rudder to see if I can meet or exceed the
performance of the AP. The simulated AP is a KFC 225, but not all AP modes
are simulated (however, this may not be correlated with the accuracy of the
modes that are simulated).

Mxsmanic

May 31st 07, 04:25 AM

Bob Crawford writes:

> How do you substantiate your initial claim that "[Real life GA]
> autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
> rudder"?

By watching the ball in the turn indicator. It moves far less in an AP turn
without rudder than it moves when I make a turn without rudder. It leads me
to believe that the AP rolls the aircraft in a specific way that minimizes
uncoordinated flight. I'm trying to figure out the best way to make a turn
without rudder in a similar way, since I figure it will help make coordinated
turns _with_ the rudder.

> The only proof of this supposed phenomenon you've provided is that it
> occurs in MSFS.

MSFS is a simulator. If it happens in the sim, it probably happens in real
life.

> Additionally you've offered no proof that MSFS models autopilot
> behaviour correctly in this respect.

I have no reason to believe that it is incorrect. In fact, Viperdoc's
description of the real aircraft matches the behavior in the sim.

> With that in mind, and given the statements from real life pilots that
> real life autopilots do not behave as you describe the MSFS autopilot
> doing ...

See above.

> ... a poorly modelled rudder / yaw response or AP seems like a
> perfectly logical conclusion.

It's an attractive conclusion (for those who wish to disdain simulation), but
not a logical one.

Maxwell

May 31st 07, 06:13 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

Hey, your forgot:

- I'd have to get of my lazy ass and work for a living.

Maxwell

May 31st 07, 06:14 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> See above. I don't fly at the edges of the envelope--on that path lies
> danger.

Did you fall out of your desk chair again?

Maxwell

May 31st 07, 06:16 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

Sounds like your desk isn't level. Stick a book under one leg.

Maxwell

May 31st 07, 06:17 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> It's an attractive conclusion (for those who wish to disdain simulation),
> but
> not a logical one.

Seems to work real well for eveyone but you, but then were not taking the
same meds either.

Snowbird

May 31st 07, 07:18 AM

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
> Which aspects are inaccurate?

All, to a lesser or higher degree. I already pointed out one of the most
glaringly inaccurate areas. Read what I wrote.

> A coordinated turn is neither a stall nor a spin.

It is an area within the flight envelope. Read what I wrote.

> Table-driven models are often more accurate.

Show me scientific proof.

> I don't fly at the edges of the envelope--on that path lies
> danger.

That's why pilots train stalls. Accurately knowing the signs of approaching
the danger zone gives safety.

Viperdoc[_4_]

May 31st 07, 12:57 PM

Well figure it out- you've been wasting all of this bandwith stating that
MSFS does a coordinated turn with the AP, and now you're saying that the
ball is not centered when you make a turn?

If the ball is centered it is a coordinated turn, if not, the turn is
uncoordinated. If you were accurate in reporting the behavior of the game,
it does in fact mimic the real life situation. The AP does not command a
coordinated turn, the ball is not centered exactly during a standard rate
turn.

If this were the true behavior in the game, the MSFS model was correct, and
your interpretation was incorrect.

The simulation is grossly inaccurate in many aspects, and I have tried it
extensively. It's main value may be to practice instrument approach
procedures, but the flight model, inability to recreate the "feel" of
flying, are lacking, which is no surprise since it is not a multimillion
dollar full motion sim.

The Extra model is pathetically weak- the roll rate, stall characteristics,
ability to spin and tumble are non existent.

The game may provide satisfaction and enjoyment at many levels, but by your
own admission you have no basis of comparison to assert that it is accurate
and a realistic representation of actual flying.

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 04:28 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
>> Your simulated autopilot in your simulated Baron appears to make
>> "coordinated turns" without using the simulated rudder because that's
>> how Microsoft wrote the software.
>
> No, that's not it. That would require special coding. I can't
> imagine writing special code just to simulate something that doesn't
> match real life, when not writing the code would result in behavior
> that _does_ match real life.
>
> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.

Who cares?

the actual reason is it's not writen for pilots, it's written for idiots
like you.

Bertei

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 04:29 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Why don't you like flying real aeroplanes?
>
> Not having piloted a real airplane, I cannot say with certainty that I
> would not like it.

Irrelvevanty, you wouldn';t be able.

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 04:29 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> MSFS has for a long time been known to have a rather inaccurate
>> flight model. MS tends to focus on the eye candy aspects of
>> simulation.
>
> Which aspects are inaccurate?

All of them

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 04:30 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> OK- one more time: I fly a real Baron with an autopilot, and I can
>> categorically tell you that the autopilot does not command a
>> coordinated turn. However, the plane itself does not have a lot of
>> adverse yaw, and even at a standard rate turn it only goes around
>> half a ball into the turn on the TC. It is not noticeable by any seat
>> of the pants criteria.
>
> I'm in the Baron right now. With altitude and heading hold set, the
> ball moves about 3/4 out of its cage as the AP rolls into a turn, then
> settles at about 1/5 of the way out of the cage during the turn. It
> moves about 2/3 out of the cage as the aircraft rolls back to level
> flight.
>
> If I turn off the altitude hold, the excursions are a bit worse, and
> the aircraft loses 1200 feet or so in altitude during a 90-120-degree
> turn (from stable flight at 3000).
>
>> This is the way a real Baron flies, and I have been in more than a
>> few.
>
> See above.
>
>> If you believe that your game is more accurate than a real plane with
>> a real pilot, you are more delusional than you appear.
>
> If you believe the simulation is grossly inaccurate, you haven't tried
> the simulation.
>
>> Unless you've flown a real Baron (or Extra) as well as played MSFS,
>> you have no basis of comparison.
>
> My main handicap is that I don't know what the excursions of the ball
> represent in terms of magnitude. The ball is pegged to the right and
> left stops during even the gentlest turns on the taxiway, which
> implies that it must be very sensitive, but since I have no sensation
> in this sim I try to keep it centered, and that is not easy.
>
> I'll have to practice turns with no rudder to see if I can meet or
> exceed the performance of the AP.

