Weight and balance, ballast, trim when flying alone

[Mxsmanic]

What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting a
small aircraft alone? Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral imbalance,
or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
etc.) to balance it out, or what?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are
> piloting a small aircraft alone?
>
> Do you just trim to adjust for the
> lateral imbalance, or do you put something on the other side of the
> plane (ballast, luggage, etc.) to balance it out, or what?


Why, you thinking of becoming ballast?

you're overqualified.



Bertie
>

[John[_13_]]

What is your expectation from your simulator experience? Do you need to
laterally balance the plane in MSFS? Since that is all you seem to be
interested in, that's what you should be considering.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting
> a
> small aircraft alone? Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral
> imbalance,
> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
> etc.) to balance it out, or what?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 9:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting a
> small aircraft alone? *Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral imbalance,
> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
> etc.) to balance it out, or what?

What a very, very odd question. I don't believe I've ever been asked
such a question by a student before.
-Robert, CFII

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 11:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting a
> small aircraft alone? *Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral imbalance,
> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
> etc.) to balance it out, or what?

LOL.

Oh that's a good one. Sheet ...

[Rip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting a
> small aircraft alone? Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral imbalance,
> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
> etc.) to balance it out, or what?

Just tilt your big fat head to the high side, and stick a book under
your monitor to compensate.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting a
> small aircraft alone? Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral imbalance,
> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
> etc.) to balance it out, or what?

While I'm sure you are going to argue some point of this response I'll
post for those that come later.

It completely depends on the plane. In a 172 it really isn't an issue.
Fuel burns out of each wing tank at about the same rate and I've never
noticed a difference in need for aileron trim with two as opposed to
one. Which is a could thing because I've never seen a 172 with aileron trim.

On the 601XL I'm building most builders are installing aileron trim
because with just one person on-board some of the planes are a little
left wing heavy.

Also on planes that don't draw fuel equally from both wings you have to
switch tanks to keep the aircraft balanced. 150 lbs of fuel 4 feet out
on the wing has a LOT more effect on the balance of the aircraft than
200 lbs of meat near the center line.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>Why, you thinking of becoming ballast?
>
>you're overqualified.
>
>Bertie

niiiice...

actually some of these are pretty good.

"underqualified" might be what I'd expect from you, yip.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Mxsmanic]

John writes:

> What is your expectation from your simulator experience?

I expect it to reasonably simulate weight and balance issues, which it does,
but not having flown the real thing, I don't know how accurate the simulation
is. I've read that MSFS tends to exaggerate the W&B effects of unequal
amounts of fuel in the tanks, for example, although I always keep fuel loads
balanced.

> Do you need to laterally balance the plane in MSFS?

Yes.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> What a very, very odd question. I don't believe I've ever been asked
> such a question by a student before.

Is that why you haven't answered it?

[george]

On Jan 16, 8:58 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > What a very, very odd question. I don't believe I've ever been asked
> > such a question by a student before.
>
> Is that why you haven't answered it?

He's waiting for a student to ask the question.
None has yet

[John[_13_]]

How much does it pitch to the side if you don't put offsetting weight into
the passenger seat and how does it compare to the normal variation caused by
fuel burn from a single side at a time? If you do the math I think you will
see that the moment caused by the fuel burn changes is much higher then the
moment caused by the weight of the passengers so close to the centerline.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John writes:
>
>> What is your expectation from your simulator experience?
>
> I expect it to reasonably simulate weight and balance issues, which it
> does,
> but not having flown the real thing, I don't know how accurate the
> simulation
> is. I've read that MSFS tends to exaggerate the W&B effects of unequal
> amounts of fuel in the tanks, for example, although I always keep fuel
> loads
> balanced.
>
>> Do you need to laterally balance the plane in MSFS?
>
> Yes.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Robert M. Gary > posted:

> On Jan 15, 9:53 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are
>> piloting a small aircraft alone? Do you just trim to adjust for the
>> lateral imbalance, or do you put something on the other side of the
>> plane (ballast, luggage, etc.) to balance it out, or what?
>
> What a very, very odd question. I don't believe I've ever been asked
> such a question by a student before.
> -Robert, CFII
>
Don't worry... you still haven't, for very good reason.

Neil

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting
> a
> small aircraft alone? Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral
> imbalance,
> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
> etc.) to balance it out, or what?

JUST DRINK THE F-----G KOOL-AID !!!

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 11:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > What a very, very odd question. I don't believe I've ever been asked
> > such a question by a student before.
>
> Is that why you haven't answered it?

I usually start my students out with a $49 intro flight. Once they'd
taken that flight they would probably not think to ask this question.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:7e42a64257da1@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>Why, you thinking of becoming ballast?
>>
>>you're overqualified.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> niiiice...
>
> actually some of these are pretty good.
>
> "underqualified" might be what I'd expect from you, yip.
>

As a flame, or as ballast myself?

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 16, 8:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John writes:
> > What is your expectation from your simulator experience?
>
> I expect it to reasonably simulate weight and balance issues, which it does,
> but not having flown the real thing, I don't know how accurate the simulation
> is.

Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.

Cheers

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 5:37*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 8:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.

I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John writes:
>
>> What is your expectation from your simulator experience?
>
> I expect it to reasonably simulate weight and balance issues, which it
> does


No, it doesn;'t



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 15, 9:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are
>> piloting
> a
>> small aircraft alone? *Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral
>> imbala
> nce,
>> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast,
>> luggage, etc.) to balance it out, or what?
>
> What a very, very odd question. I don't believe I've ever been asked
> such a question by a student before.


You still haven;'t.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> What a very, very odd question. I don't believe I've ever been asked
>> such a question by a student before.
>
> Is that why you haven't answered it?
>

No, it's probably because you're a tit .

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:2dfb1737-25f3-4d30-96eb-
:

> On Jan 15, 11:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary writes:
>> > What a very, very odd question. I don't believe I've ever been asked
>> > such a question by a student before.
>>
>> Is that why you haven't answered it?
>
> I usually start my students out with a $49 intro flight. Once they'd
> taken that flight they would probably not think to ask this question.


I'm guessing you don't teach in a 150, then.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

John writes:

> How much does it pitch to the side if you don't put offsetting weight into
> the passenger seat and how does it compare to the normal variation caused by
> fuel burn from a single side at a time?

I never burn fuel from a single side at a time, so I cannot comment on that.
Both the Bonanza and the Baron let you draw fuel from both tanks, and that's
how I leave it set.

If you are heavy and alone in the plane, it has a distinct tendency to bank
towards the heavy side. The Bonanza does this, anyway, so it's harder to
notice, but the Baron will do it, only not as obviously. When I first started
flying these aircraft I noticed odd banking tendencies and it took a while for
it to dawn on me that the aircraft was simply loaded unevenly.

> If you do the math I think you will
> see that the moment caused by the fuel burn changes is much higher then the
> moment caused by the weight of the passengers so close to the centerline.

No doubt, but I don't alternate tanks.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.

I didn't say it was nothing like really flying, which would be an absurd
exaggeration. I simply said that I don't know how accurately it simulates
weight and balance issues. They aren't difficult to simulate, so I imagine
it's pretty close.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.

Trust your instruments.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John writes:
>
>> How much does it pitch to the side if you don't put offsetting weight
>> into the passenger seat and how does it compare to the normal
>> variation caused by fuel burn from a single side at a time?
>
> I never burn fuel from a single side at a time,


You never burn anything , fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
>> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.
>
> I didn't say it was nothing like really flying,


It isn't anything like flying.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.
>
> Trust your instruments.
>

Nope.


