If all midair collisions were eliminated...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ...
writes:


... Snip ...
.

One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics. However,
only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the very
same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small aircraft
who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version, and
1000 times cheaper for the sim version).

... Snip ...


"... available to anyone with a small aircraft ..."?????

I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I did ...... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an electrical system? The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly?

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F

Wayne Paul wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ...
writes:


... Snip ...
.

One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics. However,
only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the very
same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small aircraft
who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version, and
1000 times cheaper for the sim version).

... Snip ...


"... available to anyone with a small aircraft ..."?????

I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I did ..... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an electrical system? The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly?

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


Trying to hold a logical conversation with mxmanic is futile. If you
want a giggle ask him to fly one of his simulations then try the real
thing. I assume no one would risk a real airplane on him so a real
simulator would suffice. Throw a few emergencies or weather problems at
him and watch what happens.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Tom De Moor" wrote in message
.be...
In article ,
says...


And you live in a grammar and spelling challenged world, not to mention a
tangential world where you can't keep to the topic.




Sorry: I speak and write but 5 languages. And correct: there are some
spelling errors, most of them due to typing too rapidely or thinking in
several languages at the same time.

I'll work on it.

Tom De Moor

Mark? Is that you?

Wayne Paul writes:

I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I
did ..... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS
on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an
electrical system?

I don't think battery operation is an option. Besides, the instrument has to
be connected to other devices that also require electricity, such as GPS
units, VOR receivers, etc., not to mention TCAS hardware itself.

The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the
simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly?

It depends on the purpose of the simulation. Some pilots do indeed simulate
the exact aircraft that they fly in the real world. But simmers who do not fly
are free to choose the aircraft of their choice, and in my case, I have
several dozen aircraft to choose from. The Baron has TCAS, and it could also
accommodate TCAS in real life, so it's not unrealistic. The Cessna 152 doesn't
have much of anything. So I may be generous with the avionics on a few of the
aircraft, but it's not unrealistic. An instrument costing $35,000 isn't much
on an aircraft that costs well over $1 million new.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message news
Wayne Paul writes:

I don't have the budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I
did ..... How big would the battery have to be to power a TCAS
on a 6+ hour cross country flight in an aircraft without an
electrical system?

I don't think battery operation is an option. Besides, the instrument has to
be connected to other devices that also require electricity, such as GPS
units, VOR receivers, etc., not to mention TCAS hardware itself.

The follow on question is ... What use is simulation if the
simulator avionics aren't in the aircraft you fly?

It depends on the purpose of the simulation. Some pilots do indeed simulate
the exact aircraft that they fly in the real world. But simmers who do not fly
are free to choose the aircraft of their choice, and in my case, I have
several dozen aircraft to choose from. The Baron has TCAS, and it could also
accommodate TCAS in real life, so it's not unrealistic. The Cessna 152 doesn't
have much of anything. So I may be generous with the avionics on a few of the
aircraft, but it's not unrealistic. An instrument costing $35,000 isn't much
on an aircraft that costs well over $1 million new.

In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of the aircraft cockpit. Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures, crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety. If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.

Respectfully,

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F

P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader definition then the term "airplane."

Wayne Paul writes:

In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of
the aircraft cockpit.

An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or
pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that
feature.

The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different
purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its
purpose.

Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight
Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which
often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage).

Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures,
crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety.

Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these
purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies?

If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation
related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.

You're entitled to your opinion.

P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader
definition then the term "airplane."

Yes, I know, thank you.

On Feb 12, 9:34*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wayne Paul writes:
In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of
the aircraft cockpit.

An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or
pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that
feature.

The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different
purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its
purpose.

Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight
Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which
often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage).

Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures,
crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety.

Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these
purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies?

If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation
related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.. *

You're entitled to your opinion.

P.S. *You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader
definition then the term "airplane."

Yes, I know, thank you.

I've flown the United 777 and DC-10 simulators in varietal weather and
emergencies. For the PC, I prefer Condor Soaring.

This is my last post on the subject.

I believe you grossly underestimate the capabilities of good cockpit simulators. Even the air combat, carrier landing, etc simulators of the 1970s far surpass the capabilities of a PC based system.

If you had flight experience the view from the cockpit flying one-on-one or two-on-one with pilots in adjoining simulators could even convince you that you were experiencing high Gs. Without flight experience the G suite inflations merely caused discomfort.

The same was true with a night carrier landing simulator. As the simulated weather deteriorated and the fuel state became critical your heart beat would increase, palms would sweat, etc. A non-pilot didn't relate the flight conditions with death; therefore, did not experience the same physiological symptoms; therefore, gaining little form the training other then a bit of hand/eye coordination. In fact in many cases it actually caused complacency instead of developing skill under stress.

This is why I consider a non-pilot in a simulator simply playing a game with only minor aviation training relevance.

Respectfully,

Wayne, USN Retired.


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ...
Wayne Paul writes:

In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of
the aircraft cockpit.

An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or
pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that
feature.

The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different
purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its
purpose.

Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight
Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which
often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage).

Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures,
crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety.

Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these
purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies?

If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation
related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.

You're entitled to your opinion.

P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader
definition then the term "airplane."

Yes, I know, thank you.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Wayne Paul wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:


... Snip ...
.

One advantage of simulation is that you can afford better avionics.
However,
only one of my small aircraft (the Baron) is equipped with TCAS, and the
very
same instrument (a Sandel ST3400) is available to anyone with a small
aircraft
who is prepared to pay for it (about $35,000 for the real-world version,
and
1000 times cheaper for the sim version).

... Snip ...


"... available to anyone with a small aircraft ..."????? I don't have the
budget to put one in my aircraft; however, if I did ..... How big would
the battery have to be to power a TCAS on a 6+ hour cross country flight
in an aircraft without an electrical system? The follow on question is
... What use is simulation if the simulator avionics aren't in the
aircraft you fly?

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


Trying to hold a logical conversation with mxmanic is futile. If you
want a giggle ask him to fly one of his simulations then try the real
thing. I assume no one would risk a real airplane on him so a real
simulator would suffice. Throw a few emergencies or weather problems at
him and watch what happens.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Just the thought made my day!
:-)))))

Peter

"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message ...

I've flown the United 777 and DC-10 simulators in varietal weather and
emergencies. For the PC, I prefer Condor Soaring.

Frank,

We are in agreement on this one for sure!!!

Wayne