Bwawhahwhahhwahhwhahwhahwhha1

Hey, now you're a test jerkoff!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 04:31 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Crawford writes:
>
>> How do you substantiate your initial claim that "[Real life GA]
>> autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
>> rudder"?
>
> By watching the ball in the turn indicator.

You don't have a ball, you don';t have a turn indicator.

you have a computer, fjukkwit.

bertie

Erik

May 31st 07, 05:31 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Paul kgyy writes:
>>
>>
>>>They also start the turn rather gradually, which minimizes the
>>>adverse yaw.
>>
>>They turn quickly considering that they are not touching the rudder.
>>I want to know how they do it.
>
>
> Tough ****, noone is going to tell you.
>
> Unless you send me $300

You're forgetting about the $1500 pain in the ass troll charge.

MX, that's in US dollars, none of that euro crap.

[email protected]

May 31st 07, 06:41 PM

On May 30, 8:25 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob Crawford writes:
> > How do you substantiate your initial claim that "[Real life GA]
> > autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
> > rudder"?
>
> By watching the ball in the turn indicator. It moves far less in an AP turn
> without rudder than it moves when I make a turn without rudder.

But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?
Watch the ball in a real life plane, (or pay attention to
someone who has actually watched the ball in a
real life plane) and you'll see that autopilots that
can't control the rudder turn in the same way that
a hand-flying pilot turns when he keeps his foot
away from the rudder pedals. Generally speaking,
both will be slightly uncoordinated.

The degree of uncoordination varies from one
plane to the next, but at least in cruise, it's
normally not enough to matter too much. In
those planes where the AP can't control the
rudder, the decision was made that the
lack of coordination is not severe enough
to justify the extra expense and weight
penalty of giving the AP control over the
rudder.

Everyone's telling you the same thing -- real life
planes don't behave the way you're describing the
simulator to behave. Furthermore, the fact that
you've asked the question that started this thread
indicates you find some cognative dissonance
in the simulator's behavior on this point. It
simply doesn't make sense that an autopilot
with no rudder control could maintain coordination
in a situation where a human would require
rudder control to maintain coordination.

You have two choices: Either the simulator's
right, all the real pilots and real planes are
wrong, and there is some unexplainable
magic that allows the autopilot to maintain
coordination in a situation where rudder input
is required but not available, or else there's
no magic, real planes behave the way
real planes are observed to behave, and
the simulator is wrong on this particular
point.

It's obvious that you've made your choice
as to which alternative you want to
believe.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

May 31st 07, 06:52 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> You have two choices: Either the simulator's
> right, all the real pilots and real planes are
> wrong, and there is some unexplainable
> magic that allows the autopilot to maintain
> coordination in a situation where rudder input
> is required but not available, or else there's
> no magic, real planes behave the way
> real planes are observed to behave, and
> the simulator is wrong on this particular
> point.

NOW you've done it!!!! You've gone and spoiled my whole day.
You mean it's NOT magic?
Damn!!!! :-))))
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic

May 31st 07, 07:30 PM

Snowbird writes:

> All, to a lesser or higher degree.

Then it is also inevitably true that all aspects are accurate, to a greater or
lesser degree. Of course, neither statement communicates much of real
utility.

> Show me scientific proof.

How does one provide scientific proof of the self-evident?

A perfect measurement of a real-world random contour will always be perfect.
A mathematical recreation will always be an approximation.

Mxsmanic

May 31st 07, 07:32 PM

Viperdoc writes:

> Well figure it out- you've been wasting all of this bandwith stating that
> MSFS does a coordinated turn with the AP, and now you're saying that the
> ball is not centered when you make a turn?

Not perfectly centered, but more so than it is when I try it, it seems.

> The simulation is grossly inaccurate in many aspects, and I have tried it
> extensively.

With the default Baron?

> It's main value may be to practice instrument approach
> procedures, but the flight model, inability to recreate the "feel" of
> flying, are lacking, which is no surprise since it is not a multimillion
> dollar full motion sim.

Full-motion sims have drawbacks, too.

> The Extra model is pathetically weak- the roll rate, stall characteristics,
> ability to spin and tumble are non existent.

I don't think the Extra model is intended to be serious, any more than the
Wright Flyer.

Mxsmanic

May 31st 07, 07:33 PM

writes:

> But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
> got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?

The former is a simulation of the latter.

> The degree of uncoordination varies from one
> plane to the next, but at least in cruise, it's
> normally not enough to matter too much. In
> those planes where the AP can't control the
> rudder, the decision was made that the
> lack of coordination is not severe enough
> to justify the extra expense and weight
> penalty of giving the AP control over the
> rudder.