Bertie

[Tina]

I'm not sure, but would guess the outer edges of fuel tanks on
something like a Mooney centered about 8 feet from the centerline. If
there's a 10 gallon differential in the tanks -- 60 pounds -- that's
480 foot pounds of unbalance. That's about the same as a 300 pounder
sitting 1.5 feet from the centerline. We tend to burn an hour's worth
out of the takeoff wing (10 gallons easy) before switching, and the
airplane does not fly especially wing heavy.

Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast. If, for example, I was
PIC (about 130 pounds) with a center of gravity (watch it now, if you
comment on the location of my center of gravity) 18 inches to the left
of centerline, a 260 pound ballast sitting in the back 9 inches to
the right of center would bring things into left and right balance.
There should be enough trim for fore and aft balance. You might assume
I would not invite ballast to sit in front.




On Jan 15, 1:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are
> > piloting a small aircraft alone?
>
> > Do you just trim to adjust for the
> > lateral imbalance, or do you put something on the other side of the
> > plane (ballast, luggage, etc.) to balance it out, or what?
>
> Why, you thinking of becoming ballast?
>
> you're overqualified.
>
> Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> I'm not sure, but would guess the outer edges of fuel tanks on
> something like a Mooney centered about 8 feet from the centerline. If
> there's a 10 gallon differential in the tanks -- 60 pounds -- that's
> 480 foot pounds of unbalance. That's about the same as a 300 pounder
> sitting 1.5 feet from the centerline. We tend to burn an hour's worth
> out of the takeoff wing (10 gallons easy) before switching, and the
> airplane does not fly especially wing heavy.
>
> Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast.


OK, he's perfect. I can't imagine any box of lead doing a better job.



If, for example, I was
> PIC (about 130 pounds) with a center of gravity (watch it now, if you
> comment on the location of my center of gravity) 18 inches to the left
> of centerline, a 260 pound ballast sitting in the back 9 inches to
> the right of center would bring things into left and right balance.
> There should be enough trim for fore and aft balance. You might assume
> I would not invite ballast to sit in front.

Wel, you put ballast where it does the most good!

In anthony's case that would be in the Dumpster behind the airport cafe.


BTW, on big ones, there is a L/R loading issue, but it's only for floor
strength issues. It's only on widebody AC, though.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 5:37?pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 8:58?am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
> > MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.

> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.

> -Robert

You think that's a problem?

I can't taxi a C-172 in MSFS.

Damn thing always winds up in a ground loop.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 7:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast.
>
> OK, he's perfect. I can't imagine any box of lead doing a better job.

Lead's better. It doesn't argue.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:309c6286-5f08-4022-93b6-
:

> On Jan 15, 7:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast.
>>
>> OK, he's perfect. I can't imagine any box of lead doing a better job.
>
> Lead's better. It doesn't argue.
>

Sheesh! I hope sinc eAnthony is my chew toy he's not toxic!

[Frank Barchi]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting
> a
> small aircraft alone? Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral
> imbalance,
> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
> etc.) to balance it out, or what?

I like to keep a 170 lb. weight in my flight bag. ;-)

Frank

[dVaridel]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote
> On Jan 15, 5:37 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
>> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
>> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.
>
> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.

::chuckle::

I use FSX to practice IFR (as a strictly VFR pilot) and landing is hard work
in the sim as so many clues are just not there. It's a wacky universe in
there, I can complete a credible (as in still flyable afterward) circuit in
a B737 but can't pass the MS PPL checkride!

FS are cheap to run, but the real word is far, far better. Sorta like
comparing sandpaper with a beach ......


David

--
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

[Thomas Borchert]

Tina,

> Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast.
>

Ah, but he might start to talk.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> WingFlaps writes:
>>
>>> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
>>> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.
>>
>> I didn't say it was nothing like really flying,
>
>
>It isn't anything like flying.
>
>
>Bertie

my niece's boyfriend at the time was a mad keen flight sim flier.
on the last visit she sidled up to me and asked Unk' if he'd take the
boyfriend flying in the Tailwind.

unk takes him out and taught him how to fly straight and level and how
to make gentle turns at a fixed altitude. the boy did ok in the 40
mins we flew. he started with no real skills and was quite passable in
the end.

his comment on landing. "bloody hell the simulator is *nothing* like
real flying"

my friend the bunyip is not exaggerating.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:18:39 -0600, "Frank Barchi"
> wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting
>> a
>> small aircraft alone? Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral
>> imbalance,
>> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
>> etc.) to balance it out, or what?
>
>I like to keep a 170 lb. weight in my flight bag. ;-)
>
> Frank
>

this has to be one of the funniest threads in ages.
the utter absurdity of the question combined with the dry humour of
the answers.
funny as hell.

Stealth Pilot

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 9:20 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:>
> I never burn fuel from a single side at a time, so I cannot comment on that.
> Both the Bonanza and the Baron let you draw fuel from both tanks, and that's
> how I leave it set.
>
> If you are heavy and alone in the plane, it has a distinct tendency to bank
> towards the heavy side. The Bonanza does this, anyway, so it's harder to
> notice, but the Baron will do it, only not as obviously. When I first started
> flying these aircraft I noticed odd banking tendencies and it took a while for
> it to dawn on me that the aircraft was simply loaded unevenly.

You can run one tank dry in a Bonanza and have the other at 35 gallons
and only need 1/4 twist of the aileron trim to keep things balanced. I
haven't tried draining one side tank and tip tank, though, but that's
not the recommended procedure IAW the STC, so I won't be trying it.

I doubt there is a Bonanza flying with a "Both" selection.

If you're "flying" in MSFS, the aerodynamic positive stability
tendencies are exaggerated to make it less off putting for non-pilots.

I can always tell when I'm flying with a MSFS Pilot -- they flare
high, fixate on the instruments, and have poor coordination.

The real value to a real pilot of MSFS is practicing certain (albeit
limited) procedures, lesson preview and review, approach practice, and
assistance in acquiring an ear for ATC communications.

You're not really flying, though.

Dan
http://trainingforcfi.blogspot.com/

[Thomas Borchert]

,

> I doubt there is a Bonanza flying with a "Both" selection.
>

Just looked, and the MSFS Baron does NOT have a BOTH selector position.
The real one doesn't either, neither does the Bo.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You can run one tank dry in a Bonanza and have the other at 35 gallons
> and only need 1/4 twist of the aileron trim to keep things balanced.

1/4 twist = 1/4 rotation of the knob (90 degrees of rotation)?

If that's true, then I suppose the weight of the pilot must be far less
significant in comparison.

> I doubt there is a Bonanza flying with a "Both" selection.

I've seen pictures of selectors with a "both" position, although apparently
they don't come that way from the factory. Odd that such a position isn't
standard. Dreamfleet puts such a selector in its Bonanza (one of the very few
departures from reality) because MSFS supposedly exaggerates fuel imbalances.
I always leave it in that position.

> If you're "flying" in MSFS, the aerodynamic positive stability
> tendencies are exaggerated to make it less off putting for non-pilots.

They may be for the default aircraft, but not necessarily for add-ons, which
handle very differently from the default aircraft. The best add-ons make such
a large difference that it's like flying an entirely new simulator.

> I can always tell when I'm flying with a MSFS Pilot -- they flare
> high, fixate on the instruments, and have poor coordination.

I can always tell when a real pilot of small aircraft is flying the sim,
because he doesn't know what most of the instruments are for, can't fly safely
in IMC, and can't land the plane without an accident because he depends on the
seat of his pants for everything.

> The real value to a real pilot of MSFS is practicing certain (albeit
> limited) procedures, lesson preview and review, approach practice, and
> assistance in acquiring an ear for ATC communications.
>
> You're not really flying, though.

It's good enough for me, and it's very practical.

[[email protected]]

> > You're not really flying, though.
>
> It's good enough for me, and it's very practical.

