New student pilot

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 9/8/2007 9:16:42 PM, Richard Carpenter wrote:

Yesterday for my 40th birthday my most excellent wife bought me flying
lessons and membership in the flying club at a local airport.

Congratulations. As Dudley requested, please post here your experiences,
impressions, and questions as you progress through your training. There
are
some very experienced pilots who contribute to this group and would be
very
happy to offer any assistance.

From what I read here over the years it is truly a blessing to have a
supportive wife. A lot are not (mine is). Return the favor to her by
learning
all that is needed to become the safest pilot you possibly are able to be.
You and all of your potential passengers deserve this.

--
Peter

Hi Peter,

I have to say, that after 51 years, I definitely have a supportive wife.
Master US Army Aviator (retired). Two tours in Vietnam, 20 year Army career.
Still with me after all this time. Don't fly anymore, 72 years old, could
not pass a medical even if I bribed the Doc. :-))))

But I feel blessed she supported my dream of flying, and did everything she
could to make sure I stayed with it until I decided to call it quits. It
doesn't get any better than that.

Richard, hold on to that lady--you have a real gem there, and do let her
know what a gem she is. AND, on a daily basis--trust me, it is important.

Regards,
Paul

All true--but does anyone have a better Cessna 172 than the one included
with FS X? I'm instrument rated and like using the program to practice
approaches; my wife is working on her instrument rating and is doing the
same. The 172 included is so pitch sensitive we both have a hard time
with it. Or perhaps we're setting our yoke wrong in some way, but I
haven't been able to figure it out.

David

Jeff wrote:
"Richard Carpenter" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello everyone. I've been hanging out in the MS Flight Simulator group
for a while, enjoying my recently found interest in aviation such that
my means would allow. MSFS is a fine product, even though it doesn't
compare to the real thing, of course.

Yesterday for my 40th birthday my most excellent wife bought me flying
lessons and membership in the flying club at a local airport.

I look forward to hanging out with you folks and hopefully learning a
thing or 2(00...000).

--
Rich


AWESOME! Welcome to the group.

I spent many an hour flying MSFS. While you'll never learn to land in
there, start playing with the VOR and instrument navigation (if you haven't
already). You can learn TONS at penny's per hour that way.

I'm still mid-PPL training myself. Just got my medical straightend back out.
Take a look at my road from 0 hours till now at http://n1451f.blogspot.com

Have FUN!

jf

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:36:06 GMT, David Kazdan wrote:

The 172 included is so pitch sensitive we both have a hard time
with it.

If you fly with the "2D" cockpit then you'll like the Flight1 C172R,
especially for instrument training.

http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=esd172

If you fly MSFS from the "virtual cockpit", avoid this product!... They
screwed up the 3D model badly and the perspective out the windscreen is
terrible.

--
Dallas

"David Kazdan" wrote in message
. net...
All true--but does anyone have a better Cessna 172 than the one included
with FS X? I'm instrument rated and like using the program to practice
approaches; my wife is working on her instrument rating and is doing the
same. The 172 included is so pitch sensitive we both have a hard time
with it. Or perhaps we're setting our yoke wrong in some way, but I
haven't been able to figure it out.

Please note that there is a simulator group, and this is not it.
--
Jim in NC

OK, I'll try that one. Thanks.

David

Dallas wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:36:06 GMT, David Kazdan wrote:

The 172 included is so pitch sensitive we both have a hard time
with it.

If you fly with the "2D" cockpit then you'll like the Flight1 C172R,
especially for instrument training.

http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=esd172

If you fly MSFS from the "virtual cockpit", avoid this product!... They
screwed up the 3D model badly and the perspective out the windscreen is
terrible.

"David Kazdan" wrote in message
. net...
All true--but does anyone have a better Cessna 172 than the one included
with FS X? I'm instrument rated and like using the program to practice
approaches; my wife is working on her instrument rating and is doing the
same. The 172 included is so pitch sensitive we both have a hard time
with it. Or perhaps we're setting our yoke wrong in some way, but I
haven't been able to figure it out.

Please note that there is a simulator group, and this is not it.
--
Jim in NC

Yea, the threads in here NEVER go off topic.

Morgans wrote:
"David Kazdan" wrote in message
. net...
All true--but does anyone have a better Cessna 172 than the one included
with FS X? I'm instrument rated and like using the program to practice
approaches; my wife is working on her instrument rating and is doing the
same. The 172 included is so pitch sensitive we both have a hard time
with it. Or perhaps we're setting our yoke wrong in some way, but I
haven't been able to figure it out.

Please note that there is a simulator group, and this is not it.
Jim;
I've been advising both Microsoft and software developers on the flight
simulator for some time now. The program does have some legitimate uses
related to actual flight training and as such certain questions posed on
the pilot forums are pertinent.
What I've been doing is separating posters who post about the simulator
into two categories. The first is like the poster you are answering who
has asked a question pertaining to actual flying vs the simulator. I
believe this type of question is within the forum boundaries and
deserves our attention.
The other type of post, the one I consider NOT within our forum
parameters, are posts asking about or talking about the sim itself.
These are the people I attempt to steer to the simulator forums.
Bottom line is that there are many of our own forum pilots using the
Microsoft program and as long as a newbie approaches us with something
directed at a real world pilot, I would answer that and treat it as a
legitimate question for the forum.
Naturally this is just my read on this, and I wouldn't fault you for
taking your own approach but at least some of the sim posters come here
seeking a friendly response from us and asking pertinent questions. I
try and cut them a break whenever possible.
Dudley


--
Dudley Henriques

Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim wrote:
I'm now 72, fly both ULs and small Cessnas
(rented), and have the time of my life flying.

You go, girl!
Which do you like better?
I was switched (flight instructor roulette) from a 172 to a 152 halfway
through my PPL training, and found I liked the smaller plane better, at
least at the time I was learning. Have wondered ever since if an even
smaller ultralight would be more fun, or underpowered. Where do you fly
'em?

Stella

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:28:25 -0400, Morgans wrote:

Please note that there is a simulator group, and this is not it.

I'm guessing that 70% of the pilots in this group have MSFS on their
computers and I'd bet most would say they use it to maintain proficiency.

I fail to see how this is off topic in any way.

Let's not let the troll whose name we shall not speak make us too sensitive
about the subject.

--
Dallas

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

I've been advising both Microsoft and software developers on the flight
simulator for some time now. The program does have some legitimate uses
related to actual flight training and as such certain questions posed on
the pilot forums are pertinent.

I try and cut them a break whenever possible.

Note that I made a simple statement, also, (without flames, so to speak) and
I genuinely thought that he would get better help when it comes to getting
the simulator set up, over there.

If it came to "how to make the VOR work like it would in real life", then I
would think that this is the place to be.
--
Jim in NC