Chicken Wings Forum

Roost Air Lounge => The Classroom => Topic started by: Zaffex on March 16, 2006, 02:06:47 AM

Title: Flight Sim
Post by: Zaffex on March 16, 2006, 02:06:47 AM
Okay, I've got to ask...do you guys think Flight Sim does anything at all for a person's quest for a pilot's license? I've logged a lot of hours on mine, but I'm worried that instead of helping me learn, it's teaching me bad habits that will be hard to unlearn (turns without any rudder, for instance). What's your opinion?
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 16, 2006, 02:25:44 AM
Okay, I've got to ask...do you guys think Flight Sim does anything at all for a person's quest for a pilot's license? I've logged a lot of hours on mine, but I'm worried that instead of helping me learn, it's teaching me bad habits that will be hard to unlearn (turns without any rudder, for instance). What's your opinion?

I can tell you what I've heard from many an instructor, though I am not yet a CFI myself.  Almost universally, they say that MSFS people tend to know the procedures for certain things, but are very bad about not using the rudder, as you have already noted.  That seems to be a tough thing to correct in many, so the best thing you can do for yourself to assist with unlearning that bad habit is to do the following;

1) Turn OFF Auto-Coordination
2) Get yourself a set of rudder pedals for use with MSFS
3) Turn on real-world weather and let MSFS grab the current conditions to help with unpredictability.  Turn ON weather updating at say 10 or 15 minute intervals to provide an even more realistic effect.
4) Turn ON Crash Detection
5) Set the other realizim factors to their maximum
6) Use the kind of aircraft you will be training in and get to know it inside and out
7) Use the Virtual Cockpit mode exclusively to provide the maximum realizm.  You won't have a "spot", or "tower" vantage point in the real bird, and the default cockpit view is a little restrictive
8) Above all, remember that while MSFS is a good "procedural trainer", don't count on it as a substitute for really listening and paying close attention to what your CFI tells you.

Remember too that the CFI is your partner in training, and MSFS can be a tool in your training, but it is secondary, if  not tertiary, to your CFI and actual texts and flight experience.

MSFS can not faithfully replicate the sensations of g-forces, turbulence, or even the control feel when taxiing, or other stages.  Preflight is something completely ignored by MSFS, and usually most people skip right past the taxi operations, and radio work as MSFS makes that all too easy to ignore.

Having said all that, I will also say that I use MSFS for VFR navigation practice with ADF, VOR, and GPS, and practice with various kinds of instrument approaches (something you won't have to worry about until you go for your Instrument rating add-on).  Another thing that it does simulate well is the operational aspects of the radio stack, and the KAP-140 auto-pilot for the Cessna 172.  This should not be ignored, as most people do not get adequate practice with learning how to PROPERLY utilize the Auto-Pilot and it can lead to accidents if you are not familiar with how to engage, disengage, and set it up.  You may even want to search for the Bendix/King owners manual on the Internet for the KAP-140 (just use a Google search), and review it thoroughly.  It will enlighten you as to what all the various features are of the NAV, COM, and XPDR, and AP units are, and how to safely use them.

Just my $0.02.  Let me know if you need more info than this.


Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 16, 2006, 03:46:00 AM
Well put, Ted. 

Sims are great tools that can enhance training situations that would be impracticle in the airplane (icing, emergencies, etc.)  I always found them harder to fly than the real airplane because of the lack of "feel."  I always thought MSFS was better at IFR training than VFR because it was always so hard to look around, but that was on the older versions.  If they were able to fix that, I'm sure it'd be a good training platform. 

It's not going to hurt you.  Again, just turn off auto-coordination, even if you don't have rudder pedals.  At least it'll make you aware of the rudder.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Mike on March 16, 2006, 04:26:47 AM
I have found in most of my students, that the main thing they have learned with the MSFS if they did it right is VOR's, basic airspace, and some instrument stuff actually. They knew where the instuments where and how to use them all good stuff.
They "feel" for the airplane is missing as Gulf put it right, so I had some who had a hard time learning the motor skills. The best students I had who had the "feel" right away actually flew model planes and helicopters....

One of my brother friends once tried to convince me he could get into a helicopter and fly it with out much help because he passed every mission in his "Apache" game. HA HA HA
I still wanna take him on a flight and try him out!!!
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: wbarnhill on March 16, 2006, 05:25:59 AM
Another thing I'd like to add is that the controls for flight sim can be quite sensitive compared to an actual yoke or stick.  And you also have to realize you don't have changing pressures on the controls.  There are just a lot of things that can't be felt in a sim, but for basic knowledge on instruments and procedures, flight sims can be a lot of help to put you ahead of the curve.  Heck, just using google to look up how different instruments work like the pitot-static system, airspeed indicator, vertical speed indicator, altimeter, attitude indicator, gyroscopes in general, VOR, ADF, etc etc, you'll have a sound background of knowledge that can assist in understanding things quicker and more completely.  I will admit that the time in flight sim, along with my general passion for aviation helped me to accomplish my checkride in a short period of time.  There were a lot of other circumstances, such as taking a month to focus solely on flying, but all in all, the passion and desire for knowledge is what will help you the most.

Also, if you're concerned about communications in flight, any of the virtual air traffic groups online can help you.  VATSIM and others try to make sure the virtual controllers are as close to realistic as possible.  Now you'll have to get used to a 13 or 15 year old giving you ATC instructions, but still, it's another resource :)  Best of luck in getting your wings!
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: FlyingBlind on March 16, 2006, 02:26:27 PM
Flight Simulators are useful!
But you should put it to as REALISTIC as you can! Stalls, Rudder etc. ALL ENABLE!
The only real simulator i have tried was a helicopter one in Finland, i know the basics now but i shall not get into a real one.
They help - but passing all will not make you a experienced pilot!
Good luck ;D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Sleek-Jet on March 16, 2006, 04:08:24 PM
You want realistic, fly X-plane.  If you want eye candy, fly MSFS.  ;D

X-plane will actually do an honest-to-god Vmc roll in a twin, something that MSFS doesn't even come close too.  You can spin and slip in X-plane, and the aircraft respond as they do in the real world. 

