Sims

[LWG]

Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one of the
more enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the family room,
in front of the PC. I am working on my instrument ticket. Ove the years I
have collected the CH yoke and footpedals. I have downloaded a flight model
and graphics for my Sundowner. I was looking out the window at the snow
falling, and I set the sim to real world weather. Damn if the screen didn't
look exactly like the weather outside, and I was once again looking at my
panel. The ATC simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went down the
"runway." I got vectored around pretty much the same as when I fly under
the hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for about a
nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot needed.

[Kyle Boatright]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one of
> the more enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the family
> room, in front of the PC. I am working on my instrument ticket. Ove the
> years I have collected the CH yoke and footpedals. I have downloaded a
> flight model and graphics for my Sundowner. I was looking out the window
> at the snow falling, and I set the sim to real world weather. Damn if the
> screen didn't look exactly like the weather outside, and I was once again
> looking at my panel. The ATC simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went
> down the "runway." I got vectored around pretty much the same as when I
> fly under the hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for
> about a nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot
> needed.

Yep, but it wasn't flying, which is the whole point, right?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

LWG wrote:
> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one of the
> more enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the family room,
> in front of the PC. I am working on my instrument ticket. Ove the years I
> have collected the CH yoke and footpedals. I have downloaded a flight model
> and graphics for my Sundowner. I was looking out the window at the snow
> falling, and I set the sim to real world weather. Damn if the screen didn't
> look exactly like the weather outside, and I was once again looking at my
> panel. The ATC simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went down the
> "runway." I got vectored around pretty much the same as when I fly under
> the hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for about a
> nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot needed.
>
>
Just do me a favor will you please? Don't go out and try to fly IFR with
all that "no instructor or safety pilot needed" simulator time in your
log book without getting some of that "instructor and safety pilot
needed" stuff as well.
Don't EVER be misled into believing that what you can do and what you
see on MSFS will replace the actual experience needed to safely fly the
airplane.
It's nice to enjoy MSFS, and God only knows I have even reviewed it for
its role in real world aviation and found it has many a useful purpose,
but MSFS will NEVER replace actual flight instruction and produce a safe
pilot, especially a safe instrument pilot.


--
Dudley Henriques
CFI/MVP2007 MSFS

[Dallas]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:38 -0500, LWG wrote:

> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX

It important to not hate PC flight simulators just because of MX.

We can argue over their value as training tools, but I bet most would agree
that as entertainment, they can be a hell of a lot of fun.


--
Dallas

[Mxsmanic]

LWG writes:

> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one of the
> more enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the family room,
> in front of the PC. I am working on my instrument ticket. Ove the years I
> have collected the CH yoke and footpedals. I have downloaded a flight model
> and graphics for my Sundowner. I was looking out the window at the snow
> falling, and I set the sim to real world weather. Damn if the screen didn't
> look exactly like the weather outside, and I was once again looking at my
> panel. The ATC simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went down the
> "runway." I got vectored around pretty much the same as when I fly under
> the hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for about a
> nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot needed.

That's only the tip of the iceberg. If you'd like to enjoy simming even more,
consider:

1. Getting an add-on payware aircraft that matches whatever you enjoy flying
in real life (or whatever you'd like to fly in real life). Companies like
Dreamfleet, PMDG, and Level-D offer hyperrealistic simulations of a great many
large and small aircraft that are so accurate that it's almost like flying a
brand-new (and superior) simulator.

2. Use ActiveSky for weather. The simulations are so accurate that it's hard
to distinguish them from real life.

3. Join VATSIM, and you can fly on a network with other human pilots and human
air traffic controllers, with real ATC instead of the computer-generated kind
(which isn't bad, but is very inflexible and predictable).

Desktop simulation is especially nice for IFR, for obvious reasons, and it can
give you useful practice in IFR and in navigation techniques. Using add-ons
and VATSIM allows you to fly commercial routes with terminal procedures (SIDs
and STARs and IAPs) and live ATC support, which the default sim does not.

[Mxsmanic]

Kyle Boatright writes:

> Yep, but it wasn't flying, which is the whole point, right?

For some people, the differences between flying a real airplane and flying a
simulated airplane simply are not that important, which is why they enjoy
simming. Even for people who prefer flying a real airplane, simulation is
close enough to the real thing and so incredibly inexpensive that it doesn't
make sense to refuse to try it.

In just online sim flying alone I have around 900 hours of time in the air,
for less cost than a single hour in a tiny tin can airplane would cost in real
life (and disregarding the huge cost of just getting a license for a
real-world aircraft).

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Just do me a favor will you please? Don't go out and try to fly IFR with
> all that "no instructor or safety pilot needed" simulator time in your
> log book without getting some of that "instructor and safety pilot
> needed" stuff as well.

I didn't see any mention of doing anything like that. Do you think he is
stupid?

> Don't EVER be misled into believing that what you can do and what you
> see on MSFS will replace the actual experience needed to safely fly the
> airplane.

See above. Do you assume that people who fly simulators are stupid?

> It's nice to enjoy MSFS, and God only knows I have even reviewed it for
> its role in real world aviation and found it has many a useful purpose,
> but MSFS will NEVER replace actual flight instruction and produce a safe
> pilot, especially a safe instrument pilot.

Never is a long time, although I'll agree for MSFS in its current state and
particularly in its default state.

But you must keep in mind that you can sim as a substitate for flying a real
plane, or you can sim as a replacement for flying a real plane, depending on
what part of flying you enjoy.

[Peter Dohm]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one of
> the more enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the family
> room, in front of the PC. I am working on my instrument ticket. Ove the
> years I have collected the CH yoke and footpedals. I have downloaded a
> flight model and graphics for my Sundowner. I was looking out the window
> at the snow falling, and I set the sim to real world weather. Damn if the
> screen didn't look exactly like the weather outside, and I was once again
> looking at my panel. The ATC simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went
> down the "runway." I got vectored around pretty much the same as when I
> fly under the hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for
> about a nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot
> needed.
>
How dare you! Enjoyment! And at this time of year!

Peter
a/k/a Ebby (Scrooge)

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

..
"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> We can argue over their value as training tools, but I bet most would
> agree
> that as entertainment, they can be a hell of a lot of fun.
>

I play with Condor Soaring http://www.condorsoaring.com/

--
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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Just do me a favor will you please? Don't go out and try to fly IFR
>> with all that "no instructor or safety pilot needed" simulator time
>> in your log book without getting some of that "instructor and safety
>> pilot needed" stuff as well.
>
> I didn't see any mention of doing anything like that. Do you think he
> is stupid?


You don't fly. You have no idea what you;re talking about. You have no
business posting on this subject.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kyle Boatright writes:
>
>> Yep, but it wasn't flying, which is the whole point, right?
>
> For some people, the differences between flying a real airplane and
> flying a simulated airplane simply are not that important,


You don;t fly a sim, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:38 -0500, LWG wrote:
>
>> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX
>
> It important to not hate PC flight simulators just because of MX.
>
> We can argue over their value as training tools, but I bet most would
> agree that as entertainment, they can be a hell of a lot of fun.
>
>

Oh yeah. You can fly under bridges inverted, al that stuff, but their value
in this situation is severely limited.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> LWG writes:
>
>> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one
>> of the more enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the
>> family room, in front of the PC. I am working on my instrument
>> ticket. Ove the years I have collected the CH yoke and footpedals.
>> I have downloaded a flight model and graphics for my Sundowner. I
>> was looking out the window at the snow falling, and I set the sim to
>> real world weather. Damn if the screen didn't look exactly like the
>> weather outside, and I was once again looking at my panel. The ATC
>> simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went down the "runway." I
>> got vectored around pretty much the same as when I fly under the
>> hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for about a
>> nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot needed.
>
> That's only the tip of the iceberg. If you'd like to enjoy simming
> even more, consider:
>
> 1. Getting an add-on payware aircraft that matches whatever you enjoy
> flying in real life (or whatever you'd like to fly in real life).
> Companies like Dreamfleet, PMDG, and Level-D offer hyperrealistic
> simulations of a great many large and small aircraft that are so
> accurate that it's almost like flying a brand-new (and superior)
> simulator.
>
> 2. Use ActiveSky for weather. The simulations are so accurate that
> it's hard to distinguish them from real life.



You wouldn;'t know real life if it blew you.



Bertie>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"LWG" > wrote in
:

> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one
> of the more enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the
> family room, in front of the PC. I am working on my instrument ticket.
> Ove the years I have collected the CH yoke and footpedals. I have
> downloaded a flight model and graphics for my Sundowner. I was
> looking out the window at the snow falling, and I set the sim to real
> world weather. Damn if the screen didn't look exactly like the
> weather outside, and I was once again looking at my panel. The ATC
> simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went down the "runway." I got
> vectored around pretty much the same as when I fly under the hood. I
> thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for about a nickel's
> worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot needed.
>
>


Yes, there is an instructor needed or you;re not learning anything.

It's value as a tool is limited to two facets only, procedural and maybe a
bit of scan exercise. On the con side, the handling habits you may develop
using even the best sim will not stand to you when you fly the airplane.



Bertie

[Ron]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:00:22 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Kyle Boatright writes:
>
>> Yep, but it wasn't flying, which is the whole point, right?
>
>For some people, the differences between flying a real airplane and flying a
>simulated airplane simply are not that important, which is why they enjoy
>simming. Even for people who prefer flying a real airplane, simulation is
>close enough to the real thing and so incredibly inexpensive that it doesn't
>make sense to refuse to try it.

At the risk of jumping into the middle of a flame war, I'd like to
offer a few opinions. I fly real airplanes and play with simulators
now and then. Trust me, sims are not close to the real thing. 100%
of "flying" takes place after you leave the ground. All the
sensations of flight are what you feel, hear and see while moving your
airplane around in the sky. It isn't all going from A to B and
watching the scenery unfold on a monitor screen 20 inches in front of
your face. Even full motion multi-million dollar sims are not the
same as "flying". When you fly, if you love to fly, the expense is
secondary and only enters your mind at times when you are not flying
or not thinking about flying.

>
>In just online sim flying alone I have around 900 hours of time in the air,
>for less cost than a single hour in a tiny tin can airplane would cost in real
>life (and disregarding the huge cost of just getting a license for a
>real-world aircraft).

I'll give you the point that simulators can be fun, but they pale in
comparison to flying.

Ron Kelley

[[email protected]]

> But you must keep in mind that you can sim as a substitate for flying a real
> plane, or you can sim as a replacement for flying a real plane, depending on
> what part of flying you enjoy.

I've done both. Simming is not as fun for me, period. Especially if
you enjoy more than just straight and level flight. Simming will never
be as good for me.

All I think about right now is: how can I do this more often.

I don't care if it's expensive -- I'll do what I need to do. Share an
aircraft with others, build one, WHATEVER it takes.

I flew the other night and the complete serenity of the flight itself
was unsurpassed. I'd had a tough week at work -- but everything was
gone up there in the black. I went where I wanted. Even ATC shutup
when I got far enough out from class C.

Until you actually fly a plane you have nothing worthwhile to say
about comparing them.

The sim is cool but it doesn't even come close.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron writes:

> At the risk of jumping into the middle of a flame war, I'd like to
> offer a few opinions. I fly real airplanes and play with simulators
> now and then. Trust me, sims are not close to the real thing. 100%
> of "flying" takes place after you leave the ground. All the
> sensations of flight are what you feel, hear and see while moving your
> airplane around in the sky. It isn't all going from A to B and
> watching the scenery unfold on a monitor screen 20 inches in front of
> your face. Even full motion multi-million dollar sims are not the
> same as "flying". When you fly, if you love to fly, the expense is
> secondary and only enters your mind at times when you are not flying
> or not thinking about flying.

So do you fly a 747 or a F-18?

> I'll give you the point that simulators can be fun, but they pale in
> comparison to flying.

That is purely a matter of opinion.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Until you actually fly a plane you have nothing worthwhile to say
> about comparing them.

Until you're actually killed in an accident, you know nothing about how to
avoid them.

> The sim is cool but it doesn't even come close.

Purely a matter of opinion.

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

Your completely correct, it's a matter of opinion. But you have no grounds
to make a judgment since you will not do both where as several of these
posters have done both and refute your expresses opinion as being wrong.
Get over it, you just don't know what your talking about.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron writes:
>
>> At the risk of jumping into the middle of a flame war, I'd like to
>> offer a few opinions. I fly real airplanes and play with simulators
>> now and then. Trust me, sims are not close to the real thing. 100%
>> of "flying" takes place after you leave the ground. All the
>> sensations of flight are what you feel, hear and see while moving your
>> airplane around in the sky. It isn't all going from A to B and
>> watching the scenery unfold on a monitor screen 20 inches in front of
>> your face. Even full motion multi-million dollar sims are not the
>> same as "flying". When you fly, if you love to fly, the expense is
>> secondary and only enters your mind at times when you are not flying
>> or not thinking about flying.
>
> So do you fly a 747 or a F-18?
>
>> I'll give you the point that simulators can be fun, but they pale in
>> comparison to flying.
>
> That is purely a matter of opinion.

[Mxsmanic]

news.verizon.net writes:

> Your completely correct, it's a matter of opinion. But you have no grounds
> to make a judgment since you will not do both where as several of these
> posters have done both and refute your expresses opinion as being wrong.
> Get over it, you just don't know what your talking about.

My basis for a judgement is just as valid as anyone else's.