Practical? That implies usefulness. An airplane can be flown somewhere
to accomplish something.

No matter what you "fly" in MSFS, you remain in place.

"Useful" and "Practical" only apply in support of some other function.
A manure shovel is not practical or useful in surgery, but it is very
practical and useful in a barn or a newsgroup.

MSFS may be entertaining, or even quasi-informative, but "practical"
is not an appropriate adjective.

Dan

[Tina]

Practical? It sure is, it's the most covenient way to get from here to
here. Or there to there.





On Jan 16, 9:12*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > You can run one tank dry in a Bonanza and have the other at 35 gallons
> > and only need 1/4 twist of the aileron trim to keep things balanced.
>
> 1/4 twist = 1/4 rotation of the knob (90 degrees of rotation)?
>
> If that's true, then I suppose the weight of the pilot must be far less
> significant in comparison.
>
> > I doubt there is a Bonanza flying with a "Both" selection.
>
> I've seen pictures of selectors with a "both" position, although apparently
> they don't come that way from the factory. *Odd that such a position isn't
> standard. *Dreamfleet puts such a selector in its Bonanza (one of the very few
> departures from reality) because MSFS supposedly exaggerates fuel imbalances.
> I always leave it in that position.
>
> > If you're "flying" in MSFS, the aerodynamic positive stability
> > tendencies are exaggerated to make it less off putting for non-pilots.
>
> They may be for the default aircraft, but not necessarily for add-ons, which
> handle very differently from the default aircraft. *The best add-ons make such
> a large difference that it's like flying an entirely new simulator.
>
> > I can always tell when I'm flying with a MSFS Pilot -- they flare
> > high, fixate on the instruments, and have poor coordination.
>
> I can always tell when a real pilot of small aircraft is flying the sim,
> because he doesn't know what most of the instruments are for, can't fly safely
> in IMC, and can't land the plane without an accident because he depends on the
> seat of his pants for everything.
>
> > The real value to a real pilot of MSFS is practicing certain (albeit
> > limited) procedures, lesson preview and review, approach practice, and
> > assistance in acquiring an ear for ATC communications.
>
> > You're not really flying, though.
>
> It's good enough for me, and it's very practical.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I've seen pictures of selectors with a "both" position, although apparently
> they don't come that way from the factory. Odd that such a position isn't
> standard. Dreamfleet puts such a selector in its Bonanza (one of the very few
> departures from reality) because MSFS supposedly exaggerates fuel imbalances.
> I always leave it in that position.
>

Please point me to such a picture. I've never seen one.

I want you to do an easy experiment that will show you the problem with
a non gravity feed system that uses a "both" position.

Take a glass of water and two drinking straws. Put one of the straws in
the water and hold the other out side of the glass. Now put both straws
in your mouth and suck. Unless you are doing something to block the
straw that isn't in the water you will find it very hard to get a drink.
The same thing happens with a non gravity feed fuel system in the "both"
mode.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Tina,
>
>> Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast.
>>
>
> Ah, but he might start to talk.
>

True..


You'd have to come up with an appropriate method to keep him quiet!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>
>>> WingFlaps writes:
>>>
>>>> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
>>>> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.
>>>
>>> I didn't say it was nothing like really flying,
>>
>>
>>It isn't anything like flying.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> my niece's boyfriend at the time was a mad keen flight sim flier.
> on the last visit she sidled up to me and asked Unk' if he'd take the
> boyfriend flying in the Tailwind.
>
> unk takes him out and taught him how to fly straight and level and how
> to make gentle turns at a fixed altitude. the boy did ok in the 40
> mins we flew. he started with no real skills and was quite passable in
> the end.
>
> his comment on landing. "bloody hell the simulator is *nothing* like
> real flying"
>
> my friend the bunyip is not exaggerating.
>

Especially not in your airplane!


Probably the ones that are furthest away form Reality are the WW1
airplanes. MSFS used to come with a Camel which was the easist to fly of
all the airplanes in the pack. Bwawahwahwhahwahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 15, 9:20 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:>
>> I never burn fuel from a single side at a time, so I cannot comment
>> on that. Both the Bonanza and the Baron let you draw fuel from both
>> tanks, and that's how I leave it set.
>>
>> If you are heavy and alone in the plane, it has a distinct tendency
>> to bank towards the heavy side. The Bonanza does this, anyway, so
>> it's harder to notice, but the Baron will do it, only not as
>> obviously. When I first started flying these aircraft I noticed odd
>> banking tendencies and it took a while for it to dawn on me that the
>> aircraft was simply loaded unevenly.
>
> You can run one tank dry in a Bonanza and have the other at 35 gallons
> and only need 1/4 twist of the aileron trim to keep things balanced. I
> haven't tried draining one side tank and tip tank, though, but that's
> not the recommended procedure IAW the STC, so I won't be trying it.
>
> I doubt there is a Bonanza flying with a "Both" selection.


Bad idea in a low wing airplane. It's going to favor one tank until it's
dry and then your engine will quit with one tank nearly full!


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You can run one tank dry in a Bonanza and have the other at 35
>> gallons and only need 1/4 twist of the aileron trim to keep things
>> balanced.
>
> 1/4 twist = 1/4 rotation of the knob (90 degrees of rotation)?
>
> If that's true, then I suppose the weight of the pilot must be far
> less significant in comparison.
>
>> I doubt there is a Bonanza flying with a "Both" selection.
>
> I've seen pictures of selectors with a "both" position, although
> apparently they don't come that way from the factory. Odd that such a
> position isn't standard. Dreamfleet puts such a selector in its
> Bonanza (one of the very few departures from reality) because MSFS
> supposedly exaggerates fuel imbalances. I always leave it in that
> position.


They don't do it because they don't build airplanes for idiots.

Like you , for instance.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> I've seen pictures of selectors with a "both" position, although
>> apparently they don't come that way from the factory. Odd that such
>> a position isn't standard. Dreamfleet puts such a selector in its
>> Bonanza (one of the very few departures from reality) because MSFS
>> supposedly exaggerates fuel imbalances. I always leave it in that
>> position.
>>
>
> Please point me to such a picture. I've never seen one.
>
> I want you to do an easy experiment that will show you the problem
> with a non gravity feed system that uses a "both" position.
>
> Take a glass of water and two drinking straws. Put one of the straws
> in the water and hold the other out side of the glass. Now put both
> straws in your mouth and suck. Unless you are doing something to block
> the straw that isn't in the water you will find it very hard to get a
> drink. The same thing happens with a non gravity feed fuel system in
> the "both"
> mode.
>



Xactly. I know of an RV6 where they installed a selector with a both"
position "in the interest of safety" How it got past the DAR I have no
idea, but it crashed on it's second flight........


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> > You can run one tank dry in a Bonanza and have the other at 35 gallons
> > and only need 1/4 twist of the aileron trim to keep things balanced. I
> > haven't tried draining one side tank and tip tank, though, but that's
> > not the recommended procedure IAW the STC, so I won't be trying it.
>
> Bad idea in a low wing airplane. It's going to favor one tank until it's
> dry and then your engine will quit with one tank nearly full!
>
> Bertie
>

You're absolutely correct.

There's nothing in the POH about it. Any BPPP grads here care to chime
in?

Dan

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Just looked, and the MSFS Baron does NOT have a BOTH selector position.
> The real one doesn't either, neither does the Bo.

The Dreamfleet Bonanza has such a position, for reasons previously explained.

The Dreamfleet Baron has a system that feeds each engine from its respective
tank(s), with the option of a cross-feed if required. As far as I know, this
is the same as the real thing.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Practical? That implies usefulness.

Yes, it does.

> An airplane can be flown somewhere to accomplish something.
>
> No matter what you "fly" in MSFS, you remain in place.

