I give up, after many, many years!

On May 18, 7:54*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
*Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all.

Cheers.

On May 18, 3:46*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On May 17, 8:33 pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On May 18, 1:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
...
After doing a weird manuever, it's hard to tell if you're
in a banking turn or a spiral dive, that's how I learned.
Maybe a good pilot could use VFR as a ref, but I was
clued in by my IAS needle going into yellow.

BS! In VFR the position of the horizon tells you the difference. In
many planes there is no AH 'cos you don't need it for VFR!
The engine noise also tells you if you are descending or climging.
Cheers

What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
who have flown disorientation exersizes.
But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
go "holy poop".

As a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked
off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the
papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
pilot...

Cheers

On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:46:40 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
who have flown disorientation exersizes.
But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
go "holy poop".

I disagree totally. You must be numb.

Both of my vehicles sound, feel, and act significantly different at 80
than they do at 65 MPH. In top gear of my Toyota, the RPM's are about
400 higher. On the same token, It's not all that difficult to tell
25 from 35, if I try.

The wind noise is different, the tach shows a different RPM, and the
corresponding engine pitch is noticeably different.

Back to the pilot...

The _change_ in sounds is a great clue, not just that it's all
different and steady.

writes:

Did you miss the part about the trim setting in a nose down position?
The above answer is WRONG when you don't have the airplane configured
correctly.

Sorry, I try to keep the airplane configured correctly, so I don't have much
experience with incorrect configurations.

All of the sources I've consulted contradict all that you are saying. I have
no reason to believe that you are more reliable than all those other sources.

writes:

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

Applying power will not accelerate you downhill. Power controls altitude,
pitch controls speed. At constant pitch, increased power produces increased
lift, and thus produces a climb.

And once again you parrot something you've read without the slightest
understanding and absolutely no concept of context.

Show the error.

Like a lot of what you spout, this is GENERALLY true, but not ALWAYS true.

It's considerably truer than the assertions with which I compared it.

writes:

The fly by the seat of my pants did not feel like I had a 20 to 30
degree pitch up which my horizon indicator showed (which was
waaaaaaaaay more then Vx pitch).

Had I followed the horizon indicator and leveled the plane soley by
the HI, I would have been in a 20 degee pitch down and augured it in.
There was nothing accurate about my HI and it was my seat of the pants
feeling that set all sorts of alarms and bells out in my head..

You were lucky. Most people who have trusted the seat of their pants in IMC
are dead. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to press your luck.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

Applying power will not accelerate you downhill. Power controls
altitude,
pitch controls speed. At constant pitch, increased power produces
increased
lift, and thus produces a climb.

And once again you parrot something you've read without the slightest
understanding and absolutely no concept of context.

Show the error.


Please explain how increased power can increase lift without first producing
increased velocity.

If the nose is pointed down (going downhill) , and you increase power, you
WILL descend faster.

It's one thing to blindly parrot something, but when you modify it without
understanding it, you risk saying something incredibly stupid.

K l e i n writes:

Jay, folks in this group dismiss his ideas about instrument flight in
the same way that someone who's been married for over 40 years would
dismiss a lecture on sexual technique from a 7 year old. Maybe the 7
year old is precocious and has read a lot of books and seen a lot of
magazines, but he still has nothing to offer to an experienced adult.

If I do indeed repeat what I read, and the information came from reliable
sources and was correct when I read it, why would it cease to be correct when
I repeat it?

I prefer reliable sources to self-proclaimed pilots blowing smoke on a
newsgroup. When the latter start arguing with the former, I know I've
stumbled losers.

When I read something here that I haven't seen before, I look it up. If what
I've read here correlates well with my other sources, I assume it is correct;
if it conflicts dramatically with my other sources, I assume it is incorrect.
Many "pilots" here say things that conflict dramatically with all my other
sources; I discard what they say. A few say things that do not conflict with
my other sources; I accept what they say.

I won't name "pilots" who are constantly saying incorrect things, as that
would embarrass them, and additionally they are legion. However, I can name
one pilot who regularly echoes what my other sources say: Dudley. (He's not
the only one, simply the first one who came to mind.) While he seems to find
me just as irritating as so many other people here, when I check up on what he
says I usually find strong positive correlations. Even so, if he says
something that conflicts with my other sources, I will still call him on it.
And conversely, if one of the losers on the group manages to say something
that can be independently verified, I'll still accept it (but that doesn't
happen very often).

If I dispute something that someone says, it means that they've said something
that conflicts when other sources I've consulted. No amount of personal
attack or other diversionary tactics will cause me to forget the conflict, so
I'm not sure why anyone bothers with that.

Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
realm.

What you're really saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

What you need to do, if you wish to persuade refractory persons like myself,
is explain and support your assertions. Simply saying that someone else is
wrong makes absolutely no dent on people like me. You have to be able to
substantiate your assertion. If you cannot, it goes directly into the
bitbucket. I'm not interested in hearing about your credentials, experience,
or other questionable claims to fame. I'm only interested in hearing direct
support of your assertions. If you don't have that, I will ignore those
assertions, even if you're Chuck Yeager.

People who really do know things are always able to explain those things and
are generally willing to do so. People who don't know things always insist
that you take them at their word because they are so enormously competent (in
their own minds).

There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.

You don't have to earn my respect; you just have to be right. If I find that
you are not right, I won't listen to you. If I find that you are right, I'll
listen. It doesn't matter what experience you have. What matters is what you
actually know.

And I suggest that others here regard me in the same way. It will save them
from looking stupid when I say something that is demonstrably correct and they
feel compelled to disagree publicly with it just because I'm the one who said
it.

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
K l e i n writes:

Jay, folks in this group dismiss his ideas about instrument flight in
the same way that someone who's been married for over 40 years would
dismiss a lecture on sexual technique from a 7 year old. Maybe the 7
year old is precocious and has read a lot of books and seen a lot of
magazines, but he still has nothing to offer to an experienced adult.

If I do indeed repeat what I read, and the information came from reliable
sources and was correct when I read it, why would it cease to be correct when
I repeat it?

Because you do a crappy job of repeating things.

You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat. Whether
this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Your point that seat of the pants pressure sensations are used during
instrument flight does not disprove MX's point about the necessity of
relying primarily on your instruments for accurate information in IMC.

Actually my point does!

The fly by the seat of my pants did not feel like I had a 20 to 30
degree pitch up which my horizon indicator showed (which was
waaaaaaaaay more then Vx pitch).

Again, you're arguing about a different topic -- flight in IMC without a
vacuum system. This is often classified as an "emergency", and you must use
everything you can to get out of it -- including your "seat of the pants".

In normal instrument flight, pilots are trained to ignore what their body is
telling them. The fact that you were able to use your body's sensations to
escape from a very serious instrument failure is a tribute to your piloting
skills. You may also wish to purchase a lottery ticket, because not all
vacuum failures end so well.

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