I've helped a few of people get their licsense that are avid flight simmers.  All of them did extremely well.  They had a jump on things like holding alititude, heading, and airspeed.  Something that alot of people struggle with. 

Personally, I used MSFS 4.0 to help get my instrument rating.  That and old subLogic Apple II version.  Man, I miss the old days sometimes. ;D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Callisto on March 16, 2006, 06:53:07 PM
??? ??? ??? So in real life when you go to fly, you are not automatically sitting at Miegs (which is now Millennium Park, damn Daley) on runway 36 with radios set, in perfect weather? WTF?!? ;D

Excellent thread you guys! I've wondered this myself. I really want to get my pilot cert, but time and money are limiting factors at the moment. But I have MSFS loaded up and I fly for hours. I have the realism set to full real, Auto-Coordination off. Real weather set to auto update every 15min. I know the things I do in the "game" would not be cool in real life, but there are times I get serious and use the ATC, VOR's ADF, etc. I'm probably not doing everything 100% right, but I know I have the general idea.

The biggest thing would be the G's. Sitting at my desk with my feet up, I can roll into a steep turn and not spill my coke all over the place. I don't know what the turns, climes, TO's and landings would feel like. I race AutoCross and I've played many racing games in my life, but it took me a few races to learn how the G's really affect the car when negotiating the slaloms/tight turns.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Zaffex on March 16, 2006, 10:44:39 PM
I definitly agree on the fact that there's no sense of feel. I basically started running MSFS '04 a little while after it came out. I'm not very proud to say it, but when I started I thought you always steered on the ground with the differential brakes! Thankfully, though, I learned about what the rudder was for ::), and got over that habit.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 16, 2006, 10:52:31 PM
I definitly agree on the fact that there's no sense of feel. I basically started running MSFS '04 a little while after it came out. I'm not very proud to say it, but when I started I thought you always steered on the ground with the differential brakes! Thankfully, though, I learned about what the rudder was for ::), and got over that habit.

Well... don't assume anything when it comes to flying the real plane.  Certain planes DO use differential braking for steering on the ground.  It depends on if the nose wheel is steerable or not.  On a Cessna, for instance, the rudder pedals have a linkage that actually moves the nose wheel.  At the low speeds at which you taxi, the rudder itself is not usually effective as an airfoil surface, so all you are really doing is using the rudder pedals on a Cessna to move that nose wheel.

On a Grumman T-Cat, though, which has a freely rotating nose wheel, you HAVE to use differential braking to turn it as the only steering is coming from which main wheel is stopped, or lagging behind the other!

So... know your different techniques for ground handling on different models.  It may not be the same on one aircraft to another.... it can even change within an individual manufacturer for various things too.  I.E. Emergency gear extension procedures, manual flap deployment, electrical flap deployment (old model Cessna's do this differently than newer models even within the 172 line!).

Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 16, 2006, 11:01:09 PM
http://www.visi.com/~mim/nav/

We used this site in school quite a bit.  It's handy for radio nav practice.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: wbarnhill on March 17, 2006, 01:39:21 AM
I definitly agree on the fact that there's no sense of feel. I basically started running MSFS '04 a little while after it came out. I'm not very proud to say it, but when I started I thought you always steered on the ground with the differential brakes! Thankfully, though, I learned about what the rudder was for ::), and got over that habit.

Actually in some aircraft you DO have to use differential braking to steer on the ground.

For instance, the Diamond DA-20 has a castoring nosewheel.  Unlike the Cessnas which have bungees attached to the rudder controls, the only way you're turning that nose on the ground on the Diamond is by having enough speed for the vertical stab to have control pressure (preferably not ;) ) or by differential braking.  All depends on the a/c you're flying.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 17, 2006, 04:04:38 AM
For instance, the Diamond DA-20 has a castoring nosewheel. Unlike the Cessnas which have bungees attached to the rudder controls, the only way you're turning that nose on the ground on the Diamond is by having enough speed for the vertical stab to have control pressure (preferably not ;) ) or by differential braking. All depends on the a/c you're flying.

Taxi speed = Vso

Yehaw!
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 17, 2006, 07:44:21 PM
Regarding MSFS then FS2004 aka FS9 have a official Garmin GPS system simulated, two versions btw, and regarding flying then the company called RealAirSimulations have made a special version of the stock C172SP for a Australian Flight School that is free to download that has tested remade physics that should be a lot more authentic including allowing sideslip and spins. It is true that MSFS isn't a real simulator physics-wise like X-Plane is, and X-Plane is catching up fast on the visuals, but FSX (the next MSFS version that'll come out for x-mass 2006) will have a ton of graphics-updates, but not one word of physics, although they said it would be backwards-compatible and I don't think that promises well for new better physics.

Has anyone tried Terminal Reality's Fly! simulator? I have version 1 and 2 and it had a real manual start-up unlike FS, and I remember it showing the small planes moving in the air like I remember feeling in the Cardinal, namely that the plane moved slightly up and down and rotated slightly around the vertical axis even though the winds were calm, FS has never showed anything like that.

You are right about the G-forces. I also drive some racing sims, like GPL and rFactor (made by ISI that made the physics for EA Sport's F1 and NASCAR games) and it's hard to feel the car's movements and there are a lot of differences in feel when looking at a small monitor as well in terms of speed feel etc. A 900 degree (2 1/2 turn lock to lock) steeringwheel does help in games with proper steering simulation (Logitech Driving Force Pro that does actually work on the PC).

I was wondering, does anyone fly flightsims with the CH Flightsim Yoke? How much movement does it have compared to the real thing like a Cessna? I read one place it could only go about 2 inches in and out and only turn 15 degrees from side to side which is a lot less than the 90 degrees a Cessna can move. The CH Pedals however has toe-brakes as well like Cessnas and other planes.