Travel is not my objective. In fact, it's one of the things I don't like
about flying for real. One of the practical aspects of simulation is that I
don't have to actually go anywhere when flying.

> MSFS may be entertaining, or even quasi-informative, but "practical"
> is not an appropriate adjective.

Speak for yourself.

[Jon]

On Jan 16, 9:54 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert > wrote :
>
> > Tina,
>
> >> Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast.
>
> > Ah, but he might start to talk.
>
> True..
>
> You'd have to come up with an appropriate method to keep him quiet!
>
> Bertie

""Computer - this is a Class A Priority Directive: Compute, to the
last digit, the value of pi."
"No - no - no - nooooooo!"

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> I want you to do an easy experiment that will show you the problem with
> a non gravity feed system that uses a "both" position.
>
> Take a glass of water and two drinking straws. Put one of the straws in
> the water and hold the other out side of the glass. Now put both straws
> in your mouth and suck. Unless you are doing something to block the
> straw that isn't in the water you will find it very hard to get a drink.
> The same thing happens with a non gravity feed fuel system in the "both"
> mode.

Add a fuel pump.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I want you to do an easy experiment that will show you the problem with
>> a non gravity feed system that uses a "both" position.
>>
>> Take a glass of water and two drinking straws. Put one of the straws in
>> the water and hold the other out side of the glass. Now put both straws
>> in your mouth and suck. Unless you are doing something to block the
>> straw that isn't in the water you will find it very hard to get a drink.
>> The same thing happens with a non gravity feed fuel system in the "both"
>> mode.
>
> Add a fuel pump.

You sucking provides the analog to the fuel pump.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I want you to do an easy experiment that will show you the problem
>> with a non gravity feed system that uses a "both" position.
>>
>> Take a glass of water and two drinking straws. Put one of the straws
>> in the water and hold the other out side of the glass. Now put both
>> straws in your mouth and suck. Unless you are doing something to
>> block the straw that isn't in the water you will find it very hard to
>> get a drink. The same thing happens with a non gravity feed fuel
>> system in the "both" mode.
>
> Add a fuel pump.
>

Moron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jon > wrote in
:

> On Jan 16, 9:54 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Tina,
>>
>> >> Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast.
>>
>> > Ah, but he might start to talk.
>>
>> True..
>>
>> You'd have to come up with an appropriate method to keep him quiet!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> ""Computer - this is a Class A Priority Directive: Compute, to the
> last digit, the value of pi."
> "No - no - no - nooooooo!"
>

Heh heh. You're assuming his brain works n some sort of logical fashion.

I think merely being outside of his bedroom would lock his head up

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Practical? That implies usefulness.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
>> An airplane can be flown somewhere to accomplish something.
>>
>> No matter what you "fly" in MSFS, you remain in place.
>
> Travel is not my objective.


Neither is flying.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>> Xactly. I know of an RV6 where they installed a selector with a both"
>> position "in the interest of safety" How it got past the DAR I have no
>> idea, but it crashed on it's second flight........
>
> I have lots of time in YAK-52s, no tank selector at all, just
> a fuel ON/OFF switch. Works very well.
>


Must have some system to get around the problem. It has wing tanks?
Or dos it feed to the engine out of a header tank which is in turn fed by
the wing tanks?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Just looked, and the MSFS Baron does NOT have a BOTH selector
>> position. The real one doesn't either, neither does the Bo.
>
> The Dreamfleet Bonanza has such a position, for reasons previously
> explained.
>


Actually it has it to dumb it down for idiots like you.


Bertie

[Jon]

On Jan 16, 11:12 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jon > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 9:54 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Thomas Borchert > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > Tina,
>
> >> >> Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast.
>
> >> > Ah, but he might start to talk.
>
> >> True..
>
> >> You'd have to come up with an appropriate method to keep him quiet!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > ""Computer - this is a Class A Priority Directive: Compute, to the
> > last digit, the value of pi."
> > "No - no - no - nooooooo!"
>
> Heh heh. You're assuming his brain works n some sort of logical fashion.

For randomly chosen values of 'works'

> I think merely being outside of his bedroom would lock his head up
>
> Bertie

I assumed he had (or could afford) a calculator or a pencil. It's not
clear whether perform the arithmetic operations from w/in or outside
the bedroom would affect the accuracy of the result. Runtime
performance might be affected, given other activities going on in the
bedroom that might continue to pre-empt the calculation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jon > wrote in
:

> On Jan 16, 11:12 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jon > wrote
>> innews:ff298789-8ea5-4a58-9b57-839f13691077
@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 16, 9:54 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > Tina,
>>
>> >> >> Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast.
>>
>> >> > Ah, but he might start to talk.
>>
>> >> True..
>>
>> >> You'd have to come up with an appropriate method to keep him
>> >> quiet!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > ""Computer - this is a Class A Priority Directive: Compute, to the
>> > last digit, the value of pi."
>> > "No - no - no - nooooooo!"
>>
>> Heh heh. You're assuming his brain works n some sort of logical
>> fashion.
>
> For randomly chosen values of 'works'
>
>> I think merely being outside of his bedroom would lock his head up
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I assumed he had (or could afford) a calculator or a pencil. It's not
> clear whether perform the arithmetic operations from w/in or outside
> the bedroom would affect the accuracy of the result. Runtime
> performance might be affected, given other activities going on in the
> bedroom that might continue to pre-empt the calculation.
>

OK, I have a headache now.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 10:39 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Travel is not my objective. In fact, it's one of the things I don't like
> about flying for real. One of the practical aspects of simulation is that I
> don't have to actually go anywhere when flying.

I suppose you simulate work, trips to the dentist, and exercise since
those are things you don't like?

> > MSFS may be entertaining, or even quasi-informative, but "practical"
> > is not an appropriate adjective.
>
> Speak for yourself.

Asserting that flight simulation is "practical" for no apparent useful
function is unreasonable.

Dan

[[email protected]]

> > > MSFS may be entertaining, or even quasi-informative, but "practical"
> > > is not an appropriate adjective.
>
> > Speak for yourself.


PS

It's been fun, but I'm heading out to fly a Real Bonanza over the Real
surface of the earth in the Real atmosphere. The refresh rate is
awesome!

Dan

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I want you to do an easy experiment that will show you the problem with
>> a non gravity feed system that uses a "both" position.
>>
>> Take a glass of water and two drinking straws. Put one of the straws in
>> the water and hold the other out side of the glass. Now put both straws
>> in your mouth and suck. Unless you are doing something to block the
>> straw that isn't in the water you will find it very hard to get a drink.
>> The same thing happens with a non gravity feed fuel system in the "both"
>> mode.
>
> Add a fuel pump.

Where would you place the fuel pump to deal with the problem?

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>Why, you thinking of becoming ballast?
>>>
>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>> "underqualified" might be what I'd expect from you, yip.
>
>As a flame, or as ballast myself?
>
>Bertie
Nah,
suggesting the simboi was underqualified as ballast.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:7e4e31d71a563@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>Why, you thinking of becoming ballast?
>>>>
>>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>>
>>> "underqualified" might be what I'd expect from you, yip.
>>
>>As a flame, or as ballast myself?
>>
>>Bertie
> Nah,
> suggesting the simboi was underqualified as ballast.
>

Ah, OK. depends on what you wnat out of your ballast I suppose!

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I suppose you simulate work, trips to the dentist, and exercise since
> those are things you don't like?

I undertake those trips because I have no choice. For exercise, I walk,
although I have neither the time nor the money to do that currently, so I
haven't been walking.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It's been fun, but I'm heading out to fly a Real Bonanza over the Real
> surface of the earth in the Real atmosphere. The refresh rate is
> awesome!