Opinions are opinions, not established facts. That's something that everyone
needs to learn and understand. Even a pilot with a billion hours of
experience is still expressing an opinion, not an established fact. The
distinction is important because decisions made on opinions treated as facts
are often extremely poor decisions. And if you treat opinions as facts you
make yourself vulnerable to manipulation, which will almost never be in your
favor.

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You have no
direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there for your judgment
is without basis.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> Your completely correct, it's a matter of opinion. But you have no
>> grounds
>> to make a judgment since you will not do both where as several of these
>> posters have done both and refute your expresses opinion as being wrong.
>> Get over it, you just don't know what your talking about.
>
> My basis for a judgement is just as valid as anyone else's.
>
> Opinions are opinions, not established facts. That's something that
> everyone
> needs to learn and understand. Even a pilot with a billion hours of
> experience is still expressing an opinion, not an established fact. The
> distinction is important because decisions made on opinions treated as
> facts
> are often extremely poor decisions. And if you treat opinions as facts
> you
> make yourself vulnerable to manipulation, which will almost never be in
> your
> favor.

[Mxsmanic]

news.verizon.net writes:

> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You have no
> direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there for your judgment
> is without basis.

As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time. Some learn the
easy way, and some learn the hard way.

[Jay Honeck]

> > The sim is cool but it doesn't even come close.
>
> Purely a matter of opinion.

Only if you haven't done it.

I love simming as much as anyone here (with the possible exception of
you), and have taken it to great lengths with our full-sized Kiwi
Flight Simulator. See it here: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm

That said, there is simply no comparison between the two experiences.
Flying the Kiwi is like watching a video of the sun rising -- pretty,
but nothing like being in the moment.

Which isn't to say that flying the sim isn't a valid, fun, educational
experience. With a rig like our Kiwi, it's possible to entertain
pilots (or oneself) for hours on end. I mean, where else can you
rocket through the Alps at Mach 1.4 for a nickel's worth of
electricity?

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

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> My basis for a judgement is just as valid as anyone else's.
>

No, your basis for a judgment is not. It would be like you saying which
tastes better Pepsi or Coke when you have never tried Coke.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > My basis for a judgement is just as valid as anyone else's.
> >
>
> No, your basis for a judgment is not. It would be like you saying which
> tastes better Pepsi or Coke when you have never tried Coke.

Kinda like trying to explain green to someone blind from birth.

The only problem is he says that green is exactly like red, and if you
disagree, you must "explain exactly what is different about them".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ron writes:
>
>> At the risk of jumping into the middle of a flame war, I'd like to
>> offer a few opinions. I fly real airplanes and play with simulators
>> now and then. Trust me, sims are not close to the real thing. 100%
>> of "flying" takes place after you leave the ground. All the
>> sensations of flight are what you feel, hear and see while moving your
>> airplane around in the sky. It isn't all going from A to B and
>> watching the scenery unfold on a monitor screen 20 inches in front of
>> your face. Even full motion multi-million dollar sims are not the
>> same as "flying". When you fly, if you love to fly, the expense is
>> secondary and only enters your mind at times when you are not flying
>> or not thinking about flying.
>
> So do you fly a 747 or a F-18?
>

What's it matter? You couldn't fly a chuck glider.


>> I'll give you the point that simulators can be fun, but they pale in
>> comparison to flying.
>
> That is purely a matter of opinion.



Bwawhawhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh ahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahw!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> Your completely correct, it's a matter of opinion. But you have no
>> grounds to make a judgment since you will not do both where as
>> several of these posters have done both and refute your expresses
>> opinion as being wrong. Get over it, you just don't know what your
>> talking about.
>
> My basis for a judgement is just as valid as anyone else's.
>
> Opinions are opinions, not established facts.


It's a fact, fjukktard.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You
>> have no direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there
>> for your judgment is without basis.
>
> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.


Wow, this has to be the stupidst thing anyone has ever said ever.


I'm genuinely impressed.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Until you actually fly a plane you have nothing worthwhile to say
>> about comparing them.
>
> Until you're actually killed in an accident, you know nothing about
> how to avoid them.


Somehow I think your own death won;'t be an accident.
>
>> The sim is cool but it doesn't even come close.
>
> Purely a matter of opinion.


And there it is again.


Bertie


>

[nobody[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > news.verizon.net writes:
> >
> >> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You
> >> have no direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there
> >> for your judgment is without basis.
> >
> > As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.
>
>
> Wow, this has to be the stupidst thing anyone has ever said ever.
>
>
> I'm genuinely impressed.
>

Stupider than "Flying has nothing to do with being in the air" ?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"nobody" > wrote in news:GBy8j.3$1X.0@trndny07:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > news.verizon.net writes:
>> >
>> >> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You
>> >> have no direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there
>> >> for your judgment is without basis.
>> >
>> > As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.
>>
>>
>> Wow, this has to be the stupidst thing anyone has ever said ever.
>>
>>
>> I'm genuinely impressed.
>>
>
> Stupider than "Flying has nothing to do with being in the air" ?



Oh I missed that..

OK, this is the second stupidest thing anyone has ever written.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 5:17 pm, "LWG" > wrote:
> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one of the
> more enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the family room,
> in front of the PC. I am working on my instrument ticket. Ove the years I
> have collected the CH yoke and footpedals. I have downloaded a flight model
> and graphics for my Sundowner. I was looking out the window at the snow
> falling, and I set the sim to real world weather. Damn if the screen didn't
> look exactly like the weather outside, and I was once again looking at my
> panel. The ATC simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went down the
> "runway." I got vectored around pretty much the same as when I fly under
> the hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for about a
> nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot needed.

About the only thing that I have used MSFS for is to make knife-edge
passes over the control tower, doing low level aerobatics, and
attempting to land on a postage stamp strip in an Archer. After a
bit, I got bored and started looking for the gun trigger and rocket
launcher so I could shoot down the bad guys...

It doesn't hold my attention like flying a real airplane.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Dec 13, 5:17 pm, "LWG" > wrote:
>> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one
>> of the more enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the
>> family room, in front of the PC. I am working on my instrument
>> ticket. Ove the years I have collected the CH yoke and footpedals.
>> I have downloaded a flight model and graphics for my Sundowner. I
>> was looking out the window at the snow falling, and I set the sim to
>> real world weather. Damn if the screen didn't look exactly like the
>> weather outside, and I was once again looking at my panel. The ATC
>> simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went down the "runway." I
>> got vectored around pretty much the same as when I fly under the
>> hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for about a
>> nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot needed.
>
> About the only thing that I have used MSFS for is to make knife-edge
> passes over the control tower, doing low level aerobatics, and
> attempting to land on a postage stamp strip in an Archer. After a
> bit, I got bored and started looking for the gun trigger and rocket
> launcher so I could shoot down the bad guys...
>
> It doesn't hold my attention like flying a real airplane.
>

Which would suggest a bobbin and a bit of string could keep anthony going
for a week.


Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which would suggest a bobbin and a bit of string could keep anthony going
> for a week.
>

He doesn't need the bobbin until next week.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> No, your basis for a judgment is not. It would be like you saying which
> tastes better Pepsi or Coke when you have never tried Coke.

What others are saying about piloting is like saying Coke tastes best without
having tasted anything else at all. There are many aspects to aviation, just
as there are many aspects to food and drink.

I've never said that simulation is superior to flying a real airplane in a
general sense, although I've indicated that I find it preferable in certain
respects. There isn't any way to prove or disprove that it is generally
superior or inferior, because that determination is purely a matter of
personal taste.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Only if you haven't done it.

Even if you've done it.

For example, ask someone with a fear of flying which is more enjoyable: a sim
flight or a real flight. You'll probably find that the sim flight wins. Is
this wrong or right? Well, it's neither. It's just one person's opinion.

And I have flown in airplanes, only not as a pilot (and not in the small
aircraft that most pilots here seem to prefer). I know myself well, and I
seriously doubt that flying a real Cessna or riding in the cockpit of a real
747 would result in any epiphany for me. Would they be fun? Maybe. Would I
yearn to abandon simming and struggle to obtain a pilot's license no matter
what were required to do so? I seriously doubt it. If I were that vulnerable
to the lure of the sky, it would have hit me long ago. I like aviation in
flying, but in ways that wouldn't necessarily be satisfied by lurching around
in a Cessna. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why do people have so
much difficulty accepting viewpoints other than their own?

> I love simming as much as anyone here (with the possible exception of
> you), and have taken it to great lengths with our full-sized Kiwi
> Flight Simulator. See it here: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm

So I've seen. An impressive set-up. And I think it's good that you expose
real pilots to the potential of simulation. Even pilots who love to fly for
real cannot necessarily do so as often as they might like, and simulation is a
way to help hold off symptoms of withdrawal.

> That said, there is simply no comparison between the two experiences.
> Flying the Kiwi is like watching a video of the sun rising -- pretty,
> but nothing like being in the moment.

Hmm ... the sun rising in real life looks a lot like a video to me. But, as
I've said, it's all a matter of opinions.

> Which isn't to say that flying the sim isn't a valid, fun, educational
> experience. With a rig like our Kiwi, it's possible to entertain
> pilots (or oneself) for hours on end. I mean, where else can you
> rocket through the Alps at Mach 1.4 for a nickel's worth of
> electricity?

Yes. And without a license, and under conditions you specify.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> No, your basis for a judgment is not. It would be like you saying
>> which tastes better Pepsi or Coke when you have never tried Coke.
>
> What others are saying about piloting is like saying Coke tastes best
> without having tasted anything else at all.


No, that is what you';re doing.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> What about when he asked about the location of the ejection seat
> activator on the Beech Baron?
>
>
>

Missed that as well. Obviously his lexicon of idiocy is as vast as the
universe itself.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Only if you haven't done it.
>
> Even if you've done it.
>
> For example, ask someone with a fear of flying which is more
> enjoyable: a sim flight or a real flight. You'll probably find that
> the sim flight wins. Is this wrong or right? Well, it's neither.
> It's just one person's opinion.
>
> And I have flown in airplanes, only not as a pilot (and not in the
> small aircraft that most pilots here seem to prefer). I know myself
> well, and I seriously doubt that flying a real Cessna or riding in the
> cockpit of a real 747 would result in any epiphany for me.

I doubt it as well. You're well beyond salvation of any sort.

>
> Hmm ... the sun rising in real life looks a lot like a video to me.


I'm sure it does.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> If you think simulation is superior to real life, you should post on
> the sim NG's. But wait, they all think you're an idiot as well.
>
> It must give you a warm and fuzzy knowing that everyone you interact
> with even over the internet thinks you're a blithering idiot.
>
>
>

I know it does that to me, anyway.


Bertie

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> No, your basis for a judgment is not. It would be like you saying which
>> tastes better Pepsi or Coke when you have never tried Coke.
>
> What others are saying about piloting is like saying Coke tastes best without
> having tasted anything else at all. There are many aspects to aviation, just
> as there are many aspects to food and drink.
>
> I've never said that simulation is superior to flying a real airplane in a
> general sense, although I've indicated that I find it preferable in certain
> respects. There isn't any way to prove or disprove that it is generally
> superior or inferior, because that determination is purely a matter of
> personal taste.

OK, let me rephrase, It would be like you saying anything about the
taste of Coke having never in your life drinking anything but Pepsi.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> What about when he asked about the location of the ejection seat activator
> on the Beech Baron?

There was a military version of the aircraft. I'm still trying to find out if
it was ever equipped with ejection seats. If not, I presume the ejection seat
was a joke of the model developers. You don't seem to know the answer, but
perhaps someone else does.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> It must give you a warm and fuzzy knowing that everyone you interact with
> even over the internet thinks you're a blithering idiot.

I cannot say, since that isn't actually the case.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 14, 1:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
.... Why is this so difficult to understand? ...

It isn't. You're arguing with a very small group that don't seem to
like you.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> What about when he asked about the location of the ejection seat
>> activator on the Beech Baron?
>
> There was a military version of the aircraft. I'm still trying to
> find out if it was ever equipped with ejection seats. If not, I
> presume the ejection seat was a joke of the model developers. You
> don't seem to know the answer, but perhaps someone else does.
>


I do, you;'re an idiot and you're wrong.


You're always wrong.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> It must give you a warm and fuzzy knowing that everyone you interact
>> with even over the internet thinks you're a blithering idiot.
>
> I cannot say, since that isn't actually the case.
>

Yes, it is, if you don't include your sock puppets.


Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> For example, ask someone with a fear of flying which is more enjoyable: a
> sim
> flight or a real flight.

If you insist...

Anthony, which is more enjoyable: a sim flight or a real flight?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:2a578573-922c-4473-9bbe-0573dbd4cbe2
@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 14, 1:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> ... Why is this so difficult to understand? ...
>
> It isn't. You're arguing with a very small group that don't seem to
> like you.
>

I'm sure if he branchd out and increased his audience he could expand on
that.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> OK, let me rephrase, It would be like you saying anything about the
> taste of Coke having never in your life drinking anything but Pepsi.

Is that like making statements about flying airliners when one has never flown
anything but a single-engined tin-fan prop?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It isn't. You're arguing with a very small group that don't seem to
> like you.

Well, I'd be happy to discuss aviation, but nobody seems to want to post about
that. Almost all I ever get is white noise from the treehouse club.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Actually, if you include all of the other NG's that he has poisoned, the
> group that doesn't like him is actually very large.

It amounts to only a few dozen people, and there are tens of millions of
people on USENET.

The blustering, yappy little dogs are a very tiny minority on USENET, but they
make an incredible amount of noise. And if anyone poisons discussion on
USENET, they do.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> ... which is more enjoyable: a sim flight or a real flight?

