Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

Buck Murdock wrote:


Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.

Damn!

Mxsmanic wrote:

Buck Murdock writes:


And that would be the key point. I *do* know. I operate them for a
living, doing airline training in them.


What operating system is used?


Hence the $12 MM pricetag for a typical Level D simulator, and the
nearly $1000/hour you'll pay to fly it.


I feel certain that generous profit margins are built into these
prices.


Yes. Which is why a full-motion simulator is not available for $69 at
CompUSA.


Not yet, at least. The motion part will be expensive for a long time,
because there is very little trend towards cost reduction in
mechanical systems, but the computers are already there--there just
isn't any readily available software to handle it. A standard PC is
fast enough to handle it.


You are so full of ****.

Several million of the $10-12 million goes to buy all the cockpit
hardware and essential avionics software and systems interfaces.

Again, you are so full of **** and an arrogant pain in the ass. If you
were for real and my aviation student, I would drop you like a hot potato.

Sam Spade writes:

Several million of the $10-12 million goes to buy all the cockpit
hardware and essential avionics software and systems interfaces.

Where does the rest go?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Peter R. writes:

I've never placed my hand into the yellow flames of a campfire but I
KNOW
with certainty what would happen if I did.

You extrapolate based on the knowledge that you have, but you do not
know.

Predictable response. Now, if someone were to back you up and say they did
put their hand in the flames and what you predicted would happen is
accurate, the response will be "not everyone is like you".

It is argument for argument's sake.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:

Several million of the $10-12 million goes to buy all the cockpit
hardware and essential avionics software and systems interfaces.

Where does the rest go?

Toward the huge manufacturing and other costs incurred to
hand-produce a very complex machine in extremely low sales
volumes.

F--

TxSrv writes:

Toward the huge manufacturing and other costs incurred to
hand-produce a very complex machine in extremely low sales
volumes.

So the manufacturers are selling these simulators at cost? That's
very good of them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

I have no doubt that anything can be modelled to a high degree of
accuracy. The issue is, does MSFS?

In this case, yes, probably. It's only a difference in altitude.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:

Agree, but why am I wrong? I didn't say anything to the contrary. I said
_if_ MSFS allows you to fly the 172 up there, then it's wrong.

Maybe a communications problem? If MSFS lets you climb there in a 172 on
your own, then it's wrong. If however it just lets you put it up there
as a starting point, this isn't wrong per se. The question then is, how
does it handle the situation?

I have no doubt that anything can be modelled to a high degree of
accuracy. The issue is, does MSFS?

No idea. Most probably not.

Stefan

Stefan writes:

Maybe a communications problem? If MSFS lets you climb there in a 172 on
your own, then it's wrong. If however it just lets you put it up there
as a starting point, this isn't wrong per se. The question then is, how
does it handle the situation?

At 45,000 feet, the engine seems to windmill a bit but will not run.
Airspeed is about 80 KIAS, and the aircraft can be held level easily
enough, but it is losing altitude very quickly, at around 2000 fpm.
Not much can be done with it (short of diving) for 15-20,000 feet or
so, at which point control seems to get better, and the engine will
run if you set the mixture right. At that altitude there are some
fairly huge phugoid movements if you try to climb or descend. Whether
the aircraft actually behaves this way in real life at such altitudes,
I don't know.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
says...
Stefan writes:

Maybe a communications problem? If MSFS lets you climb there in a 172 on
your own, then it's wrong. If however it just lets you put it up there
as a starting point, this isn't wrong per se. The question then is, how
does it handle the situation?

At 45,000 feet, the engine seems to windmill a bit but will not run.
Airspeed is about 80 KIAS, and the aircraft can be held level easily
enough, but it is losing altitude very quickly, at around 2000 fpm.
Not much can be done with it (short of diving) for 15-20,000 feet or
so, at which point control seems to get better, and the engine will
run if you set the mixture right. At that altitude there are some
fairly huge phugoid movements if you try to climb or descend. Whether
the aircraft actually behaves this way in real life at such altitudes,
I don't know.

AFAIK no-one has ever towed a C-172 to 45K' - unlike MSFS where you can
just pause and set the a/c at any altitude you like.

--
Duncan