Can you feel the lack of coordination when the AP turns the aircraft?

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 07:33 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> All, to a lesser or higher degree.
>
> Then it is also inevitably true that all aspects are accurate, to a
> greater or lesser degree. Of course, neither statement communicates
> much of real utility.
>
>> Show me scientific proof.
>
> How does one provide scientific proof of the self-evident?

Whoosh.

Do you even hear it as it whistles over your head, fjukktard?

bertie

Mxsmanic

May 31st 07, 07:33 PM

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Answer.....or shut the **** up.

No.

Jim Stewart

May 31st 07, 07:45 PM

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.
>
> Well, there's your answer, dip****.
> Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
> not accurately simulate reality.
>
> Get a clue, ****head.
> Real plane always behave "real".
> Real autopilots always behave "real".
> Software always performs the way someone wrote it.
>
> Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic
> battle cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt.

Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
last night. I actually found having my hands in
*real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 07:50 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
>> got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?
>
> The former is a simulation of the latter.
>
>> The degree of uncoordination varies from one
>> plane to the next, but at least in cruise, it's
>> normally not enough to matter too much. In
>> those planes where the AP can't control the
>> rudder, the decision was made that the
>> lack of coordination is not severe enough
>> to justify the extra expense and weight
>> penalty of giving the AP control over the
>> rudder.
>
> Can you feel the lack of coordination when the AP turns the aircraft?

Yes, but you couldn't.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 07:51 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Answer.....or shut the **** up.
>
> No.
>

Aww. The fjukktard takes a stand., So kewt.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 07:51 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Well figure it out- you've been wasting all of this bandwith stating
>> that MSFS does a coordinated turn with the AP, and now you're saying
>> that the ball is not centered when you make a turn?
>
> Not perfectly centered, but more so than it is when I try it, it
> seems.

That's cause you can't fly and you never will.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

May 31st 07, 07:52 PM

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>
>>> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.
>>
>> Well, there's your answer, dip****.
>> Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
>> not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
>> Real plane always behave "real".
>> Real autopilots always behave "real".
>> Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll excuse
>> me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the 4th star on
>> Orion's belt.
>
> Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
> last night. I actually found having my hands in
> *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
> than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.

Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before getting
anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 08:28 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>>
>>>> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Well, there's your answer, dip****.
>>> Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
>>> not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
>>> Real plane always behave "real".
>>> Real autopilots always behave "real".
>>> Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll
>>> excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the
>>> 4th star on Orion's belt.
>>
>> Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
>> last night. I actually found having my hands in
>> *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
>> than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.
>
> Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
> getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
> Dudley Henriques

You think he has a wife?

Hmm.

Bertie

[email protected]

May 31st 07, 08:54 PM

Erik

May 31st 07, 08:54 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>
>>But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
>>got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?
>
>
> The former is a simulation of the latter.

Just like a real-doll is a simulation of a real girl,
but that's right. Again, I digress.

Also note:

sim·u·la·tion
–noun
1. imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.
2. the act or process of pretending; feigning.
3. an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form;
counterfeit; sham.
4. Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical
disorder to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective.
5. the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system
through the use of another system, esp. a computer program designed
for the purpose.

re·al
–adjective
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason
for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal,
or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary:
The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
4. being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a
real antique; a real diamond; real silk.
6. unfeigned or sincere: real sympathy; a real friend.
7. Informal. absolute; complete; utter: She's a real brain.
8. Philosophy.
a. existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent.
b. actual as opposed to possible or potential.
c. independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent.
9. (of money, income, or the like) measured in purchasing power rather
than in nominal value: Inflation has driven income down in real terms,
though nominal income appears to be higher.
10. Optics. (of an image) formed by the actual convergence of rays, as
the image produced in a camera (opposed to virtual).
11. Mathematics.
a. of, pertaining to, or having the value of a real number.
b. using real numbers: real analysis; real vector space.

Yes, I am comparing an adjective with a noun, so stfu on that
subject right now. Also notice that if you look up the words
"imitation" "pretending" "assumption" and "representation",
all of them have limits on how real they are.

You cannot side by side compare an adjective with a noun, it
just isn't proper, but you can't side by side compare msfs with
actual flight. It just isn't proper.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

May 31st 07, 08:55 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
. 130...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>
>>>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>>>
>>>>> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there's your answer, dip****.
>>>> Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
>>>> not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
>>>> Real plane always behave "real".
>>>> Real autopilots always behave "real".
>>>> Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll
>>>> excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the
>>>> 4th star on Orion's belt.
>>>
>>> Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
>>> last night. I actually found having my hands in
>>> *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
>>> than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.
>>
>> Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
>> getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> You think he has a wife?
>
> Hmm.
>
>
> Bertie

Actually, I've not given him that much thought.
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

May 31st 07, 08:56 PM

wrote in
oups.com:

> On May 30, 8:25 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Bob Crawford writes:
>> > How do you substantiate your initial claim that "[Real life GA]
>> > autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
>> > rudder"?
>>
>> By watching the ball in the turn indicator. It moves far less in an
>> AP turn without rudder than it moves when I make a turn without
>> rudder.
>
> But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
> got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?

Nothing in his whole life has anything to do with reality.