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Zaffex on March 18, 2006, 01:56:30 PM
I use that flight yoke! It's definitly an upgrade from what I was using before. My old setup was a racing wheel to control roll and a joystick to control pitch. So while I was flying, I'd have to have one hand on the joystick and one hand on the wheel with pretty much no other hands to control anything else. Of course, I suppose I could have just used the joystick alone to make things easier...oh, well. Lack of thinking on my part, I guess. The CH flight yoke is pretty nice. You've got a lot of switches and buttons to work with. One problem is the lack of Force Feedback. They substitute that with springs, which I suppose isn't very realistic. Let me get out the ruler...hmm...the yoke moves about...oh...2 inches in and out, so you were right about that assumtion. Just from a rough visual check, I'm guessing the yoke rotates about, say, 40-45 degrees each way.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 18, 2006, 05:04:58 PM
Thank you very much for the info :)

I tried flying with a Logitech Force 3D joystick but I didn't really think it felt useful or realistic in any way but of course I only had 1 hours flight with just some 15 minutes with the hand on the yoke and it was a nice smooth calm flight but still.

I don't suppose any real pilotes have something to say on how the feedback you get in the yoke is compared to sims? Or even just in general how it feels.

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 19, 2006, 03:23:48 AM
I found that force feedback sticks were more useful in combat games.  In the regular flying sims, I don't know that it matters that much.  You just need something with resistance so you don't go stop to stop too easily.  When you're really flying, you don't get too much resistance from the control surfaces, unless you're doing full deflections at high airspeeds (not recommended).
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Inept on March 19, 2006, 06:43:00 PM
When you're really flying, you don't get too much resistance from the control surfaces, unless you're doing full deflections at high airspeeds (not recommended).

Or just horribly out of trim    :-[
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: wbarnhill on March 19, 2006, 10:34:49 PM
When you're really flying, you don't get too much resistance from the control surfaces, unless you're doing full deflections at high airspeeds (not recommended).

Or just horribly out of trim    :-[

hehehehe.  Reminds me of flying right seat in a friend's Comanche.  She kept forgetting that I had no access to the electronic trim... definitely counted as exercise :D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 20, 2006, 06:40:54 PM
Thank you very much for the info :)

I tried flying with a Logitech Force 3D joystick but I didn't really think it felt useful or realistic in any way but of course I only had 1 hours flight with just some 15 minutes with the hand on the yoke and it was a nice smooth calm flight but still.

I don't suppose any real pilotes have something to say on how the feedback you get in the yoke is compared to sims? Or even just in general how it feels.

Frank

Even counting for trimming up well, the joystick or yoke on a sim rarely gives you an accurate representation of the way things feel for a number of reasons...

1) The physics simulated by a given flight simulator program, and how it translates to the controller is not necessarily optimal depending on model of controller, version of program, etc.

2) The cheaper the control, the less likely it will provide a proper sensory feedback.  In the flight simulator business, this accurracy of feedback is referred to as "fidelity", just as with audio buffs calling fidelity the realistic representation of recorded or channeled music to real-life.

3) Unless you go with a true, full motion, simulator (and even then it's not completely accurate on sensation), you're not going to feel the g-forces, which all add up to the training of the brain via tactical inputs in a simulated environment.

Multi-million dollar simulators with full motion come extremely close to the real thing... as one might expect... but even then, while it can simulate g-forces (via axis rotation), it can't do centrifugal forces.... well... unless you put that simulator on the front end of the NASA Centrifuge trainer :)

When it comes right down to it.... until we get a Starfleet Holodeck, it's not likely we will reproduce with great accurracy the experience of flight in the real bird.... though we can come close with sufficient $$$.

By the way... if we all had a Starfleet Holodeck in our homes.... I doubt we'd be simulating flight as much as ... ahem... something else! :)
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: fireflyr on March 21, 2006, 04:06:14 PM

",,,AHEM,,,,something else."       :D   HAHA Ted!    I'm trying not to let my too fertile imagination run with that one!
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 21, 2006, 04:11:48 PM

",,,AHEM,,,,something else."       :D   HAHA Ted!    I'm trying not to let my too fertile imagination run with that one!

 ;D  I suspect that attempts at conservative containment of one's imagination on that one are doomed to failure... for many of us!   ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: fireflyr on March 21, 2006, 04:37:57 PM
Yep, it's too late,

I'm instructing Counselor Troy the finer points of night flying............................
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 21, 2006, 04:47:18 PM

Yep, it's too late,

I'm instructing Counselor Troy the finer points of night fliying .........................................

LOL!  I'm sure she said, "And just why are my foggles completely frosted over?"

(There you go, fireflyr) :)
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: fireflyr on March 21, 2006, 04:50:02 PM
SHOOT, I tried to modify that in time---
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 22, 2006, 05:08:38 PM
I'd personally prefer Lieutenant Tasha Yar over Deanna Troi but that's a matter of personal preference I guess.

Ok back on topic, there are several people that have made flightsim cockpits, even a handcrafted fully authentic piece by piece recreation of a Spitfire cockpit and a Airbus A340 cockpit made with authentic parts bought used but has anyone made a copy of the Orbiter cockpit? That wouldn't need that many screens since the windows aren't that big and the whole cockpit/command-deck isn't that big either so it can be in full size.

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 22, 2006, 06:00:05 PM
NASA has one.... :D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: fireflyr on March 24, 2006, 09:47:29 AM
I'd personally prefer Lieutenant Tasha Yar over Deanna Troi but that's a matter of personal preference I guess.


FRANK, You Scandinavian scoundrel, you do love those blonds!
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 24, 2006, 05:09:37 PM
Gulf: Ah right lol

Scandinavian Scoundrel, lol that's a good one!

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: FlyingBlind on March 28, 2006, 10:43:01 PM
Frank, where are you from ? Cause Scandinavia Can be : Norway,Sweden,Finland and Denmark.....My bet would be Svensk :P mutta sä voit myös olla Suomalainen!
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 28, 2006, 10:51:45 PM
Btw I was wondering, how much can you move a real plane's controls? (sorry fi I asked this before I can't quite remember).
One particular interest is also the pedals, how heavy are they? Are they like pushing down on the clutch of a sportscar or more like the throttle-pedal? And if it's light then could it work to design hanging pedals a bit like the throttle on a car for a more relaxing seating-position (wheel-brakes would be placed seperately, possibly as seperate pedals between the rudder-pedals).