Well, I'm always the pilot on the sim, and I'm always the passenger in real
flights, so it's hard to say. I like take-off and rotation in real aircraft,
with landing coming in second. Cruise is boring. This is also true for
simulation, even when I'm in the cockpit.

I suppose I like simulation better, as there's more aviation to it and zero
overhead, whereas flying for real offers only a few seconds of interesting
stuff (take-off and rotation, landing), and hours and hours of exquisitely
boring overhead. There are other factors working against real flight, too,
such as the fact that you're always going somewhere in a real flight, whereas
I hate to travel.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
> Lots of posters here have fun bashing MX, but I have to say that one of the more
> enjoyable experiences I've had lately was sitting in the family room, in front of the
> PC. I am working on my instrument ticket. Ove the years I have collected the CH yoke
> and footpedals. I have downloaded a flight model and graphics for my Sundowner. I was
> looking out the window at the snow falling, and I set the sim to real world weather.
> Damn if the screen didn't look exactly like the weather outside, and I was once again
> looking at my panel. The ATC simulation wasn't bad either, and off I went down the
> "runway." I got vectored around pretty much the same as when I fly under the hood. I
> thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for about a nickel's worth of
> electricity. No instructor or safety pilot needed.

As long as you don't pretend that the mere act of puttering through the air in your MSFS
makes you any kind of expert on actual flying, that's fine. Unfortunately, we have a
poster here who doesn't understand the difference.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> OK, let me rephrase, It would be like you saying anything about the
>> taste of Coke having never in your life drinking anything but Pepsi.
>
> Is that like making statements about flying airliners when one has
> never flown anything but a single-engined tin-fan prop?
>


Nope, it's like only ever having eaten **** and claimng you know what
shinola tastes like.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> It isn't. You're arguing with a very small group that don't seem to
>> like you.
>
> Well, I'd be happy to discuss aviation,


No you wouldn't


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Actually, if you include all of the other NG's that he has poisoned,
>> the group that doesn't like him is actually very large.
>
> It amounts to only a few dozen people, and there are tens of millions
> of people on USENET.
>

> The blustering, yappy little dogs are a very tiny minority on USENET,
> but they make an incredible amount of noise. And if anyone poisons
> discussion on USENET, they do.
>

Yeh, right, fjukkwit.


But don't get upset about it. People might get the idea that you have a
limit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> ... which is more enjoyable: a sim flight or a real flight?
>
> Well, I'm always the pilot on the sim,


No you aren't. nobody is a pilot in a sim.



Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Dec 14, 6:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
.... Cruise is boring. ... whereas flying for real offers only a
few seconds of interesting stuff (take-off and rotation, landing), and
hours and hours of exquisitely
> boring overhead.

I don't think cruise is boring in real flying. For me, there are at
least a few significant differences between the sim and real flying
while in cruise:

1) In real flight, a large fraction of my attention during cruise is
directed towards scanning for other traffic. The possibility of a mid-
air is a big motivator for paying attention outside the plane that,
for me, is completely missing when I fly the sim.

2) In real flight, there is always the possibility of screwing up and
flying where I'm not supposed to (e.g., restricted areas, TFRs, wrong
altitude, etc.) with potentially serious consequences. This is
another big motivator to occupy the mind with constant double and
triple checking of my position.

3) The real engine always has the potential to fail in flight, so I'm
always listening to it, checking it's gauges, being attentive to the
slightest change.

4) Most of all, I very much enjoy the pleasure of being in the
airplane and feeling it respond to my control inputs, even when simply
flying straight and level.

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:20:36 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>
>4) Most of all, I very much enjoy the pleasure of being in the
>airplane and feeling it respond to my control inputs, even when simply
>flying straight and level.


5.) The view.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> 1) In real flight, a large fraction of my attention during cruise is
> directed towards scanning for other traffic. The possibility of a mid-
> air is a big motivator for paying attention outside the plane that,
> for me, is completely missing when I fly the sim.

Mmm ... yes. Traffic is somewhat lacking in the sim. MSFS will generate
traffic, but it's not very realistic. VATSIM provides much more realistic
traffic, but it's so light that one can get away with never scanning for it.
On a few occasions (a very few), I've had TCAS conflicts and close visual
contact with other aircraft in the latter case, though. Occasionally there
are events where so many aircraft fly at the same time that the network has
the same traffic as real life, and then it can be very interesting.

Of course, in real life, having lots of traffic around isn't fun, but in
simulation, often the things that would be scary or dangerous in real life are
fun or challenging in simulation (such as severe weather, heavy traffic,
etc.).

> 2) In real flight, there is always the possibility of screwing up and
> flying where I'm not supposed to (e.g., restricted areas, TFRs, wrong
> altitude, etc.) with potentially serious consequences. This is
> another big motivator to occupy the mind with constant double and
> triple checking of my position.

This can happen in online simulation, although there are no real consequences,
so it is less stressful, depending on how seriously you take your simulation.
Nobody gets flying privileges revoked for entering prohibited areas, of
course.

> 3) The real engine always has the potential to fail in flight, so I'm
> always listening to it, checking it's gauges, being attentive to the
> slightest change.

I consider that a significant argument against real flying. Piston engines
are notoriously unreliable in real life, and I don't see how constantly
watching over them could be enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination.

> 4) Most of all, I very much enjoy the pleasure of being in the
> airplane and feeling it respond to my control inputs, even when simply
> flying straight and level.

Ah, well, that you cannot get from a desktop simulator. Aerobatic and fighter
pilots are also at a disadvantage with sims for this reason, although I've
heard that sim programs dedicated to simulation of such aircraft (e.g., Lock
On) can be enjoyable for those who like this sort of thing.

I don't pay much attention to sensations; I like procedures and instruments
and navigation. To me, flying along in zero visibility for an hour and seeing
the runway only seconds before I land brings a considerable sense of
achievement.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> As long as you don't pretend that the mere act of puttering through the air in your MSFS
> makes you any kind of expert on actual flying, that's fine. Unfortunately, we have a
> poster here who doesn't understand the difference.

Who here has claimed that flying a sim makes one an _expert_ in real flight?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> 1) In real flight, a large fraction of my attention during cruise is
>> directed towards scanning for other traffic. The possibility of a
>> mid- air is a big motivator for paying attention outside the plane
>> that, for me, is completely missing when I fly the sim.
>
> Mmm ... yes. Traffic is somewhat lacking in the sim. MSFS will
> generate traffic, but it's not very realistic. VATSIM provides much
> more realistic traffic, but it's so light that one can get away with
> never scanning for it. On a few occasions (a very few), I've had TCAS
> conflicts and close visual contact with other aircraft in the latter
> case, though. Occasionally there are events where so many aircraft
> fly at the same time that the network has the same traffic as real
> life, and then it can be very interesting.
>
> Of course, in real life, having lots of traffic around isn't fun, but
> in simulation, often the things that would be scary or dangerous in
> real life are fun or challenging in simulation (such as severe
> weather, heavy traffic, etc.).
>
>> 2) In real flight, there is always the possibility of screwing up and
>> flying where I'm not supposed to (e.g., restricted areas, TFRs, wrong
>> altitude, etc.) with potentially serious consequences. This is
>> another big motivator to occupy the mind with constant double and
>> triple checking of my position.
>
> This can happen in online simulation, although there are no real
> consequences, so it is less stressful, depending on how seriously you
> take your simulation. Nobody gets flying privileges revoked for
> entering prohibited areas, of course.
>
>> 3) The real engine always has the potential to fail in flight, so I'm
>> always listening to it, checking it's gauges, being attentive to the
>> slightest change.
>
> I consider that a significant argument against real flying. Piston
> engines are notoriously unreliable in real life, and I don't see how
> constantly watching over them could be enjoyable by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
>> 4) Most of all, I very much enjoy the pleasure of being in the
>> airplane and feeling it respond to my control inputs, even when
>> simply flying straight and level.
>
> Ah, well, that you cannot get from a desktop simulator. Aerobatic and
> fighter pilots are also at a disadvantage with sims for this reason,
> although I've heard that sim programs dedicated to simulation of such
> aircraft (e.g., Lock On) can be enjoyable for those who like this sort
> of thing.
>
> I don't pay much attention to sensations; I like procedures and
> instruments and navigation. To me, flying along in zero visibility
> for an hour and seeing the runway only seconds before I land brings a
> considerable sense of achievement.
>


Too bad you'll never do it, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> As long as you don't pretend that the mere act of puttering through
>> the air in your MSFS makes you any kind of expert on actual flying,
>> that's fine. Unfortunately, we have a poster here who doesn't
>> understand the difference.
>
> Who here has claimed that flying a sim makes one an _expert_ in real
> flight?
>

You have, you ****king lying piece of ****.


Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:03:00 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:
>
>I don't pay much attention to sensations;

Neither do instrument pilots.

>To me, flying along in zero visibility for an hour and seeing
>the runway only seconds before I land brings a considerable sense of
>achievement.

You don't have zero vis. You can hit "P", and get up and walk away.

Does the desk fall apart if you overstress it?

You aren't flying.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:03:00 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>>
>>I don't pay much attention to sensations;
>
> Neither do instrument pilots.

I disagree. there are a thousand sensations going on you have to pay
attention to.

i know what you mean, that your inner ear is suspect, but you still use it,
you just have to interpret the signal to some extent and of course, it's
always suspect, but it's still of some use.
But there are a lot of other sensations going on, the vibe of the airplane,
the sounds it's making, the changing light outside, smells, even touch (if
we think there is an engine vibe first thing we do is reach for the
throttles to se if they are buzzing, used to be the start levers before
they made them electric)
Quite a few of these subtle inputs aren't even catalogued or quantified.
sometimes something just doesnt feel right and starts you looking around
for the problem.
I'm sure you know what I mean, even if you haven;t ever realy considered it
this way before.

Anthony can't even begin to appreciate this on any level...

Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:34:51 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>i know what you mean, that your inner ear is suspect, but you still use it,
>you just have to interpret the signal to some extent and of course, it's
>always suspect, but it's still of some use.
>But there are a lot of other sensations going on, the vibe of the airplane,
>the sounds it's making, the changing light outside, smells, even touch (if
>we think there is an engine vibe first thing we do is reach for the
>throttles to se if they are buzzing, used to be the start levers before
>they made them electric)
>Quite a few of these subtle inputs aren't even catalogued or quantified.
>sometimes something just doesnt feel right and starts you looking around
>for the problem.
>I'm sure you know what I mean, even if you haven;t ever realy considered it
>this way before.

As much as we're taught to ignore the seat of our pants...

With it pointed out, you're absolutely right. Another touch aspect is
the yoke feedback and occasional flutters and vibrations.

I'm usually responsible for the smells... <G>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:34:51 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>i know what you mean, that your inner ear is suspect, but you still
>>use it, you just have to interpret the signal to some extent and of
>>course, it's always suspect, but it's still of some use.
>>But there are a lot of other sensations going on, the vibe of the
>>airplane, the sounds it's making, the changing light outside, smells,
>>even touch (if we think there is an engine vibe first thing we do is
>>reach for the throttles to se if they are buzzing, used to be the
>>start levers before they made them electric)
>>Quite a few of these subtle inputs aren't even catalogued or
>>quantified. sometimes something just doesnt feel right and starts you
>>looking around for the problem.
>>I'm sure you know what I mean, even if you haven;t ever realy
>>considered it this way before.
>
> As much as we're taught to ignore the seat of our pants...

Yeah, I knew that's what you meant..

>
> With it pointed out, you're absolutely right. Another touch aspect is
> the yoke feedback and occasional flutters and vibrations.

Exactly..
>
> I'm usually responsible for the smells... <G>


Well, in my contraption it usually means we're being inundated with
organophosphates from the ****ing engine oil... Yech.


Bertie
>

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Viperdoc writes:
>>
>>> What about when he asked about the location of the ejection seat
>>> activator on the Beech Baron?
>>
>> There was a military version of the aircraft. I'm still trying to
>> find out if it was ever equipped with ejection seats. If not, I
>> presume the ejection seat was a joke of the model developers. You
>> don't seem to know the answer, but perhaps someone else does.
>
> I do, you;'re an idiot and you're wrong.
>
> You're always wrong.

Well, at least he consistent - which makes him living proof that "A foolish consistency is
the hobgoblin of little minds."

[Ron]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:53:25 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Ron writes:
>
>> At the risk of jumping into the middle of a flame war, I'd like to
>> offer a few opinions. I fly real airplanes and play with simulators
>> now and then. Trust me, sims are not close to the real thing. 100%
>> of "flying" takes place after you leave the ground. All the
>> sensations of flight are what you feel, hear and see while moving your
>> airplane around in the sky. It isn't all going from A to B and
>> watching the scenery unfold on a monitor screen 20 inches in front of
>> your face. Even full motion multi-million dollar sims are not the
>> same as "flying". When you fly, if you love to fly, the expense is
>> secondary and only enters your mind at times when you are not flying
>> or not thinking about flying.
>
>So do you fly a 747 or a F-18?

It doesn't matter. Flying is aviating in the air no matter what your
aircraft is.

>
>> I'll give you the point that simulators can be fun, but they pale in
>> comparison to flying.
>
>That is purely a matter of opinion.


Tha's why I said in the beginning of my post "I'd like to offer a few
opinions."

Ron Kelley

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:QdI8j.82$Uq4.44@trnddc06:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Viperdoc writes:
>>>
>>>> What about when he asked about the location of the ejection seat
>>>> activator on the Beech Baron?
>>>
>>> There was a military version of the aircraft. I'm still trying to
>>> find out if it was ever equipped with ejection seats. If not, I
>>> presume the ejection seat was a joke of the model developers. You
>>> don't seem to know the answer, but perhaps someone else does.
>>
>> I do, you;'re an idiot and you're wrong.
>>
>> You're always wrong.
>
> Well, at least he consistent - which makes him living proof that "A
> foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
>
>
His must be microscopic.