Bertie

Erik

May 31st 07, 09:00 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Nomen Nescio writes:
>>
>>
>>>Answer.....or shut the **** up.
>>
>>No.
>>
>
>
> Aww. The fjukktard takes a stand., So kewt.
>
> Bertie

Why, what did I miss? I don't show the parent of this
one.

Was it some question about why mx can't fly? I've seen
some statements about numerous physical reasons, but
nothing specific. Diabetes or many of the other physical
deterrents aren't someone's fault and they can't be ashamed
of it, ie: "I have diabetes, therefore I cannot get a medical"
Astute fear of heights would be one thing, but you can over-
come that. A few Prozac in the right seat for a first flight
would fix that.

Why won't mx fly? I don't think he's not smart enough, I think
he could figure it all out.

Now, I'm curious.

What is wrong? Why won't you fly, mx?

Bob Crawford

May 31st 07, 09:13 PM

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
> Table-driven models are often more accurate.

> On May 31, 2:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Snowbird writes:
> > > Show me scientific proof.
> >
> > How does one provide scientific proof of the self-evident?
> >
> > A perfect measurement of a real-world random contour will always be perfect.
> > A mathematical recreation will always be an approximation.

Table driven models are only "perfect" at the (often very few) points
in the table (and even there depends upon the accuracy of the
measurements). Elsewhere they too are only approximations, the
accuracy of which depends upon how well the real world contour matches
the interpolation method chosen.

Please remember that "mathematical recreation" is a synonym for
"simulation".

And what you see in your simulator MSFS is only an approximation of
reality. A model/simulation is always a process of give & take
between the accuracy in representing various processes & effects in
different regimes, and while MSFS allows you some control over some of
those choices most of them are hidden and have been made for you.
Without real world experience it would be very difficult for you to
realize many of these tradeoffs, those with real world experience can
spot them quite easily. The advice of those who have actually
experienced what you wish to simulate can be very informative - but
comes at the cost of learning what you are missing (possibly
diminishing your enjoyment of your simulator).

The alternative, of course is,"Ignorance is bliss".

Gig 601XL Builder

May 31st 07, 09:20 PM

Erik wrote:
> Why won't mx fly? I don't think he's not smart enough, I think
> he could figure it all out.
>
> Now, I'm curious.
>
> What is wrong? Why won't you fly, mx?

He posted it up tread somewhere. It boiled down to two things: Money and
Fear.

One he has none of the other he has lots of.

Snowbird

May 31st 07, 09:35 PM

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
> Snowbird writes:
>
>> All, to a lesser or higher degree.
>
> Then it is also inevitably true that all aspects are accurate, to a
> greater or
> lesser degree.

What a brilliant deduction. I suppose next you will then postulate that the
simulator has a more accurate flight dynamics model than the real airplane.
Yeah, black is actually white, sure.

> Of course, neither statement communicates much of real
> utility.

Except that you once again clipped out my reference to the example that
illustrated my statement. I'm sorry, but in aviation you can't just pick the
bits that happen to fit your personal agenda. That is in fact an extremely
dangerous attitude.

>
>> Show me scientific proof.
>
> How does one provide scientific proof of the self-evident?

So now you resort to declaring the issue self-evident, in order to avoid
producing proof.
(Wikipedia: "a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by
understanding its meaning without proof").
Then tell me why it's self-evident that a table-driven flight dynamics model
would always be better than a real-time differential equation-driven.

>
> A perfect measurement of a real-world random contour will always be
> perfect.
> A mathematical recreation will always be an approximation.

Was that your "proof" of the above issue? What makes you believe the MSFS
flight model is based on "perfect" measurements? Show me proof that the
"perfect real-world measurements" always have less measurement errors than
the errors in the mathemathical approximations.

Erik

May 31st 07, 11:03 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> george writes:
>
>
>>Why don't you like flying real aeroplanes?
>
>
> Not having piloted a real airplane, I cannot say with certainty that I would
> not like it. However, I can think of several disadvantages:
>
> - It takes too much time to get a license.
Not

> - It costs too much to get a license.
Little by little, Michelangelo carved David.

> - It's too hard to get a medical.
Yeah, took me one painful half hour.

> - Owning a real aircraft is financially unrealistic.
Don't need to own

> - Renting a real aircraft is financially unrealistic.
Nope, it's expensive, but worth it.

> - Real airplanes go places, and I don't like to travel.
But you're an American living in France

> - Real airplanes can crash, especially small tin cans with their unreliable
> components and frequently poor maintenance.
Only if the pilot does something stupid or can't handle exceptions
and doesn't keep the plane up to FAA par.

> - You cannot stop a real flight if you get tired of flying.
Just like real life.

> - There is no way to control real-world weather.
You can control when you fly, weird, isn't it?

> - You can only fly from places you are, so you can't fly out of London for an
> hour and then switch to LAX.
Yeah, that totally will keep me from flying.

> - The environment inside an aircraft isn't always comfortable.
You should have seen my CFI. Big as a cow with me and he
in a 150. It was STILL a good time.

> - You have to worry about hypoxia at altitude.
No, you don't.

> - If the aircraft moves a lot you may become airsick.
If I breathe the air in a public place, I might get a cold.

> - Real flying is limited to tiny tin cans that you can afford; transport
> aircraft are out of reach unless you fly for a living.
I trust those tiny tin cans MUCH more than I trust those
big damn ATP planes.