Be sure to turn crash detection off.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Where would you place the fuel pump to deal with the problem?

That would depend on the aircraft. I don't know where it is placed in a
Bonanza.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> It's been fun, but I'm heading out to fly a Real Bonanza over the Real
>> surface of the earth in the Real atmosphere. The refresh rate is
>> awesome!
>
> Be sure to turn crash detection off.
>

Ooow! An attempt at wit.

OTOH, he's probably so far removed form reality at this stage he probably
believes it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> I suppose you simulate work, trips to the dentist, and exercise since
>> those are things you don't like?
>
> I undertake those trips because I have no choice. For exercise, I walk,
> although I have neither the time nor the money to do that currently, so I
> haven't been walking.
>


Awww, I feel bad for you. Maybe you can get Chris Cocker to cry for you..

:(


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Where would you place the fuel pump to deal with the problem?
>
> That would depend on the aircraft. I don't know where it is placed in a
> Bonanza.

You are a moron.

Bertie
>

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Where would you place the fuel pump to deal with the problem?
>
> That would depend on the aircraft. I don't know where it is placed in a
> Bonanza.

Where it is in the Bo doesn't matter because it doesn't draw from both
tanks at once.

Where would you place a fuel pump in a low wing plane with a tank in
each wing that would not suck air from the empty tank?

[george]

On Jan 17, 3:20 am, " > wrote:

> "Useful" and "Practical" only apply in support of some other function.
> A manure shovel is not practical or useful in surgery, but it is very
> practical and useful in a barn or a newsgroup.

Finally some-one has put the two together.
Anthony and manure shovel operator

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>Probably the ones that are furthest away form Reality are the WW1
>airplanes. MSFS used to come with a Camel which was the easist to fly of
>all the airplanes in the pack. Bwawahwahwhahwahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh!
>

I remember the Camel from the 80s versions of MSFS (with wire-frame scenery)
It really was the easiest to fly. No gyroscopic effect from the engine
spinning around on the nose. It was quite docile.

About 15 yrs. later, a guy showed up with a real Camel F.1 at an Antique
Aircraft Assoc. fly-in. I remember being impressed that he had to land in
the grass between the runway and the taxiway (tail skid). After discussing
the flight characteristics with him for a few minutes, it became clear why he
only flew it to a few shows a year. The chances of turning the plane into a
ball of sticks and cloth were pretty good in anything other than perfect
conditions.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:7e4f56205daeb@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>Probably the ones that are furthest away form Reality are the WW1
>>airplanes. MSFS used to come with a Camel which was the easist to fly
>>of all the airplanes in the pack.
>>Bwawahwahwhahwahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh!
>>
>
> I remember the Camel from the 80s versions of MSFS (with wire-frame
> scenery) It really was the easiest to fly. No gyroscopic effect
> from the engine
> spinning around on the nose. It was quite docile.
>
> About 15 yrs. later, a guy showed up with a real Camel F.1 at an
> Antique
> Aircraft Assoc. fly-in. I remember being impressed that he had to
> land in the grass between the runway and the taxiway (tail skid).
> After discussing the flight characteristics with him for a few
> minutes, it became clear why he only flew it to a few shows a year.
> The chances of turning the plane into a ball of sticks and cloth were
> pretty good in anything other than perfect conditions.


Love to try one.
Even Cole Palen lost them on landing fairly regularly, though, and there
couldnt have been many, if any, who knew more about flying rotaries than he
did.

Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Tina wrote:

> Bertie, MX may not be overqualified as ballast. If, for example, I was
> PIC (about 130 pounds) with a center of gravity (watch it now, if you
> comment on the location of my center of gravity) 18 inches to the left
> of centerline, a 260 pound ballast sitting in the back 9 inches to
> the right of center would bring things into left and right balance.
> There should be enough trim for fore and aft balance. You might assume
> I would not invite ballast to sit in front.

Not only that, the last thing you want
is the ballast to move around and make
a mess. Since one of the reasons MX gives
for not flying is no bathroom, I think he
would be unsuitable for ballast, at least
in my plane.

[Jim Stewart]

dVaridel wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote
>> On Jan 15, 5:37 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
>>> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
>>> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.
>> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.
>
> ::chuckle::
>
> I use FSX to practice IFR (as a strictly VFR pilot) and landing is hard work
> in the sim as so many clues are just not there. It's a wacky universe in
> there, I can complete a credible (as in still flyable afterward) circuit in
> a B737 but can't pass the MS PPL checkride!
>
> FS are cheap to run, but the real word is far, far better. Sorta like
> comparing sandpaper with a beach ......

Or sex with a real mate instead of your hand...

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 2:19 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I undertake those trips because I have no choice. For exercise, I walk,
> although I have neither the time nor the money to do that currently, so I
> haven't been walking.

Is there a fee to walk?

Even the homeless walk, and they don't play MSFS...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>
>> Bob Moore wrote
>>> I have lots of time in YAK-52s, no tank selector at all, just
>>> a fuel ON/OFF switch. Works very well.
>>
>> Must have some system to get around the problem. It has wing tanks?
>> Or dos it feed to the engine out of a header tank which is in turn fed
>> by the wing tanks?
>
> Yes, two wing tanks and a header tank in the engine compartment.

And how does it shift fuel to the header? Elec pumps?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> dVaridel wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" wrote
>>> On Jan 15, 5:37 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
>>>> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
>>>> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.
>>> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.
>>
>> ::chuckle::
>>
>> I use FSX to practice IFR (as a strictly VFR pilot) and landing is
>> hard work in the sim as so many clues are just not there. It's a
>> wacky universe in there, I can complete a credible (as in still
>> flyable afterward) circuit in a B737 but can't pass the MS PPL
>> checkride!
>>
>> FS are cheap to run, but the real word is far, far better. Sorta
>> like comparing sandpaper with a beach ......
>
> Or sex with a real mate instead of your hand...


What was it about sand and sandpaper that made you think of that?

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>
>> Bob Moore wrote
>>> I have lots of time in YAK-52s, no tank selector at all, just
>>> a fuel ON/OFF switch. Works very well.
>> Must have some system to get around the problem. It has wing tanks?
>> Or dos it feed to the engine out of a header tank which is in turn fed
>> by the wing tanks?
>
> Yes, two wing tanks and a header tank in the engine compartment.
>
> Bob Moore

My bet is it also has pumps from the wings to the header and only draws
fuel from the header. Hence no sucking on an empty tank.

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Jim Stewart > wrote in
> :
>
>> dVaridel wrote:
>>> "Robert M. Gary" wrote
>>>> On Jan 15, 5:37 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
>>>>> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.
>>>> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.
>>> ::chuckle::
>>>
>>> I use FSX to practice IFR (as a strictly VFR pilot) and landing is
>>> hard work in the sim as so many clues are just not there. It's a
>>> wacky universe in there, I can complete a credible (as in still
>>> flyable afterward) circuit in a B737 but can't pass the MS PPL
>>> checkride!
>>>
>>> FS are cheap to run, but the real word is far, far better. Sorta
>>> like comparing sandpaper with a beach ......
>> Or sex with a real mate instead of your hand...
>
>
> What was it about sand and sandpaper that made you think of that?
>
You're the one that put the two together...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> dVaridel wrote:
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" wrote
>>>>> On Jan 15, 5:37 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>>> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
>>>>>> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.
>>>>> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.
>>>> ::chuckle::
>>>>
>>>> I use FSX to practice IFR (as a strictly VFR pilot) and landing is
>>>> hard work in the sim as so many clues are just not there. It's a
>>>> wacky universe in there, I can complete a credible (as in still
>>>> flyable afterward) circuit in a B737 but can't pass the MS PPL
>>>> checkride!
>>>>
>>>> FS are cheap to run, but the real word is far, far better. Sorta
>>>> like comparing sandpaper with a beach ......
>>> Or sex with a real mate instead of your hand...
>>
>>
>> What was it about sand and sandpaper that made you think of that?
>>
> You're the one that put the two together...
>


Mm, it was the next thing you came up with.... Oh never mind.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 12:53*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting a
> small aircraft alone? *Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral imbalance,
> or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
> etc.) to balance it out, or what?