Bertie

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Actually, if you include all of the other NG's that he has poisoned, the
>> group that doesn't like him is actually very large.
>
> It amounts to only a few dozen people, and there are tens of millions of
> people on USENET.
>
> The blustering, yappy little dogs are a very tiny minority on USENET, but they
> make an incredible amount of noise. And if anyone poisons discussion on
> USENET, they do.

But it's nowhere near millions of readers who see your yappy little dog droppings. Even
among the relatively few readers who frequent the same groups and blogs that you do, many
ignore or killfile you.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, granted that not everyone who reads you responds
to you. Care to document the ratio of criticisms to love letters for those who have
responded to you?

Even allowing for the effect that people are more likely to take the time to write a
complaint or criticism than offer agreement or a compliment, your fan club is hardly in
evidence here or in your other hang-outs. I think I saw one newbie here who naively took
one of your posts at face value a while ago, and one limited concurrence in another group.
Got any others?

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>>
>>> OK, let me rephrase, It would be like you saying anything about the
>>> taste of Coke having never in your life drinking anything but Pepsi.
>>
>> Is that like making statements about flying airliners when one has
>> never flown anything but a single-engined tin-fan prop?
>
> Nope, it's like only ever having eaten **** and claimng you know what
> shinola tastes like.

Okay, but we now have credible evidence that he's probably done both.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> As long as you don't pretend that the mere act of puttering through the air in your
>> MSFS
>> makes you any kind of expert on actual flying, that's fine. Unfortunately, we have a
>> poster here who doesn't understand the difference.
>
> Who here has claimed that flying a sim makes one an _expert_ in real flight?

You routinely make assertions that are couched in terms of having expertise in aspects of
flying. Backing off later by describing them as "opinions" doesn't change that fact.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Dec 14, 4:49 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> There was a military version of the aircraft. I'm still trying to find out if
> it was ever equipped with ejection seats. If not, I presume the ejection seat
> was a joke of the model developers. You don't seem to know the answer, but
> perhaps someone else does.

At the risk of being an enabler...

The only custom-built military version of the Baron was the T-42A
Cochise, used by the U.S. and Turkey. Everyone else who used it
(mostly sundry African nations) seems to have bought off the shelf
from Beech. A quick look at pretty much any photo of the T-42 reveals
that it is equipped with regular seats, the only special feature of
which appears to be upholstery.

How would you eject from a Baron anyway? Explosive panels directly
over your head? That ought to be memorable, given the available
headroom- real once in a lifetime experience.

-JTD

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You have no
>> direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there for your judgment
>> is without basis.
>
> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time. Some learn the
> easy way, and some learn the hard way.

For someone who has spent so much time with computer programs, your grasp of logic is
remarkably deficient. A simple exercise in set theory can disprove that all opinions are
equal. That sounds more like something they use to offer encouragement to kids who ride
the short bus:

"Of course your drawing of a horse is as good as anyone else's, Anthony! Just because it
has five legs, two tails, is as tall as the Eiffel Tower next to it, and no one has ever
seen a horse with a purple head and green body, doesn't mean that it's not as good as any
of the horse drawings you see in your art book. Don't let those mean old kids on the
playground tell you any different!"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote

> With it pointed out, you're absolutely right. Another touch aspect is
> the yoke feedback and occasional flutters and vibrations.
>
> I'm usually responsible for the smells... <G>

That's a ****ty thing to say about someone, especially about yourself! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Why do people have so
> much difficulty accepting viewpoints other than their own?

Because you posit your opinions as though they had factual support equal to those of
people who actually know WTF they're talking about. For example, your ignorant comment
about extending the airline pilot age to 65:

> But doesn't this mean that he'll ultimately fly longer? He may not be
> thrilled over the short term, but it means five extra years at the peak of his
> career.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Dougherty writes:

> The only custom-built military version of the Baron was the T-42A
> Cochise, used by the U.S. and Turkey. Everyone else who used it
> (mostly sundry African nations) seems to have bought off the shelf
> from Beech. A quick look at pretty much any photo of the T-42 reveals
> that it is equipped with regular seats, the only special feature of
> which appears to be upholstery.

I didn't think it very likely.

> How would you eject from a Baron anyway? Explosive panels directly
> over your head?

Presumably. The canopies of fighter jets are probably stronger than the roof
over the head of the pilot in a Baron, so if those canopies can be blown clear
or sliced, so can the roof of the Baron.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> For someone who has spent so much time with computer programs, your grasp of logic is
> remarkably deficient. A simple exercise in set theory can disprove that all opinions are
> equal.

Opinions are not abstract mathematical entities.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron writes:

> It doesn't matter. Flying is aviating in the air no matter what your
> aircraft is.

No, sorry, it's apples and oranges. Flying a tin can doesn't qualify you to
fly a fighter jet or airliner. Flying a fighter jet doesn't qualify you to
fly an airliner or tin can. And so on.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> But it's nowhere near millions of readers who see your yappy little dog droppings.

There are hundreds of thousands of yapping dogs such as I've described. My
own posts don't even show on the radar compared to the traffic they generate.
They are present in every newsgroup, and very vocal.

> Even among the relatively few readers who frequent the same groups and blogs
> that you do, many ignore or killfile you.

How do you know?

> Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, granted that not everyone who reads you responds
> to you. Care to document the ratio of criticisms to love letters for those who have
> responded to you?

What do you mean by love letters?

> Even allowing for the effect that people are more likely to take the time to write a
> complaint or criticism than offer agreement or a compliment, your fan club is hardly in
> evidence here or in your other hang-outs.

I don't have a fan club, but there are a number of people who are sufficiently
obsessed with me to constantly write to me or about me, even to the detriment
of legitimate discussion. It's bizarre. I don't consider it a compliment,
because their obsessions have a pathological air about them, and are
(probably) not driven by admiration.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Neither do instrument pilots.

Exactly.

> You don't have zero vis. You can hit "P", and get up and walk away.

There is no connection between the two.

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> Because you posit your opinions as though they had factual support equal to those of
> people who actually know WTF they're talking about.

No, I do not. That is the inference of others who interpret my lack of wimpy
deference to the alpha dogs as some sort of aggressiveness. They have a
tremendous emotional investment in everything they post and read; I do not.
Since there isn't any intrinsic emotional content in my posts, they imagine
such content and project it upon them. They cannot conceive of anyone just
participating in the newsgroup for the purpose of sharing information.

> For example, your ignorant comment about extending the airline pilot age to 65:
>
> > But doesn't this mean that he'll ultimately fly longer? He may not be
> > thrilled over the short term, but it means five extra years at the peak of his
> > career.

Which begins with a question, a question that nobody has answered. What were
you saying about posting opinions as fact? Do you have an answer to the
question?

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> You routinely make assertions that are couched in terms of having expertise in aspects of
> flying.

Give me a few specific examples.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 14, 8:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
.... VATSIM provides ...

Maybe you can get VATSIM to require a diversion to some other
unexpected airport at some random time during cruise, to spice it up.

Or, how about simulating an instrument failure, or loss of
communications.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:27:00 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"B A R R Y" > wrote
>
>> With it pointed out, you're absolutely right. Another touch aspect is
>> the yoke feedback and occasional flutters and vibrations.
>>
>> I'm usually responsible for the smells... <G>
>
>That's a ****ty thing to say about someone, especially about yourself! <g>

At least they're organic smells!

That's the beauty of small airplanes. Most have tremendous internal
airflow when needed.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

I now have about 500 hours in my Baron, and of course have studied them
extensively. The military model ejection seat was in fact an early version
of the MB7, made by Martin Baker. They consisted of a cannon shell to eject
the pilot, co-pilot, and rear seat passengers through the roof of the plane,
as you suggested. Once the cannon shell fired, a rocket charge ignited,
clearing the seat and rider from the plane, and contained an automatically
opening chute, with an attached raft and survival kit, similar to the
ACES-II seat.

Each seat weighs around 600 lbs. It's use has been credited with saving many
Baron crews over the years.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> But it's nowhere near millions of readers who see your yappy little
>> dog droppings.
>
> There are hundreds of thousands of yapping dogs such as I've
> described.


And the population of earth is growing al the time!
Wait til the Chinese discover you!




> My own posts don't even show on the radar compared to the
> traffic they generate. They are present in every newsgroup, and very
> vocal.

Hard to imagine.

>
>> Even among the relatively few readers who frequent the same groups
>> and blogs that you do, many ignore or killfile you.
>
> How do you know?


Snort!


>
>> Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, granted that not everyone who
>> reads you responds to you. Care to document the ratio of criticisms
>> to love letters for those who have responded to you?
>
> What do you mean by love letters?
>
>> Even allowing for the effect that people are more likely to take the
>> time to write a complaint or criticism than offer agreement or a
>> compliment, your fan club is hardly in evidence here or in your other
>> hang-outs.
>
> I don't have a fan club, but there are a number of people who are
> sufficiently obsessed with me to constantly write to me or about me,


Obsessed?

Nah..


> even to the detriment of legitimate discussion.

Bwawahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahw!

You don't know the meaing of the word, "discussion" That's your problem
fjukkwit.


It's bizarre. I
> don't consider it a compliment, because their obsessions have a
> pathological air about them, and are (probably) not driven by
> admiration.
>
Another gem.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in news:cGI8j.12879$D44.1486
@trnddc04:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>>>
>>>> OK, let me rephrase, It would be like you saying anything about the
>>>> taste of Coke having never in your life drinking anything but Pepsi.
>>>
>>> Is that like making statements about flying airliners when one has
>>> never flown anything but a single-engined tin-fan prop?
>>
>> Nope, it's like only ever having eaten **** and claimng you know what
>> shinola tastes like.
>
> Okay, but we now have credible evidence that he's probably done both.
>
>
>

Ew, sounds creepy when you say it!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> You routinely make assertions that are couched in terms of having
>> expertise in aspects of flying.
>
> Give me a few specific examples.
>

Go use the archive yourself, fjukkwit. Look at any post you've made,
ever...




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jeff Dougherty writes:
>
>> The only custom-built military version of the Baron was the T-42A
>> Cochise, used by the U.S. and Turkey. Everyone else who used it
>> (mostly sundry African nations) seems to have bought off the shelf
>> from Beech. A quick look at pretty much any photo of the T-42
>> reveals that it is equipped with regular seats, the only special
>> feature of which appears to be upholstery.
>
> I didn't think it very likely.
>
>> How would you eject from a Baron anyway? Explosive panels directly
>> over your head?
>
> Presumably. The canopies of fighter jets are probably stronger than
> the roof over the head of the pilot in a Baron, so if those canopies
> can be blown clear or sliced, so can the roof of the Baron.
>

Your idiocy grows day by day. soon you will be in a universe of stupidity
all your own...


Well done.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> I now have about 500 hours in my Baron, and of course have studied
> them extensively. The military model ejection seat was in fact an
> early version of the MB7, made by Martin Baker. They consisted of a
> cannon shell to eject the pilot, co-pilot, and rear seat passengers
> through the roof of the plane, as you suggested. Once the cannon shell
> fired, a rocket charge ignited, clearing the seat and rider from the
> plane, and contained an automatically opening chute, with an attached
> raft and survival kit, similar to the ACES-II seat.
>
> Each seat weighs around 600 lbs. It's use has been credited with
> saving many Baron crews over the years.
>
>
>

Wow, I stand corrected.

Did the cockpit face rearwards also? Like in Captain Scarlet?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> For someone who has spent so much time with computer programs, your
>> grasp of logic is remarkably deficient. A simple exercise in set
>> theory can disprove that all opinions are equal.
>
> Opinions are not abstract mathematical entities.
>

Quite correct, but my opinion that the earth is round and that you are an
asshole are both beyond reasonable discussion.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Because you posit your opinions as though they had factual support
>> equal to those of people who actually know WTF they're talking about.
>
> No, I do not.


Yes, you do.

That is the inference of others who interpret my lack
> of wimpy deference to the alpha dogs as some sort of aggressiveness.
> They have a tremendous emotional investment in everything they post
> and read; I do not.


Because you don;'t know anything


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ron writes:
>
>> It doesn't matter. Flying is aviating in the air no matter what your
>> aircraft is.
>
> No, sorry, it's apples and oranges.


It's **** and shinola. Your ass and your elbow..



Flying a tin can doesn't qualify
> you to fly a fighter jet or airliner. Flying a fighter jet doesn't
> qualify you to fly an airliner or tin can. And so on.
>


And you aren't qualified to fly a rubbr band powered stick and tissue
model.

Tell you what, you succesfully build and fly one and you can come back with
a frsh opportunity to actually speak as someone who has aviated!



But you won't....

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> Neither do instrument pilots.
>
> Exactly.


Nope.


>
>> You don't have zero vis. You can hit "P", and get up and walk away.
>
> There is no connection between the two.


That's right. Maybe we're getting through after all.



Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:a1b9f5a7-ba8b-49cc-975c-
:

> On Dec 14, 8:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> ... VATSIM provides ...
>
> Maybe you can get VATSIM to require a diversion to some other
> unexpected airport at some random time during cruise, to spice it up.
>
> Or, how about simulating an instrument failure, or loss of
> communications.
>

Cockpit smoke and fire, icing, CB, hail, pestilence, flood!


Aaaaargh!