<Italics><Bold><Shock> THESE </I></B> are your reasons for not
flying?

Don't you know that when you step out of your door in the morning,
you can be hit by one of those french drivers? Maybe you can catch
a cold. You might slip on a stone.

You lie. It's not that you don't want to fly, you're down
right frightened of it. It's not that you don't want to get
laid, girls scare you. It's not that you don't want to move
out of your mom's basement, you're afraid of living your own
life.

Wow. That's pathetic. Pathetic but totally fixable.

Get out there, do something real for a change, ****tard.

I believe in you!

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 01:01 AM

Erik > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Nomen Nescio writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Answer.....or shut the **** up.
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Aww. The fjukktard takes a stand., So kewt.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Why, what did I miss? I don't show the parent of this
> one.
>
> Was it some question about why mx can't fly? I've seen
> some statements about numerous physical reasons, but
> nothing specific. Diabetes or many of the other physical
> deterrents aren't someone's fault and they can't be ashamed
> of it, ie: "I have diabetes, therefore I cannot get a medical"
> Astute fear of heights would be one thing, but you can over-
> come that. A few Prozac in the right seat for a first flight
> would fix that.
>
> Why won't mx fly? I don't think he's not smart enough, I think
> he could figure it all out.

My guess? Autism. relatively mild, but there all the same.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 01:02 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> . 130...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>>>>
>>>>>> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, there's your answer, dip****.
>>>>> Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
>>>>> not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
>>>>> Real plane always behave "real".
>>>>> Real autopilots always behave "real".
>>>>> Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll
>>>>> excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the
>>>>> 4th star on Orion's belt.
>>>>
>>>> Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
>>>> last night. I actually found having my hands in
>>>> *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
>>>> than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.
>>>
>>> Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
>>> getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> You think he has a wife?
>>
>> Hmm.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Actually, I've not given him that much thought.

Wise man

However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.

I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 01:10 AM

Bob Crawford > wrote in
oups.com:

> "Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>> Table-driven models are often more accurate.
>
>> On May 31, 2:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > Snowbird writes:
>> > > Show me scientific proof.
>> >
>> > How does one provide scientific proof of the self-evident?
>> >
>> > A perfect measurement of a real-world random contour will always be
>> > perfect. A mathematical recreation will always be an approximation.
>
> Table driven models are only "perfect" at the (often very few) points
> in the table (and even there depends upon the accuracy of the
> measurements). Elsewhere they too are only approximations, the
> accuracy of which depends upon how well the real world contour matches
> the interpolation method chosen.
>
> Please remember that "mathematical recreation" is a synonym for
> "simulation".
>
> And what you see in your simulator MSFS is only an approximation of
> reality. A model/simulation is always a process of give & take
> between the accuracy in representing various processes & effects in
> different regimes, and while MSFS allows you some control over some of
> those choices most of them are hidden and have been made for you.
> Without real world experience it would be very difficult for you to
> realize many of these tradeoffs, those with real world experience can
> spot them quite easily. The advice of those who have actually
> experienced what you wish to simulate can be very informative - but
> comes at the cost of learning what you are missing (possibly
> diminishing your enjoyment of your simulator).
>
> The alternative, of course is,"Ignorance is bliss".
>

He must be experiencing Nirvana.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

June 1st 07, 01:20 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
. 130...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> . 130...
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, there's your answer, dip****.
>>>>>> Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
>>>>>> not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
>>>>>> Real plane always behave "real".
>>>>>> Real autopilots always behave "real".
>>>>>> Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if you'll
>>>>>> excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle cruiser to the
>>>>>> 4th star on Orion's belt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
>>>>> last night. I actually found having my hands in
>>>>> *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
>>>>> than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
>>>> getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> You think he has a wife?
>>>
>>> Hmm.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Actually, I've not given him that much thought.
>
> Wise man
>
>
> However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.
>
> I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>

I must admit I find the threads entertaining at times. I just don't want to
engage with him. It's a lose lose situation really. I have a firm opinion on
where he's coming from, and have had that from the first time he engaged me.
Since I can teach him nothing, and there is most certainly nothing I can
learn from him, engagement seems a classic lesson in futility.
Be my guest however. I do get a chuckle here and there from watching it.
Who knows. This guy could easily be a new "Ralphie" :-))
Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

June 1st 07, 01:36 AM

I'm kinda new here, tho flying tin cans for 32 years. I think, or one
heck of a delusion. Sorta simulatin' what an A/P comfortably does.
What's this repartee with Mx all about? There is a web site of a
pathetic loser it appears is his. Can't be. 6 billion people on the
planet, enormous odds.

The moron engineers who been designing A/P's for 60+ years, whatever,
just never met a consultant in France. Why them inboard waggle
thingies (I know the technical lingo) on many transport jets in cruise
which work fine just done nuthin' but drive airline ticket prices up.
The solution is how Microsoft, the world force in computing does it.
The French-based consultant has seen it, right on Mommy's 'puter. Why,
Teflon was invented by accident. Clericals at 3M told management that
crappy glue which really isn't was real cool. Aluminum and steel costs
real money; even C++ code is cheap.

There's even word the A/P controller for them old tin cans is "analog
logic," maybe 2N2222's for how crude the industry is.

You folk just bash for bash sake. It's oh, so wrong.