And speaking of brakes, how does a plane handle on the ground? In MSFS it's like skidding on soap, one wrong flex of the rudder and the plane goes into what I think is called a Ground Loop (spin around like a car with locked rear-wheels at forward momentum).

And speaking of brakes, how fast can a small GA plane stop anyway? I assume that the lift of the wings are a factor even under stall-speed but can that be helped by pushing forward a bit on the yoke, or retracting flaps to reduce lift and thus put more weight on the main wheels to improve grip?

Edit: Flyingblind I'm actually danish, men jag kan pratta en del svenska og selvklart forstå det da dansk och svensk are beslektade språk i motsætning til norsk (that last part was attempted swedish, swedes and danes, and norwegians can mostly talk to each other on native languages since they're closely related, kind of a bond that I don't think many other countries in the world share). I normally call myself scandinavian instead of european since it fits more precisely culturally although even in Denmark I'm an excentric and don't really follow any normal class-type behavioural patterns, but that's mostly only in a good way. Btw, that you said sounded or at least looked more like finnish that I believe is related to the languages in your area isn't it? (I got that from a finn) People say danish sounds most like norwegian but in reality danish is related to swedish where norwegian is from the other branch of scandinavian languages, I think the difference is the accent, if you ever hear a dane speak english then there's a big difference in the fullness, or rather lack of, in the accent from a dane vs a swede, and norwegians they sound like they're singing, rhythm. Incidentally, icelandic is said to be very close to the orignal common language spoken during the viking-era.

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 28, 2006, 11:10:36 PM
Btw I was wondering, how much can you move a real plane's controls? (sorry fi I asked this before I can't quite remember).
One particular interest is also the pedals, how heavy are they? Are they like pushing down on the clutch of a sportscar or more like the throttle-pedal? And if it's light then could it work to design hanging pedals a bit like the throttle on a car for a more relaxing seating-position (wheel-brakes would be placed seperately, possibly as seperate pedals between the rudder-pedals).

And speaking of brakes, how does a plane handle on the ground? In MSFS it's like skidding on soap, one wrong flex of the rudder and the plane goes into what I think is called a Ground Loop (spin around like a car with locked rear-wheels at forward momentum).

And speaking of brakes, how fast can a small GA plane stop anyway? I assume that the lift of the wings are a factor even under stall-speed but can that be helped by pushing forward a bit on the yoke, or retracting flaps to reduce lift and thus put more weight on the main wheels to improve grip?

Edit: Flyingblind I'm actually danish, men jag kan pratta en del svenska og selvklart forstå det da dansk och svensk are beslektade språk i motsætning til norsk (that last part was attempted swedish, swedes and danes, and norwegians can mostly talk to each other on native languages since they're closely related, kind of a bond that I don't think many other countries in the world share). I normally call myself scandinavian instead of european since it fits more precisely culturally although even in Denmark I'm an excentric and don't really follow any normal class-type behavioural patterns, but that's mostly only in a good way. Btw, that you said sounded or at least looked more like finnish that I believe is related to the languages in your area isn't it? (I got that from a finn) People say danish sounds most like norwegian but in reality danish is related to swedish where norwegian is from the other branch of scandinavian languages, I think the difference is the accent, if you ever hear a dane speak english then there's a big difference in the fullness, or rather lack of, in the accent from a dane vs a swede, and norwegians they sound like they're singing, rhythm. Incidentally, icelandic is said to be very close to the orignal common language spoken during the viking-era.

Frank

In answer to your question about feel and movement of the controls, the simple answer is, each plane is different!  Yep, even among the same model!  Now, the travel of a given control is regulated by specs, but a lot goes into how well a plane is "rigged", meaning how well the cables that adjust the flight surfaces have been calibrated.  They can be within spec, but still feel slightly different even among one plane to the next.  Big variances in feel and control play can be felt when you're dealing with different models of aircraft too.  For instance, a 727's control yoke and pedals will feel much different than an Airbus 300's.  And aircraft with true "fly-by-wire" systems will feel different than those with mechanical linkages or actuators.  Typically, for a Cessna 172, the control yoke goes from the 270-90 degree position to the 000-180 degree position stops in both left-and right directions.  Forward and backward play on that yoke can be as much as 4-5 inches or so from "neutral" to full back in the stomach for a full stall, and same in the forward position from neutral.  The rudder pedals, if adjusted properly, can feel more like a brake pedal on a riding lawn mower.  Also, on some aircraft, the rudder pedals have "toe brakes", where the top half of the rudder pedal can be pitched forward by your foot to actuate the brakes while still being able to move the pedals left and right to steer the rudder, and possibly the nose gear if it's stearable.

I wish I could describe it better, but it's really difficult to relate due to the variances.  I've flow C-172's, C-152's, PA-128's, C-23's, and various others, including a Ford Tri-Motor, and each one has a very distinct feel.  Some of them have very "heavy handed" controls, others are light as a feather to move.  And if you get into military planes, the fly-by-wire systems are more like using just one hand to move a joystick around a little and maybe using your rudder now and then tactically.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 28, 2006, 11:23:32 PM
Btw I was wondering, how much can you move a real plane's controls? (sorry fi I asked this before I can't quite remember).
One particular interest is also the pedals, how heavy are they? Are they like pushing down on the clutch of a sportscar or more like the throttle-pedal? And if it's light then could it work to design hanging pedals a bit like the throttle on a car for a more relaxing seating-position (wheel-brakes would be placed seperately, possibly as seperate pedals between the rudder-pedals).

And speaking of brakes, how does a plane handle on the ground? In MSFS it's like skidding on soap, one wrong flex of the rudder and the plane goes into what I think is called a Ground Loop (spin around like a car with locked rear-wheels at forward momentum).

