Flaps on take-off and landing

Larry Dighera writes:

No. It's like increasing the angle of attack on a thicker wing
section which stalls at a lower speed.

Ground effect is completely different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
The term Ground effect (or Wing In Ground effect) refers to the
increase in lift experienced by an aircraft as it approaches
within roughly 1/4 of a wingpspan's length of the ground or other
level surface (such as the sea)

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/185905-1.html

But if you are hopping over small obstacles near the runway, you're
probably very close to being within the distance influenced by ground
effect, aren't you?

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

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

It lets you look out the side window of the sim aircraft by
turning your head to the side. The device tracks your head
motion to the side then slews the screen display to show the
side view instead of the view straight out over the nose of
the aircraft. In a real landing, you are often looking out
the side to check your position relative to the runway. In
a sim, it's harder to do that. You can hit a key to show a
side view, but it doesn't feel as realistic as just turning
your head.

How large a field of view do you have at any given instant?

It seems that you could improve frame rates with a system that
provides the highest detail only for the specific spot in the visual
field at which the pilot is looking (since visual acuity is extremely
localized in human vision), but it's not clear to me if this system is
doing that, although apparently some advanced simulators use
variations on this technique. I'm not clear on how the system you
describe works--if you turn your head to look out the side window, but
you are using a monitor instead of a built-in screen inside some
goggles, how can the displayed view track your gaze?

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

Chris W writes:

I don't think I explained the difference between the 2 versions very
well. First think about all the ways you can move your head or
anything for that mater. There are 6 degrees of freedom. You can move
in x, y or z. That is 3 degrees of freedom. You can rotate about the x
y and Z axis. That is the other 3. The basic tracker assumes you only
have 2 degrees of freedom, rotation about the Z and Y axis. That is
with the Z axis being vertical and the Y axis going from left to right.
In aviation terminology this corresponds to yaw and pitch
respectively. Obviously even with the low end 2 axis version you can
still move your head in any way you want, but the device just senses the
movement of the little silver dot it is looking at, and assumes the
movement is caused by rotation about Z or Y and moves the game head in
that way.

But when you rotate your head in any direction, you turn your gaze
from the screen (unless you rotate your eyes to compensate). So how
do you see the updated display? The Track IR seems to be just a
tracking device, not a display device.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Was there something specifically bad about FS 2000 that is no longer
present in FS 2002 or FS 2004? I've been playing with MSFS for almost
two decades but I don't recall what FS 2000 was like (or even having
it, although I must have had it at some point).

I haven't had enough time to use the subsequent products to do a fair
comparison, so I can't answer that question. Also, it's hard to make a good
comparison since the hardware I was running FS2000 on was different from
what I'd run the later versions on now.

Mainly, it's just that the FS2000 that was released initially was still full
of bugs. Rendering problems, performance problems, and general UI problems.
Much of the most important things were fixed in the subsequent patch
(released three months later), and I assume that someone got around to
fixing up the rest afterwards, before Combat Flight Sim 3 came out (the CFS
line shares a lot of code with MSFS).

FS2000 got rushed out the door because of fears that the product "Fly!"
(announced for release in the summer of 1999) would beat Microsoft,
especially for the "Christmas rush". In truth, there was no evidence a
from-scratch, brand-new flight-sim could make such a dramatic break in the
market, and it's not like MSFS has as seasonal a market as other computer
games anyway. In the end, when "Fly!" was released it was also full of bugs
and other problems, and frankly the only reason it did as well as it did
against MSFS was because Microsoft rushed MSFS out, buggy and missing
important forward-looking features (*).

The attitude was that it was more important to get a physical box on the
shelves of Walmart than to have something *in* the box that was worthy of
being proud of making. That's just not an attitude I am capable of
condoning, or being associated with (and frankly, as much as people like to
bitch and moan about Microsoft software, it is NOT the attitude that I was
accustomed to dealing with at that company...in every other group I worked,
there was a lot of pride taken in how the software was designed and written,
and most people worked carefully to try to make the software as good as they
could).

Pete

(*) One particular point of bitterness for me at the time was that I joined
the MSFS team *specifically* to write the ATC simulation feature. I told
the hiring manager that I would *only* come to work for the team on the
condition that I would work on that feature, and that feature only. Just
when I was getting to the point of having a good core design and some
working components in the implementation, management decided to shift gears
to respond to the "threat" of "Fly!", and cut that feature so I could be
"redeployed" on other areas that were behind schedule.

To add insult to injury, I was offered the opportunity to provide input on
what behind-schedule feature I would work on. I gave my manager a list of
three things that interested me, and named a fourth thing that I
specifically did not want to work on. You can guess which one I was
assigned to.