/s/ ****tards Anonymous

Dave Doe

June 1st 07, 02:26 AM

In article >,
says...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
> > Answer.....or shut the **** up.
>
> No.

= I am a troll.

--
Duncan

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 02:42 AM

Dave Doe > wrote in
. nz:

> In article >,
> says...
>> Nomen Nescio writes:
>>
>> > Answer.....or shut the **** up.
>>
>> No.
>
> = I am a troll.
>

Please don't call him a troll I find it deeply offensive.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 03:04 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> . 130...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> . 130...
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
>>>>> .. .
>>>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, there's your answer, dip****.
>>>>>>> Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
>>>>>>> not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
>>>>>>> Real plane always behave "real".
>>>>>>> Real autopilots always behave "real".
>>>>>>> Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if
>>>>>>> you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle
>>>>>>> cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
>>>>>> last night. I actually found having my hands in
>>>>>> *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
>>>>>> than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
>>>>> getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>> You think he has a wife?
>>>>
>>>> Hmm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Actually, I've not given him that much thought.
>>
>> Wise man
>>
>>
>> However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.
>>
>> I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>
> I must admit I find the threads entertaining at times. I just don't
> want to engage with him. It's a lose lose situation really. I have a
> firm opinion on where he's coming from, and have had that from the
> first time he engaged me. Since I can teach him nothing, and there is
> most certainly nothing I can learn from him, engagement seems a
> classic lesson in futility. Be my guest however. I do get a chuckle
> here and there from watching it.

Well, there you have it. Couldn't agree more.

Who knows. This guy could easily be a
> new "Ralphie" :-))

Well, he'll take a bit of work to get to that standard, but I'm nothing
if not patient.

Bertie

[email protected]

June 1st 07, 03:06 AM

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

June 1st 07, 03:06 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> . 130...
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> . 130...
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
>>>>>> .. .
>>>>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, there's your answer, dip****.
>>>>>>>> Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
>>>>>>>> not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
>>>>>>>> Real plane always behave "real".
>>>>>>>> Real autopilots always behave "real".
>>>>>>>> Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if
>>>>>>>> you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle
>>>>>>>> cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
>>>>>>> last night. I actually found having my hands in
>>>>>>> *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
>>>>>>> than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up before
>>>>>> getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>
>>>>> You think he has a wife?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I've not given him that much thought.
>>>
>>> Wise man
>>>
>>>
>>> However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.
>>>
>>> I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I must admit I find the threads entertaining at times. I just don't
>> want to engage with him. It's a lose lose situation really. I have a
>> firm opinion on where he's coming from, and have had that from the
>> first time he engaged me. Since I can teach him nothing, and there is
>> most certainly nothing I can learn from him, engagement seems a
>> classic lesson in futility. Be my guest however. I do get a chuckle
>> here and there from watching it.
>
> Well, there you have it. Couldn't agree more.
>
> Who knows. This guy could easily be a
>> new "Ralphie" :-))
>
> Well, he'll take a bit of work to get to that standard, but I'm nothing
> if not patient.
>
> Bertie

I've noticed :-))))

Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

June 1st 07, 03:07 AM

On May 30, 8:25 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob Crawford writes:
> > How do you substantiate your initial claim that "[Real life GA]
> > autopilots make coordinated turns even when they cannot control the
> > rudder"?
>
> By watching the ball in the turn indicator. It moves far less in an AP turn
> without rudder than it moves when I make a turn without rudder.

But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?
Watch the ball in a real life plane, (or pay attention to
someone who has actually watched the ball in a
real life plane) and you'll see that autopilots that
can't control the rudder turn in the same way that
a hand-flying pilot turns when he keeps his foot
away from the rudder pedals. Generally speaking,
both will be slightly uncoordinated.

The degree of uncoordination varies from one
plane to the next, but at least in cruise, it's
normally not enough to matter too much. In
those planes where the AP can't control the
rudder, the decision was made that the
lack of coordination is not severe enough
to justify the extra expense and weight
penalty of giving the AP control over the
rudder.

Everyone's telling you the same thing -- real life
planes don't behave the way you're describing the
simulator to behave. Furthermore, the fact that
you've asked the question that started this thread
indicates you find some cognative dissonance
in the simulator's behavior on this point. It
simply doesn't make sense that an autopilot
with no rudder control could maintain coordination
in a situation where a human would require
rudder control to maintain coordination.

You have two choices: Either the simulator's
right, all the real pilots and real planes are
wrong, and there is some unexplainable
magic that allows the autopilot to maintain
coordination in a situation where rudder input
is required but not available, or else there's
no magic, real planes behave the way
real planes are observed to behave, and
the simulator is wrong on this particular
point.

I suspect you've made your choice as
to which alternative you want to believe.

