Here's a question for the trolls and flight simmers

Stealth Pilot, ye manic homely swain, that butcher's cur is venom
mouthed, ye derogated:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:27:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
m:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:48:29 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:874ec04d-d3fb-
447e-
:

On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
...
the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators
work
on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed
to.
people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality.
it
is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to
achieve
competent knowledge.

Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
to photograph the far side of the moon that the
Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
finally got it.
Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
rules to "sim" the ballistics.

if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?

I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).




Of course you would k00kie boi.

Bertie

I wasnt aware that alfoil hats were hard. have these buggers been
using kevlar liners in them as well???

sims have a place in the industrial world but to prefer the sim to
reality is just nonsense. barking mad nonsense!

Stealth Pilot


Well, we use 'em of course, but it's mainly because it's impractical to
actually set a 757 on fire.

Bertie

I have a friend

****ing liar.

--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:



I have a friend who is part owner of a cherokee 140. ...the blandest
aeroplane in history???
he spent hundreds of hours flying microsoft flight sim and a few other
sims.
fair dinks, one day he was out with partner owner in a gusting
crosswind and almost lost the cherokee in a landing.

partner's conclusion was that he landed the simulator because not once
during the near prang did he apply rudder.
scared the partner to his boots.

turns out the sim setup at home doesnt have rudder pedals.

my conviction is that sims used as a substitute for real flying are a
bloody danger to all involved. they gradually replace the real skills
with slow reacting putty.
if you understand the body's processes of neurological tuning you will
have no problem understanding why.

Stealth(20 knot crosswinds from any direction ...not a problem) pilot


To be fair, a lot of people who learned to fly in Cherokees don't use
rudder in a crosswind. Mostly because they haven't been taught to. The
Cherokee will tolerate landing in a crab more than most. In fact
wheelchair pilots are allowed to fly them with a snap-on hand control
that even people who rent can use. Just snaps in and out. The only
restriction which has to be aded to the POH is a crosswind limit 2 knots
lower.
The wheelchair people aside, it's a sloppy way to land an airplane
compared to using the wing down and riskier also.


Bertie

On Jul 2, 3:46 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

To be fair, a lot of people who learned to fly in Cherokees don't use
rudder in a crosswind. Mostly because they haven't been taught to. The
Cherokee will tolerate landing in a crab more than most. In fact
wheelchair pilots are allowed to fly them with a snap-on hand control
that even people who rent can use. Just snaps in and out. The only
restriction which has to be aded to the POH is a crosswind limit 2 knots
lower.
The wheelchair people aside, it's a sloppy way to land an airplane
compared to using the wing down and riskier also.


That is why I'd recommend any PPL to do a couple of hours in a
sailplane.
You really have to get to use the rudder...

george wrote in news:75210936-611c-4a11-9e53-204cdc6f7fe0
@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 2, 3:46 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

To be fair, a lot of people who learned to fly in Cherokees don't use
rudder in a crosswind. Mostly because they haven't been taught to. The
Cherokee will tolerate landing in a crab more than most. In fact
wheelchair pilots are allowed to fly them with a snap-on hand control
that even people who rent can use. Just snaps in and out. The only
restriction which has to be aded to the POH is a crosswind limit 2 knots
lower.
The wheelchair people aside, it's a sloppy way to land an airplane
compared to using the wing down and riskier also.


That is why I'd recommend any PPL to do a couple of hours in a
sailplane.
You really have to get to use the rudder...



Yeah, or a old taildragger like a cub or champ.


Bertie

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:37:00 -1200, "Kadaitcha Man"
wrote:

Stealth Pilot, ye manic homely swain, that butcher's cur is venom
mouthed, ye derogated:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:27:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:48:29 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:874ec04d-d3fb-
447e-
:

On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
...
the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators
work
on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed
to.
people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality.
it
is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to
achieve
competent knowledge.

Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
to photograph the far side of the moon that the
Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
finally got it.
Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
rules to "sim" the ballistics.

if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?

I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).




Of course you would k00kie boi.

Bertie

I wasnt aware that alfoil hats were hard. have these buggers been
using kevlar liners in them as well???

sims have a place in the industrial world but to prefer the sim to
reality is just nonsense. barking mad nonsense!

Stealth Pilot


Well, we use 'em of course, but it's mainly because it's impractical to
actually set a 757 on fire.

Bertie

I have a friend

****ing liar.

that's an exaggeration. I was inaccurate. I actually have lots of
friends. most are enthusiasts, some are pilots as well.

beware or I'll sick a featherfoot upon ye.

Stealth pilot

On Jun 29, 9:59*am, Lou wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't see this post until now. One of the
fondest memories of my first solo was seeing my own
shadow below. I guess my attention was elsewhere while
I had the CFI in the cockpit with me.
* * * *Lou

I agree. Right up there with my first Flightaware track was seeing my
airplane shadow the first time. There are some things that really
point out that you are now different than most of the population
because you can fly a plane.

On Jul 2, 10:42 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah, or a old taildragger like a cub or champ.

I flew a PA22 that later got converted to a tail dragger.
However with the coordinated control system that it came with made for
some very interesting crosswind landings

george wrote in news:a696ecb1-2c35-436c-8159-182c3461b708
@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 2, 10:42 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah, or a old taildragger like a cub or champ.

I flew a PA22 that later got converted to a tail dragger.
However with the coordinated control system that it came with made for
some very interesting crosswind landings



Eww. I flew one of those and convinced the owner to remove it afterwards. I
would have thought it would be standard to remove that mess with a
conversion.


Bertie

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:24:13 -0700, AES wrote:

In article ,
Stealth Pilot wrote:

at 4,500ft (the original question) the aircraft has no shadow at all
but at the sub solar point (were you'd think the shadow should be)
there is a distinct bright area tracking along under the aircraft.

for thirty years this quietly puzzled me. it is a fact that aircraft
at altitude have no shadow. below them tracking along the ground is a
bright spot of light.

the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
this causes the bright spot.

Poisson spot, Spot of Arago, Keller edge waves. Very much doubt
gravitational bending of light is involved.

I looked up explanations and graphics of these effects.
the poissons spot demo looks entirely different from what I see.

I'm still happy with my explanation.

Stealth Pilot

On Jul 3, 10:07*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:24:13 -0700, AES wrote:
In article ,
Stealth Pilot wrote:

at 4,500ft (the original question) the aircraft has no shadow at all
but at the sub solar point (were you'd think the shadow should be)
there is a distinct bright area tracking along under the aircraft.

for thirty years this quietly puzzled me. it is a fact that aircraft
at altitude have no shadow. below them tracking along the ground is a
bright spot of light.

the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
this causes the bright spot.

Poisson spot, Spot of Arago, Keller edge waves. *Very much doubt
gravitational bending of light is involved.

I looked up explanations and graphics of these effects.
the poissons spot demo looks entirely different from what I see.

I'm still happy with my explanation.

Stealth Pilot

Steath, one would get sharp shadows if the sun was a point source of
light, but it's not. It's like 0.8 degrees across, so rays from the
left edge of the sun will trace differently to the ground than rays
from its right edge. That's why the shadow is somewhat diffused. A
little math will tell you how high your airplane must be before an
observer on the ground will see sun all around it. It'll be when the
airplane from wing to wing is less than about a degree difference in
angle. 1 degree is about 1 meter across from 60 meters away, so if
your wingspan is 10 meters, at 600 meters distance it subtends about 1
degree and so it would just about match the sun's angular width --
that is, the airplane would be entirely within the ring of the sun. It
means the guy on the ground would not be in the dark shadow of the
airplane. It really is not driven by gravitational lensing of the
light, the airplane just isn't massive enough for that.