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Maybe you can get VATSIM to require a diversion to some other
> unexpected airport at some random time during cruise, to spice it up.

That is determined mostly by the weather, not VATSIM.

> Or, how about simulating an instrument failure, or loss of
> communications.

Occasionally people simulate emergencies on the network; in fact, they have a
lot more simulated emergencies on the network than you would expect in real
life, especially improbable things like multiple jet engine failures.
However, these are often the kiddies on the network who have the wildly
improbable emergencies. I simulate emergencies about as often as they occur
in real life, and so I have yet to simulate an emergency thus far.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Actually, the rear seat passengers also faced to the rear, to work the
> avionics packages.. They generally consisted of a Sperry radar system
> capable of air to air detection, and this equipment weighed several
> hundred pounds as well.
>
> The original Baron was designed as a light recon/attack aircraft, and
> mine still has the hard points for the addition of drop tanks, or two
> 500lb Mark 82 bombs under the wings. Later versions can carry either
> the AIM-9 infrared missile, or the AIM 120 AMRAAM. The associated
> radar package is mounted in the nose.

A mean machine!

>
> Unlike the civilian version, the early military version of the Baron
> had twin Wright 18 cylinder R-3860 engines, each capable of producing
> over 800HP. This gave a top speed of over 350knots, burning 200gallons
> an hour.


Wow, so cool! Were they the R-3860 W4N,s or the VW1109's? I hear the VW
1109s tended to overheat slightly when you used the galley.

Did you keep it in the optional revetment under a retractable swimming
pool?
>
> This is why I like flying my Baron- it has such a great military
> history, although it never gained wide spread acceptance. I'm
> surprised that it's history is not better documented, but it must be
> on the internet somewhere. Anthony must obviously be too pre-occupied
> to do the research on the plane that he claims to know so well.
>
>
>

Obviously.
I'm a little surprised at this, actually. His research is usually so
thorough.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Maybe you can get VATSIM to require a diversion to some other
>> unexpected airport at some random time during cruise, to spice it up.
>
> That is determined mostly by the weather, not VATSIM.
>
>> Or, how about simulating an instrument failure, or loss of
>> communications.
>
> Occasionally people simulate emergencies on the network; in fact, they
> have a lot more simulated emergencies on the network than you would
> expect in real life, especially improbable things like multiple jet
> engine failures. However, these are often the kiddies on the network
> who have the wildly improbable emergencies. I simulate emergencies
> about as often as they occur in real life, and so I have yet to
> simulate an emergency thus far.

Oh, and BTW, in one night last week, I had a pack failure on one
airplane which required a descent, then an alt hold problem (only in
VNAV, so it was manageable just by reverting to alt hold) and then a
windscreen fire on another airplane on the next sector. All in well
maintained airplanes, BTW, not dogs.

I've had six engine shutdowns (four actual failures and two
precaurtionaries) just in turbines, and about the same number in
pistons, some in singles.

So, if you want to argue with me you're going to have to up the failure
rate a bit.

Oh wait, you never argue with me.

wonder why?

Bertie

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Dec 15, 9:08 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Actually, I don't know which version of the Wrights they used. However, for
> take off they did have water injection available, since the gross weight
> increased to over 20,000 pounds.

Are you sure they had to use water injection? My information says
that they used fuselage-mounted JATO units for takeoffs near MTOW,
despite some early accidents where the rockets ripped themselves off
the fuselage and kept going.

> The naval version had an arresting hook, similar to the Grumman F7F. In
> fact, except for the wider cabin, they looked remarkably similar to the
> Tigercat.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the Baron's MiG-killer history while
you were talking about the naval version. On January 12, 1991 a
Beechcraft Baron of VF-42 off of USS Enterprise intercepted a MiG-29
over Iraqi airspace and got into one of the few real turning dogfights
of Operation Desert Storm. Fortunately, the military version's fly-by-
wire system and blown flaps allowed Lt. Pete Mitchell to out-turn the
Fulcrum and defeat it with a single Sidewinder shot. Tragically, he
and his radar operator were both killed while landing that night, when
their arrestor hook snagged a wire and the rest of the Baron kept
going.

Then, of course, there's the little known fact that the missing F-19
designation actually refers to the "stealth" Baron...

-JTD

> Anthony, are you copying any of this information?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Actually, I don't know which version of the Wrights they used.
> However, for take off they did have water injection available, since
> the gross weight increased to over 20,000 pounds.
>
> The naval version had an arresting hook, similar to the Grumman F7F.
> In fact, except for the wider cabin, they looked remarkably similar to
> the Tigercat.


Excelent. an chane I can get a go in it?

Better yet, why don;'t you model it for X-planes version 8.60? That would
be even better than actually flying it.
>
> Anthony, are you copying any of this information?
>

With any luck....


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> > Presumably. The canopies of fighter jets are probably stronger than
> > the roof over the head of the pilot in a Baron, so if those canopies
> > can be blown clear or sliced, so can the roof of the Baron.

I'm now starting to understand how Le Chaud Lapin was being accussed
of being a sock puppet of Mxsmanic.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:bf1e54af-1607-455c-a793-4d228f1d86b9
@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

>> > Presumably. The canopies of fighter jets are probably stronger than
>> > the roof over the head of the pilot in a Baron, so if those canopies
>> > can be blown clear or sliced, so can the roof of the Baron.
>
> I'm now starting to understand how Le Chaud Lapin was being accussed
> of being a sock puppet of Mxsmanic.
>

Oh he was. I'm as certain as you can be without an IP. It was classic
sockpuppet stuff. The sock took a mildly opposing position so that Anthony
could "convert " him and thereby gain some cred..He couldn't hide his
personality, or lack thereof, however.



Bertie

[LWG]

Consider it done. My instructor is currently out of state, and so I'm
between lessons. I don't "learn" much by simming, but I can practice what
I've learned (to an extent nearly beaten to death here).

There one real advantage to simming. I have had two attitude gyros die on
me, so far under bright VFR conditions. I set the sim for random instrument
and radio failures during my approach. That keeps your cross check honest.
It just isn't the same to slap a suction cup over an instrument. (I also
don't have those nagging worries about whether the guy who towed the plane
to the maintenance hangar exceeded the nosewheel turning angles, and whether
that new noise I hear is the nosegear falling off.)

I also use simming to anticipate new flights. If I am going to a new and
complicated airport, I will set the time of day and weather to my
anticipated arrival, and sim a few landings. This has proven to be an
excellent tool to use in addition to traditional flight planning.

I find the sim to be much more difficult to, er, "manipulate" (I dare not
say "fly" after reading the past posts) than the airplane.

Simming will never replicate the sheer exhilaration of controlling a machine
as it leaves the earth below and returns, but the other day watching the
snow out the window and the very same thing on the screen, I was truly
struck by how well an inexpensive program, with a few little additions, can
simulate the mechanical motions flying requires.


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> Just do me a favor will you please? Don't go out and try to fly IFR with
> all that "no instructor or safety pilot needed" simulator time in your log
> book without getting some of that "instructor and safety pilot needed"
> stuff as well.
> Don't EVER be misled into believing that what you can do and what you see
> on MSFS will replace the actual experience needed to safely fly the
> airplane.
> It's nice to enjoy MSFS, and God only knows I have even reviewed it for
> its role in real world aviation and found it has many a useful purpose,
> but MSFS will NEVER replace actual flight instruction and produce a safe
> pilot, especially a safe instrument pilot.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
> CFI/MVP2007 MSFS

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:27:00 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
<...>
> That's the beauty of small airplanes. Most have tremendous internal
> airflow when needed.

Tell me about it. Airflow if it's needed or not.

Parka, Hat, Gloves, the bottom of my shoes which are so effing hot I can't
put them on the rudder pedals, and all the rest of me is still cold.

But, cars build in the 1940's probably weren't much better...

Still , flying on a clear, cold, night beats the **** out of playing with a
sim. (based on my experience with both)

--
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.

[Mxsmanic]

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

> Still , flying on a clear, cold, night beats the **** out of playing with a
> sim. (based on my experience with both)

I would not enjoy being cold.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
>> Still , flying on a clear, cold, night beats the **** out of playing
>> with a sim. (based on my experience with both)
>
> I would not enjoy being cold.
>

You wouldn't enjoy anything.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> Oh he was. I'm as certain as you can be without an IP. It was classic
> sockpuppet stuff. The sock took a mildly opposing position so that Anthony
> could "convert " him and thereby gain some cred..He couldn't hide his
> personality, or lack thereof, however.
>
I know LCL personally. In person he has the same trollish approach to
discussions as he does on usenet. He will say "I'm not an expert,
but..." and then contradict expert knowledge. He exercises the
strategy of borrowing from whatever title he has to be an expert in
areas he has no title in ("I'm an engineer, and I say <insert weak
idea about area of engineering / physics / math that he did not
study>". He drops names of experts in a field to pretend he's at the
same level as the expert, usually saying something like "when I spoke
with XXX, they claimed so-and-so, but I told them they were mistaken".
He will invent terminology for concepts that already have terms. He
will say something the exact opposite of what you say and then later
claim that you are both saying the same thing. He wants to reinvent
things that already exist and work well. Most of all he wants to be
regarded as a great teacher and gift giver of knowledge -- which since
it isn't so is a constant laugh and great fun for the rest of us.

Maybe LCL also does Mxsmanic. There seem to me to be more
dissimilarities than common traits in my opinion. Maybe he's good at
disuises, in the same way as Inspector Clouseau.

The match between LCL posts and LCL the man is exact and usually a
barrel of laughs when it's not getting in the way of actual work being
done.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

>> Oh he was. I'm as certain as you can be without an IP. It was classic
>> sockpuppet stuff. The sock took a mildly opposing position so that
>> Anthony could "convert " him and thereby gain some cred..He couldn't
>> hide his personality, or lack thereof, however.
>>
> I know LCL personally.


Lucky you!


> In person he has the same trollish approach to
> discussions as he does on usenet. He will say "I'm not an expert,
> but..." and then contradict expert knowledge. He exercises the
> strategy of borrowing from whatever title he has to be an expert in
> areas he has no title in ("I'm an engineer, and I say <insert weak
> idea about area of engineering / physics / math that he did not
> study>". He drops names of experts in a field to pretend he's at the
> same level as the expert, usually saying something like "when I spoke
> with XXX, they claimed so-and-so, but I told them they were mistaken".
> He will invent terminology for concepts that already have terms. He
> will say something the exact opposite of what you say and then later
> claim that you are both saying the same thing. He wants to reinvent
> things that already exist and work well. Most of all he wants to be
> regarded as a great teacher and gift giver of knowledge -- which since
> it isn't so is a constant laugh and great fun for the rest of us.
>
> Maybe LCL also does Mxsmanic. There seem to me to be more
> dissimilarities than common traits in my opinion. Maybe he's good at
> disuises, in the same way as Inspector Clouseau.
>
> The match between LCL posts and LCL the man is exact and usually a
> barrel of laughs when it's not getting in the way of actual work being
> done.
>
>

Hmmm. OK. Just seemed too perfect. I thought they had almost identical
personalities myself. There;s another idiot who's slurping anthony on
RAS who some think is a sock, but pretty obviously not IMO.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> > I know LCL personally.
>
> Lucky you!

<chuckle>

Uh uh. No.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:e06806cc-bcaf-4deb-99d5-
:

>> > I know LCL personally.
>>
>> Lucky you!
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Uh uh. No.
>

Really, it's a miracle those people survive to adulthood. You just want to
feel their windpipes collapsing beneath your thumbs...

Bertie

[[email protected]]

> Really, it's a miracle those people survive to adulthood. You just want to
> feel their windpipes collapsing beneath your thumbs...
>
> Bertie

If they could speak at that moment they'd tell you that you were doing
it all wrong, thumbs not placed correctly, arms not positioned
correctly in relation to the body, wrong expression on your face, etc.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

>> Really, it's a miracle those people survive to adulthood. You just
>> want to feel their windpipes collapsing beneath your thumbs...
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If they could speak at that moment they'd tell you that you were doing
> it all wrong, thumbs not placed correctly, arms not positioned
> correctly in relation to the body, wrong expression on your face, etc.
>

Best make out a wikipedia entry on it before it's too late!

Bertie

[[email protected]]

> Best make out a wikipedia entry on it before it's too late!
>
> Bertie

It's too late!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangulation

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:7f3f0ea1-5788-4e9e-b4c7-7cd39d8e0618
@q3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>> Best make out a wikipedia entry on it before it's too late!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> It's too late!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangulation
>
>
>
>

I shoulda looked first!


Bertie

[Ron]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:42:34 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Ron writes:
>
>> It doesn't matter. Flying is aviating in the air no matter what your
>> aircraft is.
>
>No, sorry, it's apples and oranges. Flying a tin can doesn't qualify you to
>fly a fighter jet or airliner. Flying a fighter jet doesn't qualify you to
>fly an airliner or tin can. And so on.


We aren't talking about quaification for flying any aircraft. We are
talking about your inability to compare sims to real flying because
you have no real flying experience.

Simulators are not the same as flying an airplane... ANY aiarplane.
Stop trying to change the subject. It won't work.

Bye.

Ron Kelley

[Mxsmanic]

Ron writes:

> We aren't talking about quaification for flying any aircraft. We are
> talking about your inability to compare sims to real flying because
> you have no real flying experience.