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 03:16 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> . 130...
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> . 130...
>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> .. .
>>>>>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the Baron I fly wasn't created by Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, there's your answer, dip****.
>>>>>>>>> Ask the person who created your "Baron" why the autopilot does
>>>>>>>>> not accurately simulate reality. Get a clue, ****head.
>>>>>>>>> Real plane always behave "real".
>>>>>>>>> Real autopilots always behave "real".
>>>>>>>>> Software always performs the way someone wrote it. Now, if
>>>>>>>>> you'll excuse me, I have to go fly my intergalactic battle
>>>>>>>>> cruiser to the 4th star on Orion's belt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Damn. I did my 25 hour inspection and oil change
>>>>>>>> last night. I actually found having my hands in
>>>>>>>> *real* motor oil out of my *real* plane more enjoyable
>>>>>>>> than reading about Mx's simulated Baron and simulated AP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but I'll bet HIS wife didn't yell at him to go wash up
before
>>>>>>> getting anywhere NEAR the furniture :-)))
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You think he has a wife?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I've not given him that much thought.
>>>>
>>>> Wise man
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, you are missing out on a great deal of entertainment.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't like MASH, the series, the first time I saw it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I must admit I find the threads entertaining at times. I just don't
>>> want to engage with him. It's a lose lose situation really. I have a
>>> firm opinion on where he's coming from, and have had that from the
>>> first time he engaged me. Since I can teach him nothing, and there
is
>>> most certainly nothing I can learn from him, engagement seems a
>>> classic lesson in futility. Be my guest however. I do get a chuckle
>>> here and there from watching it.
>>
>> Well, there you have it. Couldn't agree more.
>>
>> Who knows. This guy could easily be a
>>> new "Ralphie" :-))
>>
>> Well, he'll take a bit of work to get to that standard, but I'm
nothing
>> if not patient.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I've noticed :-))))
>
> Dudley Henriques

Thenkew.

Bertie
>
>
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 04:55 AM

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in :

> Mxsmanic opined
>
>>Ash Wyllie writes:
>
>>> 2) Newer light aircraft are designed so that at cruise speed and small
>>> aileron
>>> deflections rudder input is not needed.
>
>>But the AP aileron deflections do not appear to be small, as it rolls the
>>aircraft rapidly and smoothly into a coordinated turn. And this is on an
>>aircraft designed sixty years ago.
>
> force variess with the velocity squared. Think about it.

Good grief, the only thing he thinks about is where his next bag of
cheetohs is coming from.

bertie
>

ManhattanMan

June 1st 07, 05:17 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dave Doe > wrote in
> . nz:
>
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> Nomen Nescio writes:
>>>
>>>> Answer.....or shut the **** up.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> = I am a troll.
>>
>
> Please don't call him a troll I find it deeply offensive.
>

Ok - how about a narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, prick??

Mxsmanic

June 1st 07, 05:35 AM

Erik writes:

> Yeah, took me one painful half hour.

If you are disqualified, it'll be a lot more painful.

> Don't need to own

Renting is expensive over the long term.

> Nope, it's expensive, but worth it.

If you don't have the money, it doesn't matter.

> But you're an American living in France

So? I still don't like to travel. I never travel anywhere.

> Only if the pilot does something stupid or can't handle exceptions
> and doesn't keep the plane up to FAA par.

If it's a rental plane, you don't know where it has been, which is one reason
why owning is better.

> You can control when you fly, weird, isn't it?

You cannot control the climate of the place where you live. You cannot fly
VFR every day if you live in Seattle. You cannot fly in the Great Plains
during thunderstorms and tornados.

> No, you don't.

Yes, you do. You may be affected as low as 5000 feet. And there's nothing
you can do about it, short of taking oxygen.

> If I breathe the air in a public place, I might get a cold.

Yes.

> I trust those tiny tin cans MUCH more than I trust those
> big damn ATP planes.

Why? Statistically, the tin cans are far less safe.

> Don't you know that when you step out of your door in the morning,
> you can be hit by one of those french drivers?

I don't walk on the street.

> Maybe you can catch a cold.

I regularly do.

> You might slip on a stone.

Yes.

But I know the statistics, and the risks. I worry about a tin can flown by
anyone other than myself, and belonging to anyone other than me.

> You lie. It's not that you don't want to fly, you're down
> right frightened of it.

I like flying. But I don't like taking risks. If I were to fly a small
plane, I'd have to be the pilot and the owner. That puts the crucial
variables into ranges that I can assess.

Mxsmanic

June 1st 07, 05:37 AM

Bob Crawford writes:

> Table driven models are only "perfect" at the (often very few) points
> in the table (and even there depends upon the accuracy of the
> measurements). Elsewhere they too are only approximations, the
> accuracy of which depends upon how well the real world contour matches
> the interpolation method chosen.

They can be made much more accurate than theoretical models, and they are
provably accurate with respect to the real aircraft at demonstrable points,
which is useful for certification.

Mxsmanic

June 1st 07, 05:39 AM

Snowbird writes:

> What a brilliant deduction.

Thank you.

> I suppose next you will then postulate that the
> simulator has a more accurate flight dynamics model than the real airplane.

The real airplane is not a model, so this statement has no meaning.

> Then tell me why it's self-evident that a table-driven flight dynamics model
> would always be better than a real-time differential equation-driven.

Not always, but usually, especially cost-wise. The idea of a simulator is to
simulate a real aircraft, not real flight. It's more important that the
behavior of the sim match the real aircraft being simulated than it is for the
sim to approximate real flight in all regimes.

Full-motion ATP sims handle spins and other unusual attitudes poorly, but
since they are not used to simulate those unusual attitudes, it doesn't
matter, especially since they simulate normal flight with extraordinary
accuracy.

Mxsmanic

June 1st 07, 05:41 AM

writes:

> But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
> got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?

Real-life planes have the same thing.