And speaking of brakes, how fast can a small GA plane stop anyway? I assume that the lift of the wings are a factor even under stall-speed but can that be helped by pushing forward a bit on the yoke, or retracting flaps to reduce lift and thus put more weight on the main wheels to improve grip?

Edit: Flyingblind I'm actually danish, men jag kan pratta en del svenska og selvklart forstå det da dansk och svensk are beslektade språk i motsætning til norsk (that last part was attempted swedish, swedes and danes, and norwegians can mostly talk to each other on native languages since they're closely related, kind of a bond that I don't think many other countries in the world share). I normally call myself scandinavian instead of european since it fits more precisely culturally although even in Denmark I'm an excentric and don't really follow any normal class-type behavioural patterns, but that's mostly only in a good way. Btw, that you said sounded or at least looked more like finnish that I believe is related to the languages in your area isn't it? (I got that from a finn) People say danish sounds most like norwegian but in reality danish is related to swedish where norwegian is from the other branch of scandinavian languages, I think the difference is the accent, if you ever hear a dane speak english then there's a big difference in the fullness, or rather lack of, in the accent from a dane vs a swede, and norwegians they sound like they're singing, rhythm. Incidentally, icelandic is said to be very close to the orignal common language spoken during the viking-era.

Frank

In answer to your question about feel and movement of the controls, the simple answer is, each plane is different!  Yep, even among the same model!  Now, the travel of a given control is regulated by specs, but a lot goes into how well a plane is "rigged", meaning how well the cables that adjust the flight surfaces have been calibrated.  They can be within spec, but still feel slightly different even among one plane to the next.  Big variances in feel and control play can be felt when you're dealing with different models of aircraft too.  For instance, a 727's control yoke and pedals will feel much different than an Airbus 300's.  And aircraft with true "fly-by-wire" systems will feel different than those with mechanical linkages or actuators.  Typically, for a Cessna 172, the control yoke goes from the 270-90 degree position to the 000-180 degree position stops in both left-and right directions.  Forward and backward play on that yoke can be as much as 4-5 inches or so from "neutral" to full back in the stomach for a full stall, and same in the forward position from neutral.  The rudder pedals, if adjusted properly, can feel more like a brake pedal on a riding lawn mower.  Also, on some aircraft, the rudder pedals have "toe brakes", where the top half of the rudder pedal can be pitched forward by your foot to actuate the brakes while still being able to move the pedals left and right to steer the rudder, and possibly the nose gear if it's stearable.

I wish I could describe it better, but it's really difficult to relate due to the variances.  I've flow C-172's, C-152's, PA-128's, C-23's, and various others, including a Ford Tri-Motor, and each one has a very distinct feel.  Some of them have very "heavy handed" controls, others are light as a feather to move.  And if you get into military planes, the fly-by-wire systems are more like using just one hand to move a joystick around a little and maybe using your rudder now and then tactically.


In answer to braking and ground handling....

Again, a lot depends on the plane itself, how it's rigged and designed, and the weight of the plane.  In a light GA aircraft, say a C-172, if you combine aerobraking along with using the brake pedals, you can stop that plane in a very, very short distance.  The pilot's operating handbook has different figures for stopping distances under various conditions, so your best answer is to look up that data for the particular plane in that model's manual.  Aerobraking, by the way, is the technique of using as much drag as possible, by keeping the nose up until it won't fly anymore after the mains touch, and using full flaps.  Once you're slow enough, you can use the brakes effectively and stop the plane in short distances.   In fact, such techniques are drilled as part of one's training towards their private pilot certificate in the "Short Field Landing" training curriculum.  In a short field landing the technique is to use the slowest possible approach speed, touch down as close to the start of the usable runway area as possible, keep full flaps engaged, power at idle, and keep the nose up as high as possible without taking the plane up off the runway surface.  Keeping this held with the yoke coming back to you as airspeed bleeds off, if done right, will have the stall warning horn going off on the runway prior to the nose settling itself down as lift goes.  On most designs flaps add lift only at the first setting position, 10 degrees on a C-172, with subsequent lowering of flaps adding more drag than lift.  This is also why on a short-field takeoff, one uses partial flaps.  It gives you more lift with those first setting points and helps you get up into the air at slower speeds. 

You are correct about a ground loop.  Most commonly this happens in "tail dragger" aircraft, but it can happen with a conventional "tri-cycle gear" plane too.

Flight simulator taxi operations in MSFS are not easy to do.  It requires constant adjustment of power and rudder and braking.  In the real plane, one uses a bit more power to start moving the plane, then pulls power back to a lower setting.  One normally uses the brakes sparingly (or should) during taxi operations, and uses the throttle to keep from moving the plane at more than a fast walking pace.  Left-right corrections are a constant thing on the ground when moving a GA aircraft with a tri-cycle gear, but in a taildragger it is even moreso.  Part of the problem with taildraggers, that leads to ground looping, is that you can't see straight ahead because the nose is high, so you can only see out the sides.  One taxis a taildragger using a series of S turns to look out the sides to keep taxi centerline.  If you do this too fast, and/or at too high a speed, hello ground loop!  You don't even have to have the brakes on to ground loop a taildragger... just too much input for the tailwheel.  On a taildragger, the tailwheel, not the nose wheel, is moved by the pedals (if it's a steerable tailwheel and not dependent purely on rudder).  As you might imagine, it's tougher to taxi a taildragger than a tri-cycle gear airplane.


Hope this helps :)
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 28, 2006, 11:49:00 PM
Control feel also depends on how well you trim, which reduces control pressure felt in the yoke.  Most airplanes don't have aileron trim, but most, if not all, airplanes have elevator trim.  If it's not trimmed properly, it can feel like your pushing on a brick wall. 