As you know, the ATC feature did eventually get done. I have no idea if any
of the code that I originally wrote survived. Probably not, but at least
they finally have the feature.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
You're saying that there really isn't any technical, aerodynamic
reason why a large aircraft would require extensive flaps while a
small aircraft would not? That is, the advantages and disadvantages
from a flying standpoint are the same in both cases?

Not really, no. It's mainly just that with the larger, faster airplane the
effects of the more complex flaps are more easily seen. The same effects
would apply to a smaller airplane, it's just that normally it's not
considered worthwhile given the relatively lesser degree of effect.

Which is not to say that there aren't smaller airplanes with complex
lift-enhancing devices. In fact, there are a number of designs that DO
include complicated flaps, leading-edge slats ("flaps" on the front of the
wing...the 747 has those too), slotted wings, and other features designed to
enhance landing performance. In those cases, short takeoff and landing
distances are the highest priority, and usually those devices on the smaller
airplanes are not designed to retract as completely as they would on a
commerical airliner. The improvement in cruise speed just wouldn't justify
the extra cost, weight, and complexity. But when you have to land as short
as possible and be able to take off again in the same space, those devices
*are* noticeable improvements even for small airplanes.

I know there are economic considerations, but since small private
planes seem to handle quite differently from large planes I was
wondering if there are fundamental differences in the aerodynamics
that might be related to scale (physical dimensions). That is, would
a giant version of a small plane, three times as big but with
identical proportions and size-to-weight ratio, fly in the same way?

For the most part, yes. Handling differences are mainly a matter of
differences in power and inertia, along with differences in the usual
airfoil and wing designs used in each kind of airplane (for example,
swept-wing airplanes handle differently than straight-wing airplanes...but a
small swept-wing airplane will handle very similarly to a large swept-wing
airplane).

Google "Reynolds number". Extreme differences in size do produce noticeable
differences in aerodynamic qualities. But relative to air molecules, a
small airplane is dealing with pretty much the same effects as a large
transport airplane. There are only minor differences related to aerodynamic
and scale, and they don't affect anything significant with respect to
actually operating to the airplanes.

Pete

FS2000 had the WTC.



"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
| Peter Duniho writes:
|
| Anyway, that's a long way of saying I don't generally
like to bring up my
| involvement with MSFS. IMHO, the product released makes
me look bad by
| association.
|
| Was there something specifically bad about FS 2000 that is
no longer
| present in FS 2002 or FS 2004? I've been playing with
MSFS for almost
| two decades but I don't recall what FS 2000 was like (or
even having
| it, although I must have had it at some point).
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...

And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.

Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall we say....has the
situation "well in hand".
:-))
Dudley

What about "Hood Time?"

;O)

Jay B

Mxsmanic wrote:
Margy Natalie writes:


Never had someone hit me in a plane, in the car is another story. We
fly VFR rather frequently and get where we are going and back.


A key difference is that if you had been hit in a plane, you wouldn't
be here to talk about it.

Not always, there have been cases of planes landing together after a
mid-air and many accidents happen on the ground also. I know a gentleman
who flew in WWII and tells a great story of his first mid-air where the
opponent removed half his wing. Listeners often ask how he managed to
get back to the field and he explains it was going just fine when he was
jumped again and had to dogfight with half a wing. He managed to get
back to base and flew for many, many years after.

Margy

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:58:33 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

You didn't read the information at the link to the California Vehicle
Code that I provided.

I read the "speed trap prohibition" part, and then since it didn't say
anything about what a speed trap was, I looked at the definitions area.
It wasn't there.

The link I provided
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd17c3a1.htm shows a page that
has six references to speed traps. The definition of a speed trap is
given under "40802 Speed Traps."

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:38:09 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

Larry Dighera writes:

Granted, one can pull over and stop with an automobile; it's a little
more difficult in a light aircraft, but nowhere near as confining as
being trapped on a boat in high seas. However, unless you relish
being trapped in the quagmire of congestion on today's freeways,
aircraft are a far superior means of transportation for trips longer
than fifty miles or so.

How do you get to and from the airports?

Personally, I chose to reside ten minutes from the airport, so the
drive is not too bad.

And if you don't own your own plane, how do you fly somewhere for the weekend?

Generally the air time used exceeds the minimum daily flight time the
FBO charges, so it's a non issue.

Can you rent planes in the same way you rent cars--complete with the option of
dropping the plane off at a different airport from the one where you
picked it up?

Arrangements can be made to do that, but why would one want to? For
extended stays?