> Watch the ball in a real life plane, (or pay attention to
> someone who has actually watched the ball in a
> real life plane) and you'll see that autopilots that
> can't control the rudder turn in the same way that
> a hand-flying pilot turns when he keeps his foot
> away from the rudder pedals. Generally speaking,
> both will be slightly uncoordinated.

I've already had confirmation that the movement of the ball in the sim matches
the ball in the real thing.

Mxsmanic

June 1st 07, 05:42 AM

Erik writes:

> What is wrong? Why won't you fly, mx?

No time, no money, and only a slim probability that I'd pass a medical. I'm
also not interested in flying in France. And I'd want to be the owner of my
aircraft, and I'd want it to be the same one I fly in simulation, that is, a
Baron 58.

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 10:26 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> What is wrong? Why won't you fly, mx?
>
> No time, no money, and only a slim probability that I'd pass a
> medical. I'm also not interested in flying in France. And I'd want
> to be the owner of my aircraft, and I'd want it to be the same one I
> fly in simulation, that is, a Baron 58.

You don't fly anything in simulation and you wouldn't be able to fly even
if you could pass a medical.

Because you're an idiot.

Bertei

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 10:27 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> But you're watching the ball in a simulator. What's that
>> got to do with ANY claim about a real life GA plane?
>
> Real-life planes have the same thing.

No, they don't. theya have a ball, you have a bunch of pixtels, fjukktard.

>
>> Watch the ball in a real life plane, (or pay attention to
>> someone who has actually watched the ball in a
>> real life plane) and you'll see that autopilots that
>> can't control the rudder turn in the same way that
>> a hand-flying pilot turns when he keeps his foot
>> away from the rudder pedals. Generally speaking,
>> both will be slightly uncoordinated.
>
> I've already had confirmation that the movement of the ball in the sim
> matches the ball in the real thing.
>

Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahw!

you've never flown, moron.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 10:28 AM

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:55N7i.173060$nh4.122345
@newsfe20.lga:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dave Doe > wrote in
>> . nz:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>> Nomen Nescio writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Answer.....or shut the **** up.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> = I am a troll.
>>>
>>
>> Please don't call him a troll I find it deeply offensive.
>>
>
> Ok - how about a narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, prick??
>
>

I can live with that. Thank you.

bertei

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 10:30 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> What a brilliant deduction.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> I suppose next you will then postulate that the
>> simulator has a more accurate flight dynamics model than the real
>> airplane.
>
> The real airplane is not a model, so this statement has no meaning.

You're an idiot.

>
>> Then tell me why it's self-evident that a table-driven flight
>> dynamics model would always be better than a real-time differential
>> equation-driven.
>
> Not always, but usually, especially cost-wise. The idea of a
> simulator is to simulate a real aircraft, not real flight.

No it isn't, fjukktard.

It's more
> important that the behavior of the sim match the real aircraft being
> simulated than it is for the sim to approximate real flight in all
> regimes.
>
> Full-motion ATP sims handle spins and other unusual attitudes poorly,
> but since they are not used to simulate those unusual attitudes, it
> doesn't matter, especially since they simulate normal flight with
> extraordinary accuracy.

oops! You're wrong again.What a surprise!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]

June 1st 07, 10:35 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> Yeah, took me one painful half hour.
>
> If you are disqualified, it'll be a lot more painful.

No it isn't moron. You either will or you won't.

Of course you won't since Autism is a disqualifier, but at least you'll
know!

>
>> Don't need to own
>
> Renting is expensive over the long term.

No it isn't, fjukkwit.

>
>> Nope, it's expensive, but worth it.
>
> If you don't have the money, it doesn't matter.
>
>> But you're an American living in France
>
> So? I still don't like to travel. I never travel anywhere.

Surprise surprise.

>
>> Only if the pilot does something stupid or can't handle exceptions
>> and doesn't keep the plane up to FAA par.
>
> If it's a rental plane, you don't know where it has been, which is one
> reason why owning is better.

Bwawhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhah hwhahwhahw!

OCD as well.
How predictable.

>
>> You can control when you fly, weird, isn't it?
>
> You cannot control the climate of the place where you live. You
> cannot fly VFR every day if you live in Seattle. You cannot fly in
> the Great Plains during thunderstorms and tornados.
>
>> No, you don't.
>
> Yes, you do. You may be affected as low as 5000 feet. And there's
> nothing you can do about it, short of taking oxygen.

Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhah!

Been to 17 w/o oxy, fjukktard..
(legally for all you nitpickers out there. figure that one out, and no
pressurisation)
>
>> If I breathe the air in a public place, I might get a cold.
>
> Yes.
>
>> I trust those tiny tin cans MUCH more than I trust those
>> big damn ATP planes.
>
> Why? Statistically, the tin cans are far less safe.

No they aren't, fjukkwit.

>
>> Don't you know that when you step out of your door in the morning,
>> you can be hit by one of those french drivers?
>
> I don't walk on the street.

I know.

>
>> Maybe you can catch a cold.
>
> I regularly do.

I guessed.

>
>> You might slip on a stone.
>
> Yes.

With luck.

>
> But I know the statistics, and the risks.

No you don't.

>I worry about a tin can
> flown by anyone other than myself, and belonging to anyone other than
> me.
>

Why, you couldn't fly it anyway.

>> You lie. It's not that you don't want to fly, you're down
>> right frightened of it.
>
> I like flying.

No you don't

Bertie