Also, there's a reason almost every GA aircraft has either toe brakes or heel brakes on the rudder pedals.  There are models with brakes separate from the rudder pedals, and they increase your workload quite a bit.  If you think about it, when your on the runway, you need both rudder and brake control available.  If you have to take your feet off the rudder pedals to operate the brakes, you lose rudder control.  Could be a bad deal.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 28, 2006, 11:56:18 PM
Control feel also depends on how well you trim, which reduces control pressure felt in the yoke.  Most airplanes don't have aileron trim, but most, if not all, airplanes have elevator trim.  If it's not trimmed properly, it can feel like your pushing on a brick wall. 

Also, there's a reason almost every GA aircraft has either toe brakes or heel brakes on the rudder pedals.  There are models with brakes separate from the rudder pedals, and they increase your workload quite a bit.  If you think about it, when your on the runway, you need both rudder and brake control available.  If you have to take your feet off the rudder pedals to operate the brakes, you lose rudder control.  Could be a bad deal.

True... forgot to add that about the trim :)  Thanks :)
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 29, 2006, 12:00:58 AM
You bet.   ;)
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 29, 2006, 12:28:57 AM
Wow, some really good replies, thank you all :)

I actually also thought that the forces might depend on the airspeed although I've seen some rudders and ailerons have a part that sticks forward of the axis that might act like an aerodynamic force-equalizer although that would also cancel the aerodynamic force wouldn't it?

The idea with the seperate wheel-pedals were to be designed so they physically pressed down the rudder pedal too (one of my concept-ideas uses seperate left/right drag rudders so like the Long-EZ the rudder pedals would not be connected but of course I don't know if it would work in the real-world (in case rudder-trim is needed for straight flight) even though the plane is to be designed with counter-rotating props on the centerline to make sure it didn't rotate the plane when changing power etc. and it's not a heavy load plane either so not too much weight difference).

I sadly never got to use the toe-brakes on the Cardinal since I didn't need them so I'm not sure how they felt, or how the ergonomics are, I hope I can try that someday though. Did you know that someone used that and designed a combined brake and throttle for a SAAB 9000 like that? The toe-pedal part was the throttle and then the normal brakes, meant to allow faster response-times for emergency stops. I don't think that works in the real-world though, the ergonomics surely wouldn't work for my ancle and knees (I've had my right ancle twisted almost 90 degrees as a teenager twice in two months giving me a stretched muscle-band(?) and my right knee dislocated when getting in the car a few years ago, snapped sideways 10cm inwards, but luckily snapped back into place but still another stretched set of muscles, so I'm not fond of strained ergonomics, but of course I still want control and safety above all).

I forgot to ask something about the brakes, I read that Dunlop invented the ABS system for the Concord and then it went on to other planes and cars, the first one also being the first AWD sportscar, the Jensen FF, but does GA planes have ABS and if so, can you feel that in the pedals, is there even a power-assistance on plane brakes like on a car of the same weight?

Hmm, maybe I should've asked this in a seperate thread not under sims but I hope it's ok, otherwise feel free to move to a seperate thread, I think at least some forum softwares can do this. Although some of the questions about the feedback was also to get an idea on what to do to get a reasonably realistic weight in the sim-controls I hope to make for. No idea where to find a real yoke in Denmark though, but on ebay UK there are tons of parts, even from prototypes allegedly, like from the TSR2 and early SR71 and Space Shuttle helmets, far out, maybe too far out to be real.

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 29, 2006, 05:01:38 PM
Wow, some really good replies, thank you all :)

I actually also thought that the forces might depend on the airspeed although I've seen some rudders and ailerons have a part that sticks forward of the axis that might act like an aerodynamic force-equalizer although that would also cancel the aerodynamic force wouldn't it?

The idea with the seperate wheel-pedals were to be designed so they physically pressed down the rudder pedal too (one of my concept-ideas uses seperate left/right drag rudders so like the Long-EZ the rudder pedals would not be connected but of course I don't know if it would work in the real-world (in case rudder-trim is needed for straight flight) even though the plane is to be designed with counter-rotating props on the centerline to make sure it didn't rotate the plane when changing power etc. and it's not a heavy load plane either so not too much weight difference).

I sadly never got to use the toe-brakes on the Cardinal since I didn't need them so I'm not sure how they felt, or how the ergonomics are, I hope I can try that someday though. Did you know that someone used that and designed a combined brake and throttle for a SAAB 9000 like that? The toe-pedal part was the throttle and then the normal brakes, meant to allow faster response-times for emergency stops. I don't think that works in the real-world though, the ergonomics surely wouldn't work for my ancle and knees (I've had my right ancle twisted almost 90 degrees as a teenager twice in two months giving me a stretched muscle-band(?) and my right knee dislocated when getting in the car a few years ago, snapped sideways 10cm inwards, but luckily snapped back into place but still another stretched set of muscles, so I'm not fond of strained ergonomics, but of course I still want control and safety above all).

I forgot to ask something about the brakes, I read that Dunlop invented the ABS system for the Concord and then it went on to other planes and cars, the first one also being the first AWD sportscar, the Jensen FF, but does GA planes have ABS and if so, can you feel that in the pedals, is there even a power-assistance on plane brakes like on a car of the same weight?

Hmm, maybe I should've asked this in a seperate thread not under sims but I hope it's ok, otherwise feel free to move to a seperate thread, I think at least some forum softwares can do this. Although some of the questions about the feedback was also to get an idea on what to do to get a reasonably realistic weight in the sim-controls I hope to make for. No idea where to find a real yoke in Denmark though, but on ebay UK there are tons of parts, even from prototypes allegedly, like from the TSR2 and early SR71 and Space Shuttle helmets, far out, maybe too far out to be real.

