Sims

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
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.

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 . . .

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.

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

"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

"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

"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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news

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.

"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