It's never been much of an issue on my Cherokee. Although it can get
a little left or right wing heavy due to fuel imbalance, the effect is
small, and when I do think I detect it, just the weight of my fingers
on the yoke counteracts it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Is there a fee to walk?

As city dwellers know, in a big city, you can't go outside without spending
money.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Where would you place a fuel pump in a low wing plane with a tank in
> each wing that would not suck air from the empty tank?

In a common sump that is lower than either tank.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 7:22 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Is there a fee to walk?
>
> As city dwellers know, in a big city, you can't go outside without spending
> money.

I've walked in New York for free many times -- as a resident and a
transient.

Walking is still free. It's the stopping for a latte that's costing
you.


..

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> It's been fun, but I'm heading out to fly a Real Bonanza over the Real
>> surface of the earth in the Real atmosphere. The refresh rate is
>> awesome!
>
> Be sure to turn crash detection off.

Good one!

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

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.

> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.

There is no Cessna 150 in MSFS.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <sGxjj.38600$Ux2.7777@attbi_s22>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.
>
> There is no Cessna 150 in MSFS.

Which pretty much makes it a lock that he can't land the Cessna 150!

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Is there a fee to walk?
>
> As city dwellers know, in a big city, you can't go outside without
> spending money.


Aww, they taking your lunch money again?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Where would you place a fuel pump in a low wing plane with a tank in
>> each wing that would not suck air from the empty tank?
>
> In a common sump that is lower than either tank.
>


Yeah, great idea, fjukkwit.

Why aren't you dsigning airplanes ( and not with photoshop either)


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:3Cxjj.38596$Ux2.30709
@attbi_s22:

>>> It's been fun, but I'm heading out to fly a Real Bonanza over the Real
>>> surface of the earth in the Real atmosphere. The refresh rate is
>>> awesome!
>>
>> Be sure to turn crash detection off.
>
> Good one!
>
>:-)

Slurping Anthony. just when you thought you couldn't get any lower.....

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:sGxjj.38600$Ux2.7777
@attbi_s22:

>> Will wonders never cease, he admits it at last! The answer is that
>> MSFS simulation is nothing like really flying.
>
>> I hope not because I still can't land the Cessna 150 in MSFS.
>
> There is no Cessna 150 in MSFS.

Yeah, there is.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Walking is still free. It's the stopping for a latte that's costing
> you.

It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> There is no Cessna 150 in MSFS.

No wonder it's so difficult to land!

[John[_13_]]

maybe for you but then again you have not demonstrated any abilities other
then whining.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Walking is still free. It's the stopping for a latte that's costing
>> you.
>
> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Walking is still free. It's the stopping for a latte that's costing
>> you.
>
> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.
>

No, it isn't.


I do it all the time.

in cities even!

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.

Another one to add to the list that includes 'Flying has nothing to do with
being in the air' perhaps?

Andy

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> Why aren't you dsigning airplanes
>

It would involve work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:53:57 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>What is your method for handling weight and balance when you are piloting a
>small aircraft alone? Do you just trim to adjust for the lateral imbalance,
>or do you put something on the other side of the plane (ballast, luggage,
>etc.) to balance it out, or what?

hey stupid.
I'll give you a serious answer to your question.
the reason why no real pilot of a real aircraft has ever to worry
about this contrived situation in real life is an aerodynamic trick
called dihedral. it automatically compensates.

ok stupid. down to the local library. borrow all the books you can on
aircraft, aerodynamics and mechanical engineering. read them!
with years of superhuman effort you might just pass as intelligent.

Stealth Pilot

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Where would you place a fuel pump in a low wing plane with a tank in
>> each wing that would not suck air from the empty tank?
>
> In a common sump that is lower than either tank.


sorry, won't work

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> Why aren't you dsigning airplanes
>>
>
> It would involve work.
>

Silly me!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.
>
> Another one to add to the list that includes 'Flying has nothing to do
> with being in the air' perhaps?
>

This is all gold. we should start a special archive.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13ouoa9j6fss5a5
@news.supernews.com:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> Where would you place a fuel pump in a low wing plane with a tank in
>>> each wing that would not suck air from the empty tank?
>>
>> In a common sump that is lower than either tank.
>
>
> sorry, won't work

Well, to be fair, it would work, but it would be pointless, complicated,
more dangerous, heavier and less reliable.

Just like Anthony!


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13ouoa9j6fss5a5
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>>
>>>> Where would you place a fuel pump in a low wing plane with a tank in
>>>> each wing that would not suck air from the empty tank?
>>> In a common sump that is lower than either tank.
>>
>> sorry, won't work
>
> Well, to be fair, it would work, but it would be pointless, complicated,
> more dangerous, heavier and less reliable.
>
> Just like Anthony!
>
>
> Bertie


Unless the pump is also a gasolator it runs the chance of pumping as
much water as it does fuel.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Walking is still free. It's the stopping for a latte that's costing
>> you.
>
> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.

One sure method is to walk without any money in your pocket.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I've seen pictures of selectors with a "both" position, although
> apparently they don't come that way from the factory. Odd that such a
> position isn't standard.

It's odd to non-pilots.

Even pilots who fly planes with a "Both" position understand why some planes
don't have one.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 9:20 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John writes:
> > How much does it pitch to the side if you don't put offsetting weight into
> > the passenger seat and how does it compare to the normal variation caused by
> > fuel burn from a single side at a time?
>
> I never burn fuel from a single side at a time, so I cannot comment on that.
> Both the Bonanza and the Baron let you draw fuel from both tanks, and that's
> how I leave it set.

No, they don't.

>
> If you are heavy and alone in the plane, it has a distinct tendency to bank
> towards the heavy side. The Bonanza does this, anyway, so it's harder to
> notice, but the Baron will do it, only not as obviously. When I first started
> flying these aircraft I noticed odd banking tendencies and it took a while for
> it to dawn on me that the aircraft was simply loaded unevenly.
>

Neither Bonanza (35 or A36) exhibits banking tendency with me solo in
the airplane (I weigh 195). How many tons is this pilot?

Dan

[Judah]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Or sex with a real mate instead of your hand...

Are you Australian?

;)

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A272A818BAC****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

>> Lead's better. It doesn't argue.
> Sheesh! I hope sinc eAnthony is my chew toy he's not toxic!

It's OK - he's in France, not China.