By that measure, the only flying you can talk about is the flying you've done.
So unless you've flown airliners or fighter jets, you can't talk about those.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ron writes:
>
>> We aren't talking about quaification for flying any aircraft. We are
>> talking about your inability to compare sims to real flying because
>> you have no real flying experience.
>
> By that measure, the only flying you can talk about is the flying
> you've done. So unless you've flown airliners or fighter jets, you
> can't talk about those.
>


You're bull****ting and changing the subject. Plus, you refuse to talk to
anyone who has flown them.


bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> news.verizon.net writes:
>>
>>> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You
>>> have no direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there
>>> for your judgment is without basis.
>> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.
>
>
> Wow, this has to be the stupidst thing anyone has ever said ever.
>
>
> I'm genuinely impressed.
>
>
> Bertie

Nope! The absolute 100% stupidest thing anyone has ever said on the
entire planet was said by John Q. Pilot when he hollered upstairs to his
lovely bride who was cooking dinner;
"I'll be up in a minute dear. I have to post an answer to one of
Mxsmanic's questions."
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:5
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> news.verizon.net writes:
>>>
>>>> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You
>>>> have no direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there
>>>> for your judgment is without basis.
>>> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.
>>
>>
>> Wow, this has to be the stupidst thing anyone has ever said ever.
>>
>>
>> I'm genuinely impressed.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Nope! The absolute 100% stupidest thing anyone has ever said on the
> entire planet was said by John Q. Pilot when he hollered upstairs to his
> lovely bride who was cooking dinner;
> "I'll be up in a minute dear. I have to post an answer to one of
> Mxsmanic's questions."
>:-))
>

Mmm, maybe, but, given time, Anthony could top even that.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> Would you please provide documentation for this statement?

The vast number of incidents linked to engine problems in piston airplanes, as
compared to the very much smaller number of incidents linked to engine
problems in jets.

Indeed, jets are what make modern commercial air travel possible. Piston
engines would have never been reliable enough or powerful enough to make it
happen.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> Would you please provide documentation for this statement?
>
> The vast number of incidents linked to engine problems in piston
> airplanes, as compared to the very much smaller number of incidents
> linked to engine problems in jets.
>
> Indeed, jets are what make modern commercial air travel possible.
> Piston engines would have never been reliable enough or powerful
> enough to make it happen.
>

Wrong again fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:5
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> news.verizon.net writes:
>>>>
>>>>> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You
>>>>> have no direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there
>>>>> for your judgment is without basis.
>>>> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.
>>>
>>> Wow, this has to be the stupidst thing anyone has ever said ever.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm genuinely impressed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Nope! The absolute 100% stupidest thing anyone has ever said on the
>> entire planet was said by John Q. Pilot when he hollered upstairs to his
>> lovely bride who was cooking dinner;
>> "I'll be up in a minute dear. I have to post an answer to one of
>> Mxsmanic's questions."
>> :-))
>>
>
> Mmm, maybe, but, given time, Anthony could top even that.
>
>
>
> Bertie

The guy's amazing. :-)) I'm STILL waiting for him to address his blanket
statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs at 0 angle of attack. Several people
have correctly dealt with this misinformation but he simply lets it ride
and leaves them hanging while he moves away from that challenge onto
something else. Then when he's nailed in that thread, he leaves that
bunch hanging and moves on again. I love analyzing his antics.
For the life of me I can't figure out why perfectly knowledgeable people
take the time to deal with this character on any semblance of a serious
basis.
You have the right idea. Simply scroll down to the bottom of his
nonsense and post
"Nope"
:-)))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:5
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> news.verizon.net writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You
>>>>>> have no direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison,
>>>>>> there for your judgment is without basis.
>>>>> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.
>>>>
>>>> Wow, this has to be the stupidst thing anyone has ever said ever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm genuinely impressed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Nope! The absolute 100% stupidest thing anyone has ever said on the
>>> entire planet was said by John Q. Pilot when he hollered upstairs to
>>> his lovely bride who was cooking dinner;
>>> "I'll be up in a minute dear. I have to post an answer to one of
>>> Mxsmanic's questions."
>>> :-))
>>>
>>
>> Mmm, maybe, but, given time, Anthony could top even that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The guy's amazing. :-)) I'm STILL waiting for him to address his
> blanket statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs at 0 angle of attack.
> Several people have correctly dealt with this misinformation but he
> simply lets it ride and leaves them hanging while he moves away from
> that challenge onto something else. Then when he's nailed in that
> thread, he leaves that bunch hanging and moves on again. I love
> analyzing his antics. For the life of me I can't figure out why
> perfectly knowledgeable people take the time to deal with this
> character on any semblance of a serious basis.
> You have the right idea. Simply scroll down to the bottom of his
> nonsense and post
> "Nope"
>:-)))
>
>

Well, unless he leaves himself open for a perfectly good insult!


Which is often..

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:5
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> news.verizon.net writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You
>>>>>>> have no direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison,
>>>>>>> there for your judgment is without basis.
>>>>>> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.
>>>>> Wow, this has to be the stupidst thing anyone has ever said ever.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm genuinely impressed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Nope! The absolute 100% stupidest thing anyone has ever said on the
>>>> entire planet was said by John Q. Pilot when he hollered upstairs to
>>>> his lovely bride who was cooking dinner;
>>>> "I'll be up in a minute dear. I have to post an answer to one of
>>>> Mxsmanic's questions."
>>>> :-))
>>>>
>>> Mmm, maybe, but, given time, Anthony could top even that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> The guy's amazing. :-)) I'm STILL waiting for him to address his
>> blanket statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs at 0 angle of attack.
>> Several people have correctly dealt with this misinformation but he
>> simply lets it ride and leaves them hanging while he moves away from
>> that challenge onto something else. Then when he's nailed in that
>> thread, he leaves that bunch hanging and moves on again. I love
>> analyzing his antics. For the life of me I can't figure out why
>> perfectly knowledgeable people take the time to deal with this
>> character on any semblance of a serious basis.
>> You have the right idea. Simply scroll down to the bottom of his
>> nonsense and post
>> "Nope"
>> :-)))
>>
>>
>
> Well, unless he leaves himself open for a perfectly good insult!
>
>
> Which is often..
>
> Bertie
>
You have to admit, he IS slippery :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

Try answering the question idiot
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Airbus writes:
>
>> Would you please provide documentation for this statement?
>
> The vast number of incidents linked to engine problems in piston
> airplanes, as
> compared to the very much smaller number of incidents linked to engine
> problems in jets.
>
> Indeed, jets are what make modern commercial air travel possible. Piston
> engines would have never been reliable enough or powerful enough to make
> it
> happen.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

LWG wrote:
> Consider it done. My instructor is currently out of state, and so I'm
> between lessons. I don't "learn" much by simming, but I can practice what
> I've learned (to an extent nearly beaten to death here).
>
> There one real advantage to simming. I have had two attitude gyros die on
> me, so far under bright VFR conditions. I set the sim for random instrument
> and radio failures during my approach. That keeps your cross check honest.
> It just isn't the same to slap a suction cup over an instrument. (I also
> don't have those nagging worries about whether the guy who towed the plane
> to the maintenance hangar exceeded the nosewheel turning angles, and whether
> that new noise I hear is the nosegear falling off.)
>
> I also use simming to anticipate new flights. If I am going to a new and
> complicated airport, I will set the time of day and weather to my
> anticipated arrival, and sim a few landings. This has proven to be an
> excellent tool to use in addition to traditional flight planning.
>
> I find the sim to be much more difficult to, er, "manipulate" (I dare not
> say "fly" after reading the past posts) than the airplane.
>
> Simming will never replicate the sheer exhilaration of controlling a machine
> as it leaves the earth below and returns, but the other day watching the
> snow out the window and the very same thing on the screen, I was truly
> struck by how well an inexpensive program, with a few little additions, can
> simulate the mechanical motions flying requires.
>
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Just do me a favor will you please? Don't go out and try to fly IFR with
>> all that "no instructor or safety pilot needed" simulator time in your log
>> book without getting some of that "instructor and safety pilot needed"
>> stuff as well.
>> Don't EVER be misled into believing that what you can do and what you see
>> on MSFS will replace the actual experience needed to safely fly the
>> airplane.
>> It's nice to enjoy MSFS, and God only knows I have even reviewed it for
>> its role in real world aviation and found it has many a useful purpose,
>> but MSFS will NEVER replace actual flight instruction and produce a safe
>> pilot, especially a safe instrument pilot.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>> CFI/MVP2007 MSFS
>
>

You're right, MSFS has definite uses in the training program if used
correctly and carte blanche for specific things. It sounds to me like
you have a very good handle on where the sim can be used to some advantage.
I've actually reviewed MSFS as a training tool for real world flight
instructors for ASA. You can catch that review at www.simflight.com.
Just search "Dudley Henriques" and you should find it.
Lots of luck with your training. Sounds like you're in fine shape there.
DH
--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:5
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news.verizon.net writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's.
You
>>>>>>>> have no direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison,
>>>>>>>> there for your judgment is without basis.
>>>>>>> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.
>>>>>> Wow, this has to be the stupidst thing anyone has ever said ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm genuinely impressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Nope! The absolute 100% stupidest thing anyone has ever said on
the
>>>>> entire planet was said by John Q. Pilot when he hollered upstairs
to
>>>>> his lovely bride who was cooking dinner;
>>>>> "I'll be up in a minute dear. I have to post an answer to one of
>>>>> Mxsmanic's questions."
>>>>> :-))
>>>>>
>>>> Mmm, maybe, but, given time, Anthony could top even that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> The guy's amazing. :-)) I'm STILL waiting for him to address his
>>> blanket statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs at 0 angle of attack.
>>> Several people have correctly dealt with this misinformation but he
>>> simply lets it ride and leaves them hanging while he moves away from
>>> that challenge onto something else. Then when he's nailed in that
>>> thread, he leaves that bunch hanging and moves on again. I love
>>> analyzing his antics. For the life of me I can't figure out why
>>> perfectly knowledgeable people take the time to deal with this
>>> character on any semblance of a serious basis.
>>> You have the right idea. Simply scroll down to the bottom of his
>>> nonsense and post
>>> "Nope"
>>> :-)))
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, unless he leaves himself open for a perfectly good insult!
>>
>>
>> Which is often..
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> You have to admit, he IS slippery :-))
>

Only if you're trying to catch him. no point.

Repeated whackings with the loon mallet© are what it takes.

Doesn't matter how slippery he is then and he knows it.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I'm STILL waiting for him to address his blanket
> statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs at 0 angle of attack.

I still stand by it, but people who refuse to believe it for emotional reasons
will reject it no matter what.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I'm STILL waiting for him to address his blanket
>> statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs at 0 angle of attack.
>
> I still stand by it,


Of course you do, You're always wrong.


Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I'm STILL waiting for him to address his blanket
>> statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs at 0 angle of attack.
>
> I still stand by it, but people who refuse to believe it for emotional
> reasons
> will reject it no matter what.

You know, I'm impressed. I've never met anyone else that claimed that they
knew more about wings and lift than Abbot and von Doenhoff...

--
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.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...

>
>I consider that a significant argument against real flying. Piston engines
>are notoriously unreliable in real life,


Would you please provide documentation for this statement?
Otherwise we will be forced to file it with the near totality of your postings
- unsubstantiated blather . . .

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> Would you please provide documentation for this statement?
>
>The vast number of incidents linked to engine problems in piston airplanes, as
>compared to the very much smaller number of incidents linked to engine
>problems in jets.
>
>Indeed, jets are what make modern commercial air travel possible. Piston
>engines would have never been reliable enough or powerful enough to make it
>happen.


I asked for documentation - not more blather.
The floor is getting slippery here with your blather.

[Jon]

On Dec 17, 8:53 am, Airbus > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> >Airbus writes:
>
> >> Would you please provide documentation for this statement?

The silence is deafening, isn't it?

> >The vast number of incidents linked to engine problems in piston airplanes, as
> >compared to the very much smaller number of incidents linked to engine
> >problems in jets.
>
> >Indeed, jets are what make modern commercial air travel possible. Piston
> >engines would have never been reliable enough or powerful enough to make it
> >happen.
>
> I asked for documentation -

The silence is deafening, isn't it?

> not more blather.

> The floor is getting slippery here with your blather.

But, but, aren't "vast", "very much", "indeed" and "never" documented,
scientific proof enough?


Regards,
Jon

[gatt[_2_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "LWG" > wrote in message
> . ..

I got vectored around pretty much the same as when I
>> fly under the hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all for
>> about a nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety pilot
>> needed.
>
> Yep, but it wasn't flying, which is the whole point, right?

It can make the actual flying/instructing time a bit more productive.

I'm taking LWG's position on this because, just like a "real" simulator,
it's useful to be able to simply back up and do an approach again, or try an
approach with an instrument failure or things you wouldn't want to spend
$100/hr practicing. It's not going to replace actual flight time, but I
found it helpful in practicing the ability to cross-reference instruments in
"IMC" (sort of like the instrument examples in the Instrument written exam.)

Useful for learning the instrument panel and practicing navigation without
outside reference. Definately a secondary or tertiary source; it could
replace neither practical experience or instruction but you can learn to use
an ADF, VORs or the Garmin GPS with it.

Augering is a little easier on the system, too.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>> No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You have no
>> direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there for your
>> judgment
>> is without basis.
>
> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time.

That's ridiculous. Fortunately this isn't a brain surgery or electrical
engineering forum:

"In MY opinion, we ought to be able to plug this 12 volt DC appliance into a
220v AC outlet."
"But, you're not an electrician, and the electricians here all say you're
wrong."
"That's just their opinion."
"But they're licensed electricians."
"Learning that all opinions are equal takes time."

Just doesn't work.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> No, your basis for a judgment is not. It would be like you saying which
>> tastes better Pepsi or Coke when you have never tried Coke.
>
> What others are saying about piloting is like saying Coke tastes best
> without
> having tasted anything else at all. There are many aspects to aviation,
> just
> as there are many aspects to food and drink.

Just like Coke and Pepsi, until you actually taste it you have no idea what
exactly you're talking about.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...


> See above. Do you assume that people who fly simulators are stupid?

You're making the salient case for that every time you post on these forums.

>> It's nice to enjoy MSFS, and God only knows I have even reviewed it for
>> its role in real world aviation and found it has many a useful purpose,
>> but MSFS will NEVER replace actual flight instruction and produce a safe
>> pilot, especially a safe instrument pilot.
>
> Never is a long time,

Microsoft Flight Simulator will never replace actual flight instruction and
produce a safe pilot.

Never.

[gatt[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> If you think simulation is superior to real life, you should post on the
> sim NG's. But wait, they all think you're an idiot as well.


Some people might argue that internet porn is better than real sex. It's
a matter of "opinion."

Were they to acknowledge that they'd never actually -had- sex, though...
let's just say you don't get dates by saying you've only had sex with your
computer and that for some people it's superior to the real thing.


-c

[gliderguynj]

On Dec 14, 8:10 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> news.verizon.net writes:
> > No your basis for judgment is not as valid as anyone else's. You have no
> > direct knowledge of one of the points of comparison, there for your judgment
> > is without basis.
>
> As I've said, learning that all opinions are equal takes time. Some learn the
> easy way, and some learn the hard way.

I've been reading your posts, and the thread. I have flown sim but
also fly "real gliders and real planes". I have to say, you are
kidding yourself if you think flying a sim is flying. There is a
world of difference between sitting in a chair in front of a computer
and taking off of terra firma. I don't understand your POV or why you
feel that you need to convince pilots that you are correct. Anyone
that flies knows you haven't a clue regarding this. Post away in the
sim forums, but please don't post like an expert here no matter how
many hours you have holding your joystick!!!

Doug

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "LWG" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>
> I got vectored around pretty much the same as when I
>>> fly under the hood. I thought that was absolutely fantastic, and all
>>> for about a nickel's worth of electricity. No instructor or safety
>>> pilot needed.
>>
>> Yep, but it wasn't flying, which is the whole point, right?
>
> It can make the actual flying/instructing time a bit more productive.
>
> I'm taking LWG's position on this because, just like a "real"
> simulator, it's useful to be able to simply back up and do an approach
> again, or try an approach with an instrument failure or things you
> wouldn't want to spend $100/hr practicing. It's not going to replace
> actual flight time, but I found it helpful in practicing the ability
> to cross-reference instruments in "IMC" (sort of like the instrument
> examples in the Instrument written exam.)
>
> Useful for learning the instrument panel and practicing navigation
> without outside reference. Definately a secondary or tertiary
> source; it could replace neither practical experience or instruction
> but you can learn to use an ADF, VORs or the Garmin GPS with it.
>

There, you've said it..

ADF's are the one thing i've found them fairly useful for, specially if
I haven't done one in a while.


Still, it's not the same...

Bertie>
>

[Mxsmanic]

gliderguynj writes:

> I've been reading your posts, and the thread. I have flown sim but
> also fly "real gliders and real planes". I have to say, you are
> kidding yourself if you think flying a sim is flying.

It's not flying a real plane, but it's still flying in a sense. I find it
enjoyable.

> There is a world of difference between sitting in a chair in front of a computer
> and taking off of terra firma.

Yes. Sometimes those differences favor real flight, sometimes they favor
simulation.

> I don't understand your POV or why you feel that you need to convince
> pilots that you are correct.

Understanding other points of view is a very useful skill to develop.

I don't feel I need to convince pilots of anything, but I do think they need
to be less convinced of some unique validity of their own opinions.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Some people might argue that internet porn is better than real sex. It's
> a matter of "opinion."

Yes. Good!

> Were they to acknowledge that they'd never actually -had- sex, though...
> let's just say you don't get dates by saying you've only had sex with your
> computer and that for some people it's superior to the real thing.

If someone is happy with Internet porn, why would he look for real dates?

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Microsoft Flight Simulator will never replace actual flight instruction and
> produce a safe pilot.

That doesn't matter, if the objective is not to become a pilot. And MSFS
remains useful as one tool among many for those who wish to become pilots, or
who already are.

[Barney Rubble]

In that case you are in the wrong group, so do us all a favor and get the
hell out.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gatt writes:
>
>> Microsoft Flight Simulator will never replace actual flight instruction
>> and
>> produce a safe pilot.
>
> That doesn't matter, if the objective is not to become a pilot. And MSFS
> remains useful as one tool among many for those who wish to become pilots,
> or
> who already are.

[Barney Rubble]

Probably because he is a fat, ugly, argumentative moron who sits in a dark
room in a foreign country fiddling with himself. Just as a random guess you
understand.....

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gatt writes:
>
>> Some people might argue that internet porn is better than real sex.
>> It's
>> a matter of "opinion."
>
> Yes. Good!
>
>> Were they to acknowledge that they'd never actually -had- sex, though...
>> let's just say you don't get dates by saying you've only had sex with
>> your
>> computer and that for some people it's superior to the real thing.
>
> If someone is happy with Internet porn, why would he look for real dates?

[Mxsmanic]

Barney Rubble writes:

> Probably because he is a fat, ugly, argumentative moron who sits in a dark
> room in a foreign country fiddling with himself.

I don't see why that would make him more likely to look for dates.

> Just as a random guess you understand.....

Yes, that's what I understood. I'm not sure how it contributes to the
discussion.

[Mxsmanic]

Barney Rubble writes:

> In that case you are in the wrong group, so do us all a favor and get the
> hell out.

No.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gliderguynj writes:
>
>> I've been reading your posts, and the thread. I have flown sim but
>> also fly "real gliders and real planes". I have to say, you are
>> kidding yourself if you think flying a sim is flying.
>
> It's not flying a real plane, but it's still flying in a sense.


No, it isn't


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Some people might argue that internet porn is better than real sex.
>> It's a matter of "opinion."
>
> Yes. Good!
>
>> Were they to acknowledge that they'd never actually -had- sex,
>> though... let's just say you don't get dates by saying you've only
>> had sex with your computer and that for some people it's superior to
>> the real thing.
>
> If someone is happy with Internet porn, why would he look for real
> dates?
>


And there you have it.
In your own hand, you are an aviation jerkoff.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Barney Rubble writes:
>
>> Probably because he is a fat, ugly, argumentative moron who sits in a
>> dark room in a foreign country fiddling with himself.
>
> I don't see why that would make him more likely to look for dates.

Finally, you understood someone else's post.

>
>> Just as a random guess you understand.....
>
> Yes, that's what I understood. I'm not sure how it contributes to the
> discussion.

Yes, I'm sure you don;t


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Microsoft Flight Simulator will never replace actual flight
>> instruction and produce a safe pilot.
>
> That doesn't matter, if the objective is not to become a pilot. And
> MSFS remains useful as one tool among many for those who wish to
> become pilots, or who already are.
>


It isn't, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Barney Rubble writes:
>
>> In that case you are in the wrong group, so do us all a favor and get
>> the hell out.
>
> No.
>

Thak god for small mercies.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> gatt writes:
>>
>>> Some people might argue that internet porn is better than real sex.
>>> It's a matter of "opinion."
>> Yes. Good!
>>
>>> Were they to acknowledge that they'd never actually -had- sex,
>>> though... let's just say you don't get dates by saying you've only
>>> had sex with your computer and that for some people it's superior to
>>> the real thing.
>> If someone is happy with Internet porn, why would he look for real
>> dates?
>>
>
>
> And there you have it.
> In your own hand, you are an aviation jerkoff.
>
>
>
> Bertie

That's actually pretty good Bertie..."In your own hand" and "jerkoff" in
the same sentence. I think I'll steal this one :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

gliderguynj writes:

> Pilots certainly do have a unique validity in their opinion about real
> flight as compared to someone that has never taken the controls in a
> plane.

They are not talking about real flight, they are talking about simulation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gliderguynj writes:
>
>> Pilots certainly do have a unique validity in their opinion about
>> real flight as compared to someone that has never taken the controls
>> in a plane.
>
> They are not talking about real flight, they are talking about
> simulation.
>

Simulation isn't flight at all.


Bertie

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gliderguynj writes:
>
>> Pilots certainly do have a unique validity in their opinion about real
>> flight as compared to someone that has never taken the controls in a
>> plane.
>
> They are not talking about real flight, they are talking about simulation.

There's your problem Ant. The name of this group is
rec.aviation.piloting. And everything we talk about even when it is way
off topic is from the point of view of those who pilot actual aircraft
and is aimed towards those that pilot actual aircraft.

[Tina]

Well, that's how it should be. One of the most frequent posters (I
will not say contributers) to the forum is not a pilot. His mission
here is to support his ego -- we know who he is, and what he is: deep
down a poor guy who wants his opinions accepted by people he'd like to
consider his peers.

You wrote
..
> There's your problem Ant. The name of this group is
> rec.aviation.piloting. And everything we talk about even when it is way
> off topic is from the point of view of those who pilot actual aircraft
> and is aimed towards those that pilot actual aircraft.

[[email protected]]

>
> My basis for a judgement is just as valid as anyone else's.
>
> Opinions are opinions, not established facts. That's something that everyone

The point is that you need to have flown both sims and airplanes to be
able to properly opine on the difference between the two. No doubt
sims are useful in many aspects of flying as almost every pilot would
agree but they do not equate to real airplanes. And honestly, even
though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life. I have
tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
extremely blurry.

[Jay Honeck]

>And honestly, even
> though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
> comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life. I have
> tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
> especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
> extremely blurry.

C'mon over to our place in Iowa City, and I'll show you what Flight
Sim X can do on a big screen (104") with a really, really fast
computer.

Ain't nuthin' blurry about it...no matter HOW close you get to the
ground.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The point is that you need to have flown both sims and airplanes to be
> able to properly opine on the difference between the two.

The very vast majority of differences are patently obvious to anyone who
studies both, whether or not he has used them.

> And honestly, even
> though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
> comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life.

Not everyone flies for the scenery.

I do have some airport sceneries that can easily be mistaken for real life at
first glance.

> I have
> tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
> especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
> extremely blurry.

I don't use any of the VFR scenery add-ons, as the ground just isn't that
important as long as I can make out a few key landmarks. It would be nice to
have scenery that emphasized visual landmark accuracy as opposed to eye candy,
but I think the market for that type of scenery prefers the eye-candy aspect.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Dec 20, 1:48 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > The point is that you need to have flown both sims and airplanes to be
> > able to properly opine on the difference between the two.
>
> The very vast majority of differences are patently obvious to anyone who
> studies both, whether or not he has used them.
>
> > And honestly, even
> > though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
> > comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life.
>
> Not everyone flies for the scenery.
>
> I do have some airport sceneries that can easily be mistaken for real life at
> first glance.
>
> > I have
> > tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
> > especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
> > extremely blurry.
>
> I don't use any of the VFR scenery add-ons, as the ground just isn't that
> important as long as I can make out a few key landmarks. It would be nice to
> have scenery that emphasized visual landmark accuracy as opposed to eye candy,
> but I think the market for that type of scenery prefers the eye-candy aspect.


Oh c'mon, someone must have a disposable airplane they can lend
Anthony to test this theory, eh?

It'd have to be one that nobody cares about, of course, since it would
never be seen again.

I can't think of a single airplane I hate that much.



Bertie



Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> My basis for a judgement is just as valid as anyone else's.

Your basis for judgement comparing aviation with a video game is based on
pure speculation and a complete lack of information. You are the only person
I know of who claims that is a valid basis for judgement.

> That's something that everyone needs to learn and understand.

Why, because you think it's a good idea?

> Even a pilot with a billion hours of experience is still expressing an
opinion, not an established fact.

There is no possibility for a pilot to have a billion hours of experience.

> The distinction is important because decisions made on opinions treated as
facts
> are often extremely poor decisions.

Like your decision to continue posting here when NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has
written that they enjoy reading your crap.

[gatt[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:18ea4915-8654-495f-ae42-

> C'mon over to our place in Iowa City, and I'll show you what Flight
> Sim X can do on a big screen (104") with a really, really fast
> computer.

I have to admin I'm somewhat of a MSFS geek. ... My cockpit has a beer
holder, and I can tell everybody for the record that the bottle-to-throttle
rule is a damned good idea! (I could have asked wife for a pee bottle for
Christmas. I got her a Remove Before Flight tank-top. The flight attendant
aboard GattAir is strikely similar to the one that rides around with me in
the 172.)

Mostly, it's because I'll never be able to do stuff like fly an amphib
Caravan under all the bridges in Portland.

Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.

-c

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.

Nobody has seen that, at least not on this planet.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> I'm STILL waiting for him to address his blanket
>>> statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs at 0 angle of attack.
>> I still stand by it,
>
>
> Of course you do, You're always wrong.

Hey, at least he hasn't yet attempted to edit the Wikipedia article on
the subject which explicitly contradicts him. Watch for that to happen
next...