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A27DEC24AFBD****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

> Bob Moore > wrote in
> 46.128:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>>
>>> Bob Moore wrote
>>>> I have lots of time in YAK-52s, no tank selector at all, just
>>>> a fuel ON/OFF switch. Works very well.
>>>
>>> Must have some system to get around the problem. It has wing tanks?
>>> Or dos it feed to the engine out of a header tank which is in turn fed
>>> by the wing tanks?
>>
>> Yes, two wing tanks and a header tank in the engine compartment.
>
> And how does it shift fuel to the header? Elec pumps?
>
>
> Bertie

S-Turns?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Judah > wrote in news:Xns9A28D910727F5Judahnospamnet@
209.197.15.254:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A272A818BAC****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
>>> Lead's better. It doesn't argue.
>> Sheesh! I hope sinc eAnthony is my chew toy he's not toxic!
>
> It's OK - he's in France, not China.
>

Whew, he probably just tastes of snails then.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Judah > wrote in news:Xns9A28D948D763EJudahnospamnet@
209.197.15.254:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A27DEC24AFBD****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
>> Bob Moore > wrote in
>> 46.128:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote
>>>
>>>> Bob Moore wrote
>>>>> I have lots of time in YAK-52s, no tank selector at all, just
>>>>> a fuel ON/OFF switch. Works very well.
>>>>
>>>> Must have some system to get around the problem. It has wing tanks?
>>>> Or dos it feed to the engine out of a header tank which is in turn fed
>>>> by the wing tanks?
>>>
>>> Yes, two wing tanks and a header tank in the engine compartment.
>>
>> And how does it shift fuel to the header? Elec pumps?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> S-Turns?
>

k


Bertie

[JB]

On Jan 17, 9:47*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Andy Hawkins > wrote :
>
> > Hi,
>
> > In article >,
> > * * * * * > wrote:
> >> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.
>
> > Another one to add to the list that includes 'Flying has nothing to do
> > with being in the air' perhaps?
>
> This is all gold. we should start a special archive.
>
> Bertie

I gave up responding to MX's stupid, argumentative posts long ago but
I continue to lurk...just for daily laughs. But I have to come out of
the shadows to say that you are right...this one is absolutely 100%
pure gold!! Between the single pilot ballast question and the "I
can't leave my mommy's apt and walk because I might spend money", its
all too much to take. Pure gold.

--Jeff

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> One sure method is to walk without any money in your pocket.

In many jurisdictions, you can be cited or even arrested for vagrancy if you
have no money on your person.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No, they don't.

Yes, they do, on my sim, which is what I had in mind (actually the Baron draws
fuel for each engine from its respective tank).

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No, they don't.
>
> Yes, they do, on my sim,

See there's your problem. This isn't a group about sims.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

JB > wrote in
:

> On Jan 17, 9:47*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Andy Hawkins > wrote
>> innews:slrnfoudjr.5sk.andy@gently.
> org.uk:
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > * * * * * > wrote:
>> >> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.
>>
>> > Another one to add to the list that includes 'Flying has nothing to
>> > do with being in the air' perhaps?
>>
>> This is all gold. we should start a special archive.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I gave up responding to MX's stupid, argumentative posts long ago but
> I continue to lurk...just for daily laughs. But I have to come out of
> the shadows to say that you are right...this one is absolutely 100%
> pure gold!! Between the single pilot ballast question and the "I
> can't leave my mommy's apt and walk because I might spend money", its
> all too much to take. Pure gold.
>


There was another aviatin k00k years ago named John Tarver who came up
with some similar gems. Someone archived them into a web site entitled
something like the wit and wisdom of J Tarver. He was hilarious too, but
he was better flamebait, forever calling people hamsters and insisting
that we were all his puppets and so on.
Scary thing was, he actually did work on airplanes.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> See there's your problem. This isn't a group about sims.

That's not my problem.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 9:04 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> In many jurisdictions, you can be cited or even arrested for vagrancy if you
> have no money on your person.

There is no place in the United States where you will be arrested
simply for not carrying money.

If you contradict this, I agree with the consensus of this group that
you are a moron.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> One sure method is to walk without any money in your pocket.
>
> In many jurisdictions, you can be cited or even arrested for vagrancy
> if you have no money on your person.
>

Really?
How many?

Finally something you can speak with authority about!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> No, they don't.
>
> Yes, they do, on my sim,

Your sim is not a bonanza or a baron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> See there's your problem. This isn't a group about sims.
>
> That's not my problem.
>

Fortunately for you since you have so many already.


Bertie

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Do you look so much like a bum that you would fear being stopped and
>> arrested simply for walking the streets?
>
> No. What gave you that impression?

Your stated concern for being arrested for vagrancy simply by walking outside
without money.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There is no place in the United States where you will be arrested
> simply for not carrying money.

I said "you CAN BE cited or even arrested," and I did not impose any
geographical restrictions.

Vagrancy and disorderly-conduct laws are common throughout the U.S.,
especially at local government levels, despite their questionable
Constitutionality and variable enforcement.

> If you contradict this, I agree with the consensus of this group that
> you are a moron.

So you dismiss anything that contradicts your own opinion (apparently
independently of its veracity). It's unusual to see an explicit admission of
such a prejudice. Anyway, there is no consensus concerning me, as the vast
majority of persons reading this newsgroup have not offered an opinion.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> One sure method is to walk without any money in your pocket.
>
> In many jurisdictions, you can be cited or even arrested for vagrancy if
> you have no money on your person.

I highly doubt that you would be cited or arrested for vagrancy simply
because you were not carrying money on your person, even in France.

More likely, you would only be stopped if you were begging or harrassing
people during your walks. Maybe if you started picking people's pockets. It
might also apply if you were street performing. I doubt it would happen if
you were simply walking around getting excercise or fresh air. I haven't
been to France for a very long time, but when I was there, I walked around
a fair amount and was never approached by police spot-checking my wallet.

The act of not carrying money is not in and of itself vagrancy. A vagrant
also does not have a permanent home, and refuses to take on employment.
Although probably not spelled out (especially in French lawbooks) they
would also need to "look the part" in order to be even suspected.

Do you look so much like a bum that you would fear being stopped and
arrested simply for walking the streets? This must present a serious
obstacle for your tour guide business.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

> There was another aviatin k00k years ago named John Tarver who came up
> with some similar gems.

Tarver was an evolution denier, too.

He was tons of fun in talk.origins.

http://tinyurl.com/2w2wpm


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> There is no place in the United States where you will be arrested
>> simply for not carrying money.
>
> I said "you CAN BE cited or even arrested," and I did not impose any
> geographical restrictions.
>
> Vagrancy and disorderly-conduct laws are common throughout the U.S.,
> especially at local government levels, despite their questionable
> Constitutionality and variable enforcement.


For once, i'll side with Anthony.

He sounds like he knows what he's talking about.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Judah writes:
>>
>>> One sure method is to walk without any money in your pocket.
>>
>> In many jurisdictions, you can be cited or even arrested for vagrancy
>> if you have no money on your person.
>
> I highly doubt that you would be cited or arrested for vagrancy simply
> because you were not carrying money on your person, even in France.
>
> More likely, you would only be stopped if you were begging or
> harrassing people during your walks. Maybe if you started picking
> people's pockets. It might also apply if you were street performing. I
> doubt it would happen if you were simply walking around getting
> excercise or fresh air. I haven't been to France for a very long time,
> but when I was there, I walked around a fair amount and was never
> approached by police spot-checking my wallet.
>
> The act of not carrying money is not in and of itself vagrancy. A
> vagrant also does not have a permanent home, and refuses to take on
> employment. Although probably not spelled out (especially in French
> lawbooks) they would also need to "look the part" in order to be even
> suspected.
>
> Do you look so much like a bum that you would fear being stopped and
> arrested simply for walking the streets? This must present a serious
> obstacle for your tour guide business.
>


Well, the "hiking pants" he advertises on his website should be a crime
in their own right.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>> There was another aviatin k00k years ago named John Tarver who came up
>> with some similar gems.
>
> Tarver was an evolution denier, too.
>
> He was tons of fun in talk.origins.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2w2wpm
>
>

Oh God. that takes me back.

Actually, I couldn't handle him. He gave me ice cream heaache.
I once said something like; "Tarver is the Chocolate Gatueu of loons, to
over-indulge is to risk diabetes"


And I actually know what he looks like!

Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>
> Actually, I couldn't handle him. He gave me ice cream heaache.
> I once said something like; "Tarver is the Chocolate Gatueu of loons, to
> over-indulge is to risk diabetes"
>
>
> And I actually know what he looks like!

Yikes!