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> On Dec 20, 1:48 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>> The point is that you need to have flown both sims and airplanes to be
>>> able to properly opine on the difference between the two.
>> The very vast majority of differences are patently obvious to anyone who
>> studies both, whether or not he has used them.
>>
>>> And honestly, even
>>> though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
>>> comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life.
>> Not everyone flies for the scenery.
>>
>> I do have some airport sceneries that can easily be mistaken for real life at
>> first glance.
>>
>>> I have
>>> tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
>>> especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
>>> extremely blurry.
>> I don't use any of the VFR scenery add-ons, as the ground just isn't that
>> important as long as I can make out a few key landmarks. It would be nice to
>> have scenery that emphasized visual landmark accuracy as opposed to eye candy,
>> but I think the market for that type of scenery prefers the eye-candy aspect.
>
>
> Oh c'mon, someone must have a disposable airplane they can lend
> Anthony to test this theory, eh?
>
> It'd have to be one that nobody cares about, of course, since it would
> never be seen again.
>
> I can't think of a single airplane I hate that much.

How about the Moller Skycar? Personally, I think they're perfectly matched.

[nobody[_2_]]

No, I haven't

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gatt writes:
>
>> Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.
>
> Nobody has seen that, at least not on this planet.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Dec 21, 6:47*am, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 1:48 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> writes:
> >>> The point is that you need to have flown both sims and airplanes to be
> >>> able to properly opine on the difference between the two.
> >> The very vast majority of differences are patently obvious to anyone who
> >> studies both, whether or not he has used them.
>
> >>> And honestly, even
> >>> though sims are fun the first few times, let's face it, the scenery
> >>> comes nowhere near what it actually looks like in real life.
> >> Not everyone flies for the scenery.
>
> >> I do have some airport sceneries that can easily be mistaken for real life at
> >> first glance.
>
> >>> I have
> >>> tried the scenery addons but they are frankly, quite unimpressive
> >>> especially as you get closer to the ground when it just becomes
> >>> extremely blurry.
> >> I don't use any of the VFR scenery add-ons, as the ground just isn't that
> >> important as long as I can make out a few key landmarks. *It would be nice to
> >> have scenery that emphasized visual landmark accuracy as opposed to eye candy,
> >> but I think the market for that type of scenery prefers the eye-candy aspect.
>
> > Oh c'mon, someone must have a disposable airplane they can lend
> > Anthony to test this theory, eh?
>
> > It'd have to be one that nobody cares about, of course, since it would
> > never be seen again.
>
> > I can't think of a single airplane I hate that much.
>
> How about the Moller Skycar? Personally, I think they're perfectly matched..-

perfect. The do it on MSFS, right?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Dec 21, 5:46*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:
> > Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.
>
> Nobody has seen that, at least not on this planet.

What about your planet?



Bertie

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

Your wrong here too. I'm running at 1400x1050x32 and getting 30fps on a
system I bought 6 months ago for ~1500.00

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gatt writes:
>
>> Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.
>
> Nobody has seen that, at least not on this planet.

[Mxsmanic]

news.verizon.net writes:

> Your wrong here too. I'm running at 1400x1050x32 and getting 30fps on a
> system I bought 6 months ago for ~1500.00

Only $1500? With all sliders set to the maximum?

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

No not all the settings are set to maximum but then again that was not the
statement made by the OP or you.
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> Your wrong here too. I'm running at 1400x1050x32 and getting 30fps on a
>> system I bought 6 months ago for ~1500.00
>
> Only $1500? With all sliders set to the maximum?

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm STILL waiting for him to address his blanket statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs
>>>> at 0 angle of attack.
>>> I still stand by it,
>>
>>
>> Of course you do, You're always wrong.
>
> Hey, at least he hasn't yet attempted to edit the Wikipedia article on the subject which
> explicitly contradicts him. Watch for that to happen next...

That's on hold until he and Tarver finish their wiki article on Negative Lift.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

John Mazor wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm STILL waiting for him to address his blanket statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs
>>>>> at 0 angle of attack.
>>>> I still stand by it,
>>>
>>> Of course you do, You're always wrong.
>> Hey, at least he hasn't yet attempted to edit the Wikipedia article on the subject which
>> explicitly contradicts him. Watch for that to happen next...
>
> That's on hold until he and Tarver finish their wiki article on Negative Lift.

Which is waiting on the splaps article to be approved as a foundation
for that piece.

[Jay Honeck]

> I have to admin I'm somewhat of a MSFS geek. *... My cockpit has a beer
> holder, and I can tell everybody for the record that the bottle-to-throttle
> rule is a damned good idea!

Heh heh heh... At Movie Night last Tuesday we had a special
"Christmas Edition" that included egg nog with either rum or cognac in
it.

As the egg nog took effect I noticed an increased propensity for
people to pancake the F/A-18 in while landing. I also noticed that
watching that 104" screen go round-and-round was getting quite
nauseating...

;-)

>*(I could have asked wife for a pee bottle for
> Christmas.

Can't do that here -- mixed company, and all. When someone has to pee
we just let the next guy/gal start flying. Plenty of copilots in the
room!

> Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.

Me, neither. I've got the fastest computer money could buy last year,
and this year's fastest video card, and I STILL can't run everything
at full resolution with any kind of smoothness.

Some people are ****ed about this, but -- now that Microsoft got MSFS
X working properly -- I'm glad they built in room to "stretch" as
computer hardware improves in the future.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[george]

On Dec 15, 10:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ron writes:
> > It doesn't matter. Flying is aviating in the air no matter what your
> > aircraft is.
>
> No, sorry, it's apples and oranges. Flying a tin can doesn't qualify you to
> fly a fighter jet or airliner. Flying a fighter jet doesn't qualify you to
> fly an airliner or tin can. And so on.

Oh?
Only in your twisted world.
Where do you think all those student pilots are headed for?
Real flying hours are the qualification for further licenses and
promotions.
5000 hours in a fighter, 'tin can' or an airliner will get you a very
nice seat in any of the others

[nobody[_2_]]

"george" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 15, 10:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Oh?
> Only in your twisted world.
> Where do you think all those student pilots are headed for?
> Real flying hours are the qualification for further licenses and
> promotions.
> 5000 hours in a fighter, 'tin can' or an airliner will get you a very
> nice seat in any of the others

You're wasting your time. Anthony isn't interested in aviation. He's
interested in provoking people. He got you to reply, which is all he's
looking for.

[george]

On Dec 22, 1:02 pm, "nobody" > wrote:


> You're wasting your time. Anthony isn't interested in aviation. He's
> interested in provoking people. He got you to reply, which is all he's
> looking for.

Ignore something like mixedup and students and others who are not to
sure which end is forward might start to think that he might be
right..
I shall continue to point out to mixedup (and others) that he has a
100% error rate

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Haven't seen X working at full speed/full resolution, though.
>
> Nobody has seen that, at least not on this planet.


How about on your planet?

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> Your wrong here too. I'm running at 1400x1050x32 and getting 30fps
>> on a system I bought 6 months ago for ~1500.00
>
> Only $1500? With all sliders set to the maximum?

So, you use virtual money too, eh?


Bertie

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Mazor > wrote:
>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm STILL waiting for him to address his blanket statement that 0 lift ALWAYS occurs
>>>>> at 0 angle of attack.
>>>> I still stand by it,
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course you do, You're always wrong.
>>
>> Hey, at least he hasn't yet attempted to edit the Wikipedia article on the subject which
>> explicitly contradicts him. Watch for that to happen next...
>
> That's on hold until he and Tarver finish their wiki article on Negative Lift.

And that should be on hold! I'm still waiting on the results
from his quest to show that Tuweep is an active airfield!

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHbLmayBkZmuMZ8L8RAo/KAKCDwQhkmVlIOs492txR3LEyqlR4AQCg2OPE
85vff86C5WszFN3NeHhEGZ8=
=oXL2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

news.verizon.net writes:

> No not all the settings are set to maximum but then again that was not the
> statement made by the OP or you.

"full speed/full resolution"

When you have all the sliders set to the maximum and you still get the same
FPS, be sure to provide a report. And $1500 is expensive for a PC.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Where do you think all those student pilots are headed for?

I don't know how many student pilots ever progress beyond the basic PPL. Do
you?

> 5000 hours in a fighter, 'tin can' or an airliner will get you a very
> nice seat in any of the others

All by itself?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> No not all the settings are set to maximum but then again that was
>> not the statement made by the OP or you.
>
> "full speed/full resolution"
>
> When you have all the sliders set to the maximum and you still get the
> same FPS, be sure to provide a report. And $1500 is expensive for a
> PC.
>


Wheras you get your's out of a dumpster.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Where do you think all those student pilots are headed for?
>
> I don't know how many student pilots ever progress beyond the basic
> PPL. Do you?
>


Even a student pilot has progressed further than you, fjukkwit.


>> 5000 hours in a fighter, 'tin can' or an airliner will get you a
>> very nice seat in any of the others
>
> All by itself?
>


Of course fjukktard. You going to sit in an oil drum while you fy now?


Bertie

[george]

On Dec 23, 12:39 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Where do you think all those student pilots are headed for?
>
> I don't know how many student pilots ever progress beyond the basic PPL. Do
> you?

You don't know any pilots, student or otherwise!
From my experience about 20% go on to CPL and above.
Many PPLs I know have 500+ hours just flying for enjoyment.


> > 5000 hours in a fighter, 'tin can' or an airliner will get you a very
> > nice seat in any of the others
>
> All by itself?

Bertie is correct. You are a ****wit. And a thick one to wit

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> You don't know any pilots, student or otherwise!

Actually I do, both garden-variety PPLs and airline pilots.

> From my experience about 20% go on to CPL and above.
> Many PPLs I know have 500+ hours just flying for enjoyment.

That certainly beats the 50 hours that some pilots here have.

> Bertie is correct. You are a ****wit. And a thick one to wit

You haven't answered the question.

[Tina]

On Dec 22, 3:23*pm, george > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:39 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > george writes:
> > > Where do you think all those student pilots are headed for?
>
> > I don't know how many student pilots ever progress beyond the basic PPL. *Do
> > you?
>
> You don't know any pilots, student or otherwise!
> From my experience about 20% go on to CPL and above.
> Many PPLs I know have 500+ hours just flying for enjoyment.
>
> > > 5000 hours in a fighter, 'tin can' *or an airliner will get you a very
> > > nice seat in any of the others
>
> > All by itself?
>
> Bertie is correct. You are a ****wit. And a thick one to wit

[Tina]

George, this troll's greatest success is life is annoying those
interested in aviation who post on this newsgroup. His ego needs
responses, it means he's noticed, it's his life support.

DNR.







On Dec 22, 3:23*pm, george > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:39 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > george writes:
> > > Where do you think all those student pilots are headed for?
>
> > I don't know how many student pilots ever progress beyond the basic PPL. *Do
> > you?
>
> You don't know any pilots, student or otherwise!
> From my experience about 20% go on to CPL and above.
> Many PPLs I know have 500+ hours just flying for enjoyment.
>
> > > 5000 hours in a fighter, 'tin can' *or an airliner will get you a very
> > > nice seat in any of the others
>
> > All by itself?
>
> Bertie is correct. You are a ****wit. And a thick one to wit

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> You don't know any pilots, student or otherwise!
>
> Actually I do, both garden-variety PPLs and airline pilots.

Bet you won't get any of them to admit it.

Oh yes, BTW, meeting them in chat rooms doesn't count, fjukkwit.
>
>> From my experience about 20% go on to CPL and above.
>> Many PPLs I know have 500+ hours just flying for enjoyment.
>
> That certainly beats the 50 hours that some pilots here have.

And it most definitely beats the zero hours you have.

>
>> Bertie is correct. You are a ****wit. And a thick one to wit
>
> You haven't answered the question.
>

Yes, he has.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> George, this troll's greatest success is life is annoying those
> interested in aviation who post on this newsgroup. His ego needs
> responses, it means he's noticed, it's his life support.
>

He's not a troll, he's a fjukkwit.


Huge difference!

I could introduce you to some trolls if you like. for demonstration, the
purpose of...

Bertie

[george]

On Dec 24, 12:22 am, Tina > wrote:
> George, this troll's greatest success is life is annoying those
> interested in aviation who post on this newsgroup. His ego needs
> responses, it means he's noticed, it's his life support.

Thanks
But as I have a sharp kook poking stick and a little time permit me
this small pleasure of poking the kook through the bars of its
cage :-)

[Tina]

George, I don't object to poking Anthony with a sharp stick (although
blunt trauma would be more fitting) but should you in fact cause
serious harm, be sure to call 991.

Wait, this is aviation: how about dialing 7777?



On Dec 23, 2:22 pm, george > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 12:22 am, Tina > wrote:
>
> > George, this troll's greatest success is life is annoying those
> > interested in aviation who post on this newsgroup. His ego needs
> > responses, it means he's noticed, it's his life support.
>
> Thanks
> But as I have a sharp kook poking stick and a little time permit me
> this small pleasure of poking the kook through the bars of its
> cage :-)

[george]

On Dec 24, 12:15 pm, Tina > wrote:
> George, I don't object to poking Anthony with a sharp stick (although
> blunt trauma would be more fitting) but should you in fact cause
> serious harm, be sure to call 991.
>
> Wait, this is aviation: how about dialing 7777?
Well I'd rather squawk 7777 :-)

Where I am the emergency number is 111 and we've had some serious
nonattendances.
The police have trouble counting to one three times

[Tina]

You can absolutely depend on me using that counting to 1 three times
line, George.




On Dec 23, 10:19*pm, george > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 12:15 pm, Tina > wrote:> George, I don't object to poking Anthony with a sharp stick (although
> > blunt trauma would be more fitting) but should you in fact cause
> > serious harm, be sure to call 991.
>
> > Wait, this is aviation: how about dialing 7777?
>
> Well I'd rather squawk 7777 :-)
>
> Where I am the emergency number is 111 and we've had some serious
> nonattendances.
> The police have trouble counting to one three times