Did anyone ever find out what became of him?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, I couldn't handle him. He gave me ice cream heaache.
>> I once said something like; "Tarver is the Chocolate Gatueu of loons, to
>> over-indulge is to risk diabetes"
>>
>>
>> And I actually know what he looks like!
>
> Yikes!
>
> Did anyone ever find out what became of him?
>

I think he moved, and unlike Anthony, actually had enough intelligence to
know when he wasn't wanted. Having said that, he had a huge fan club!


I just looked. The legend lives on. ..

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~philmil/ADA_FAQ/ADA_FAQ_tarver.htm


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Do you look so much like a bum that you would fear being stopped and
> arrested simply for walking the streets?

No. What gave you that impression?

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Your stated concern for being arrested for vagrancy simply by walking outside
> without money.

But that's not what I stated. I said that you can't really go outside in a
big city without spending money. Someone else suggested that one could go
outside without cash and thus not spend anything. I pointed out that some
jurisdictions would call that vagrancy. But I don't walk around without any
cash at all, so it's a moot point for me. All of this information can be
obtained by reading the entire thread carefully.

[[email protected]]

>
> So you dismiss anything that contradicts your own opinion (apparently
> independently of its veracity).

Nah, I just contradict stupidity.

And I fly real airplanes.


Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Do you look so much like a bum that you would fear being stopped and
>> arrested simply for walking the streets?
>
> No. What gave you that impression?
>

Well, the hiking shorts and the fact you'd be rummaging around in a
dumpster might worry them.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Your stated concern for being arrested for vagrancy simply by walking
>> outside without money.
>
> But that's not what I stated. I said that you can't really go outside
> in a big city without spending money.

And you're still wrong, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Your stated concern for being arrested for vagrancy simply by walking
>> outside without money.
>
> But that's not what I stated.


And you did state that, which means you are a liar.


Bertie

[Tina]

You might want to rethink this statement.

Mx wrote.
>
> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.

I would say it's rather difficult to spend money while you're walking,
unless you're walking (or running) in place. My experience at least
is, I have to stop walking to spend money in the city, or most other
places for that matter.

Maybe they do it differently in Paris..

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:6bd22296-c527-4e40-a68c-
:

> You might want to rethink this statement.
>
> Mx wrote.
>>
>> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.
>
> I would say it's rather difficult to spend money while you're walking,
> unless you're walking (or running) in place. My experience at least
> is, I have to stop walking to spend money in the city, or most other
> places for that matter.


Wow! And you're a woman! I'd have thought if anyone could do it, you could.


Bertie

[Tina]

I DID say "rather difficult", Bertie, because these posts are read
mostly by men (and MX).

Of course women know how to do it, and modern technology makes it even
easier. Isn't that why Al Gore invented cell phones?


On Jan 18, 10:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Tina > wrote in news:6bd22296-c527-4e40-a68c-
> :
>
> > You might want to rethink this statement.
>
> > Mx wrote.
>
> >> It's extremely difficult to walk without spending anything.
>
> > I would say it's rather difficult to spend money while you're walking,
> > unless you're walking (or running) in place. My experience at least
> > is, I have to stop walking to spend money in the city, or most other
> > places for that matter.
>
> Wow! And you're a woman! I'd have thought if anyone could do it, you could.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> I DID say "rather difficult", Bertie, because these posts are read
> mostly by men (and MX).


Uh OK miss ( it's hard to do a duh duh acent on usenet, I'll have to ask
Ken how he does it)

My wife can spend it in her sleep. And she never spends it on airplkanes or
bikes or cars aor anything cool!
>
> Of course women know how to do it, and modern technology makes it even
> easier. Isn't that why Al Gore invented cell phones?

He heh.

I know why they invented the hands free car set. it's so Italian women can
wave their arms around while they're driving!

Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Tina > wrote in
> :
>
>> I DID say "rather difficult", Bertie, because these posts are read
>> mostly by men (and MX).
>
>
> Uh OK miss ( it's hard to do a duh duh acent on usenet, I'll have to ask
> Ken how he does it)
>
> My wife can spend it in her sleep. And she never spends it on airplkanes or
> bikes or cars aor anything cool!

Oh, I'd say the things she does with groceries are pretty cool at least...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
et:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Tina > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> I DID say "rather difficult", Bertie, because these posts are read
>>> mostly by men (and MX).
>>
>>
>> Uh OK miss ( it's hard to do a duh duh acent on usenet, I'll have to
>> ask Ken how he does it)
>>
>> My wife can spend it in her sleep. And she never spends it on
>> airplkanes or bikes or cars aor anything cool!
>
> Oh, I'd say the things she does with groceries are pretty cool at
> least...
>

OK, I'll give her that..


Bertie

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Your stated concern for being arrested for vagrancy simply by walking
>> outside without money.
>
> But that's not what I stated. I said that you can't really go outside
> in a big city without spending money. Someone else suggested that one
> could go outside without cash and thus not spend anything. I pointed

Actually, I was the "someone else" suggested it. Perhaps you should read the
thread more carefully.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Actually, I was the "someone else" suggested it. Perhaps you should read the
> thread more carefully.

Why? I said someone else suggested it, and you've just confirmed this.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Actually, I was the "someone else" suggested it. Perhaps you should
>> read the thread more carefully.
>
> Why? I said someone else suggested it, and you've just confirmed
> this.
>

Nope


Bertie

[John[_13_]]

You are without a doubt the more arrogant idiot I've ever seen post on
Usenet.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> Actually, I was the "someone else" suggested it. Perhaps you should read
>> the
>> thread more carefully.
>
> Why? I said someone else suggested it, and you've just confirmed this.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"John" > wrote in
news:NBwkj.1562$NU6.411@trndny01:

> You are without a doubt the more arrogant idiot I've ever seen post on
> Usenet.

If you're into that,I could probably scrape up one that's worse.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

John writes:

> You are without a doubt the more arrogant idiot I've ever seen post on
> Usenet.

I've seen much worse.

[george]

On Jan 20, 3:34 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John writes:
> > You are without a doubt the more arrogant idiot I've ever seen post on
> > Usenet.
>
> I've seen much worse.

That is a mirror fool

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Actually, I was the "someone else" suggested it. Perhaps you should
>> read the thread more carefully.
>
> Why? I said someone else suggested it, and you've just confirmed this.

In the English language, "someone else" means someone other than the person
to whom you said, "someone else".

Perhaps it doesn't translate well from the French.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> In the English language, "someone else" means someone other than the person
> to whom you said, "someone else".

Not always. In this context, it means "someone other than the
speaker/writer."

> Perhaps it doesn't translate well from the French.

What French?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> In the English language, "someone else" means someone other than the
>> person to whom you said, "someone else".
>
> Not always. In this context, it means "someone other than the
> speaker/writer."
>
>> Perhaps it doesn't translate well from the French.
>
> What French?
>

Whoooosh!


You have to wonder if he even feels it at is goes over his head.

Bertie

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A2BD359B5A24****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

> You have to wonder if he even feels it at is goes over his head.

Nah, I can't imagine he's really that stupid. I see signs of intelligence,
but he's disconnected from reality. His way of coping is sticking his head in
the sand.

Unlike my 3 year old son, he hasn't figured out that if he hides his head
behind a blanket we can still see him.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> news:Xns9A2BD359B5A24****upropeeh@ 207.14.116.130:
>
>> You have to wonder if he even feels it at is goes over his head.
>
> Nah, I can't imagine he's really that stupid. I see signs of
> intelligence, but he's disconnected from reality. His way of coping is
> sticking his head in the sand.
>
> Unlike my 3 year old son, he hasn't figured out that if he hides his
> head behind a blanket we can still see him.
>

Bwawhahwhahwawhh!

Excellent example.


Bertie