Frank

In answer to ABS brakes on GA aircraft....  while they may be on some upscale models that I haven't flown (and I can't say for sure here yes or no), I've never encountered ABS braking on any of the planes I've flown short of the high-end jets like the Saberliner, or similar.  And even there, it depended on the year of the plane, etc.  It would be a nice feature, but if one lands at the speeds indicated, unless you have some really adverse surface conditions, they shouldn't be needed.  If surface conditions are such that you need to jam on the brakes hard enough to activate the ABS system, my thinking is that one should probably have landed somewhere else :)   

Those extra little surfaces you may have seen along part of an elevator, or rudder, that look like their own little flap are trim tabs.  They are designed to apply forces to the airfoil surface to keep the airfoil positioned more easily at a given point.  They are manipulated in a GA aircraft by use of the trim wheel, and that in turn moves the surface.  The C-152, C-172, have these for the elevators, but not for the rudder.  Rudder trim on those is managed through a ground adjustable tab at the base of the rudder.  Usually a mechanic will bend that tab left or right as needed to accomplish the proper trim.  On other aircraft, a trim wheel for the rudder is also available that moves a tab like the one on the elevators, via a mechanical connection.

Sim controls for a PC are not like those with actual aircraft parts.  They may look similar, but they need a whole different set of inner workings to properly send digital information to the computer to let the pc know how the control is being moved.  In fact, most advanced simulators, such as those that the airlines use, cost more than the planes themselves because everything needs a digital translation.  Unless one is simulating a newer digital cockpit, you also need "A to D" conversion.. meaning Analog to Digital (and vice versa) so a standard looking airspeed gauge behaves like the real one.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: C310RCaptian on March 30, 2006, 04:20:18 PM
ABS For Aircraft...


Large aircraft do have an ABS system only they are called "antiskid systems". It works by using a speed sensor on each wheel. If one wheel slows down more that the others( a skidding condition) it will send a pulsing pressure of hydraulic fluid to the brake on that wheel instead of steady pressure. This is called a modulating pressure. It is not felt through the rudder peddles and are usually found on aircraft that are very large with large landing gear. Usually used when there are 4 or more wheels on one main gear or an auto braking system. Auto brakes are when pilots preset the amount of braking they want to use on touchdown. Once the wheels are on the ground and meet the specified conditions it will automatically apply the brakes without the pilot pressing on the brakes.

 Just like in a car skidding wheels are less effective at braking and can lead to loss of control. I do not know of many GA aircraft that may have this system. It is a very heavy and spacious system. Plus small planes usually don’t skid unless the pilot lands with the brakes pressed or applies way too much pressure.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 30, 2006, 10:05:06 PM
Thank you very much for the info, I guess ground-braking really isn't a problem with planes.

Regarding the short field operation, please correct me if I estimate wrong, but with the throttle all the way back to idle as described and full flaps wouldn't you have to dive quite steeply and thereby descend quite rapidly to keep the airspeed above the stall-limit? Requiring very precise timing for the flare not to hammer in the ground, like when performing auto-rotation on a helicopter.

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 30, 2006, 10:46:47 PM
Thank you very much for the info, I guess ground-braking really isn't a problem with planes.

Regarding the short field operation, please correct me if I estimate wrong, but with the throttle all the way back to idle as described and full flaps wouldn't you have to dive quite steeply and thereby descend quite rapidly to keep the airspeed above the stall-limit? Requiring very precise timing for the flare not to hammer in the ground, like when performing auto-rotation on a helicopter.

Frank

Actually, all you need do is follow the recommended approach speeds for that maneuver from the pilot's operating handbook.  Short field landings are not normally more steep than others, just happen at slower speeds (that's what the flaps are for... to allow you to fly slower without dropping out of the sky while also providing aerodynamic braking).  The steeper approach maneuver is the Landing/Takeoff over a 50 ft. Obstacle procedures, which have you at Vx (best Angle of climb/descent) so you can clear those nasty things they put in the way of the runway sometimes.  It can feel in those approaches that you are almost "falling towards the runway", but in a controlled fashion.

A "normal" landing with full flaps is what most pilots use.  And once you know you have the runway made (meaning you know if your engine cuts out that you'll still be able to glide to it), you can pull the engine to idle and even add the last notch of flaps if appropriate.  Flaps do two things for you on landing... A) Helps to slow the plane down by adding drag, and B) adding extra lift to allow slower flight.  The first 10% of flaps (on a Cessna 152 or 172) adds more lift than drag.  Anything beyond that first setting in that aircraft is adding more drag than lift.

One of the reasons why approach speeds are either close to, or at the best angle of glide is because if you do have an engine fail, you're already set up to glide it in without power.  On a Cessna 172 this is right around 70 KIAS (Knots of Indicated Airspeed).  Stall speed, meaning the speed at which the plane will fall out of the sky due to lack of sufficient lift being produced by the wings to counteract gravity, can be quite low.  In a C-152, for instance, with full flaps, it can be quite low indeed.  If memory serves (and please correct me if I'm wrong on this because it's been many years and I don't have a 152 P.O.H. in front of me), full flaps with power off stall speed can be down around 43 KCAS (Knots of Calibrated Airspeed).  With flaps up and power off, a C-152 will have about a 48 KCAS stall speed.  Both well below the recommended approach speed of around 70 KIAS.  In a C-172, stall speeds are: power off and full flaps - 47 KIAS, and power off no flaps - 51 KIAS.

Now, in a plane like a C-152 you have a ground rollout of around 475 feet on a "standard day" (standard pressure and temperature).  On a C-172, ground rollout for a normal landing is about 550 ft.

So, in summary, unless you have that 50 ft obstacle to clear, even on a short runway, you still fly the approach at the normal approach angle.  Coming in steep, or shallow, either way, can invite problems.  There are techniques like "slipping to land" where one purposefully uses cross-controls to swing tail one way, nose the other, and use the side of the aircraft as an aerobrake to lose a lot of altitude fast if you are high on an approach.  By the way, other than using a glide slope indicator on your VOR, you can also use the lights at a large number of runways called VASI or PAPI lights.  These are lights that show you if you are high, on glide slope, or low, by changing colors.  They are located adjacent to the runway you are landing on, and are an array of two sets of lights, one "above" the other (as percieved from the air) in the case of VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicator lighting), or as a set of four or more lights in a row for a PAPI system (Precision Approach Indicator lighting).  The simplest to use is the VASI.  On approach you will see the lights change with your glide slope angle.  White over white means you are too high, Red over White means you are on glide slope, and Red over Red means you are too low.  An easy way to remember this is; "White over White descend in flight.  Red Over White everythings all right.  Red over Red.... I'm DEAD!".    If you want to practice this with a flight simulator game, try the approach for KSUS, KCPS, or KSTL (my local airports that have these systems), and give it a whirl.

Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: madpilot44 on March 31, 2006, 12:33:08 AM
Does anybody know if there are any choppers in x-plane? I've run MSFS for quite some time now, but I want to try x-plane, and would like to know if you can fly choppers in it, and how good the physics are compared to MSFS and real life. thanks
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: C310RCaptian on March 31, 2006, 04:06:47 AM
All this talk about short field landings reminds me of some words of wisdom imparted to me by a bush pilot while I was in Oshkosh, WI:

1) Every landing is a controlled crash… the wing has to stall in order for it to stop flying. It’s the height above the ground that dictates when it’s a landing or an arrival.

 2) For a good pilot it’s not the getting in and landing that posses the problem… it’s being able to get back out afterwards...( take off distances are generally where an airplane uses most the runway.. especially when heavy) 

Question  Ted_Stryker : What does White over Red mean?????  (Got asked this on my commercial check ride)   ;D ;D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 31, 2006, 05:01:12 AM
I always tell my students that a hard landing on a short field isn't necessarily bad.  If you touch down hard, you translate forward momentum (i.e. energy) into heat energy through friction between the airplane and the ground and through the suspension system.  The idea is to land harder than normal, but not to bounce.  You also want to be able to use the plane again.  Then, use full aerodynamic braking and full brakes (without skidding).  You can get a 172 stopped in just a few hundred feet.

A soft-field landing on the other hand, is exactly the opposite.  Add just a touch (less than 200 RPM) of power during your flare, and you'll settle right onto the runway without hitting or bouncing.

With both landing techniques it's important to fly all of your pattern speeds.  In the 172 I like 90 downwind to base, 80 on base, and 70 on final. 

With a normal landing, let the plane roll out on its own.  The charts in the book are figured this way, and it saves your brakes.   ;)  Just don't roll off the end.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 31, 2006, 12:28:58 PM
I tried a idle-throttle full-flap descent in MSFS2004 in the RealAir Skyhawk (made for and tested by a flightschool for use in training but given free for simmers as well) and I couldn't get less than 900 fpm down but the nose was so high up that it was right on the 50 kts ias stall-limit, maybe I could get a slower rate if I nose down and got some speed, in fact I'm positive that's how it works but I was just testing and due to lack of atmosphere and practical means I haven't used FS2004 for much other than fun flying and buzzing around in a Vigilante and Valkyrie.

About the yoke then I fully understand the controls are different, I was merely referring to the yoke itself, not the rods it's connected to, like the steeringwheel of a car. I already planned a simple system that should be able to seperate the two directional forces and keep a stable feel in the movement for the sim-control so the digital read-out would be precise and easy to construct. I can show the tiny Lego-mock-up I made of it here if you want, but I seem to be unable to upload any more files according to the forum.

Btw, did someone say they'd flown a Ford Tri-Motor in here? Wow! How, when, where?

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 31, 2006, 02:04:43 PM
Oh yeah I forgot, about the question for Ted, then doesn't the red/white refer to the correct glide-path shown by the lights next to the runway that some large airports have? (not sure what the name is, and there are two variants, one with 1 row of lights and one with 4 rows I think, and I think that last one is the one that's refferred to above).

I did the landing-approach again and this time I kept up around 60-70 kts and while I still descended at 1000 fpm then I had enough air-speed to flare before stalling so the landing didn't overstress the plane or made it bounce (I fly with all factors on including crashes).

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: fireflyr on March 31, 2006, 04:40:13 PM

I love wheel landing taildraggers--in the 185, I fly final at 65 Kts with 20 degrees flaps and use power to stop the descent at touchdown, then off the power, wheel full forward to kill airspeed, add brakes, let the tail settle and Voila, a perfect lading in under 650 feet---for short field, it's full flaps and 50 Kts over the fence, power off in the (short) flare, and it will stop in under 400 feet.  Gads, I can hardly wait for the rain to stop so I can go flying!!!!  (25 rainy days this month--I'm getting moss on the north side of my butt) :D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 31, 2006, 04:51:00 PM
Carry a little power in the 182 until you're almost on the runway.  The nose is so heavy that if you don't have power on, it's hard to keep in the air.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 31, 2006, 05:19:31 PM
All this talk about short field landings reminds me of some words of wisdom imparted to me by a bush pilot while I was in Oshkosh, WI:

1) Every landing is a controlled crash… the wing has to stall in order for it to stop flying. It’s the height above the ground that dictates when it’s a landing or an arrival.

 2) For a good pilot it’s not the getting in and landing that posses the problem… it’s being able to get back out afterwards...( take off distances are generally where an airplane uses most the runway.. especially when heavy) 

Question  Ted_Stryker : What does White over Red mean?????  (Got asked this on my commercial check ride)   ;D ;D


Heheh... White over red means your on glide slope.... inverted! :)  Great check ride question!  ;D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 31, 2006, 05:29:52 PM
And, if you find yourself in that position, right yourself quick before there are any witnesses.

There's a DE in Montana that was busted all the way down to private for flying a traffic pattern inverted.  It didn't take him long to get all his ratings back.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 31, 2006, 05:32:08 PM
Oh yeah I forgot, about the question for Ted, then doesn't the red/white refer to the correct glide-path shown by the lights next to the runway that some large airports have? (not sure what the name is, and there are two variants, one with 1 row of lights and one with 4 rows I think, and I think that last one is the one that's refferred to above).

I did the landing-approach again and this time I kept up around 60-70 kts and while I still descended at 1000 fpm then I had enough air-speed to flare before stalling so the landing didn't overstress the plane or made it bounce (I fly with all factors on including crashes).

Frank

I think you may be thinking of the PAPI lighting system, which has a single row of lights.  They basically do the same thing as the VASI lighting system but represent it differently.  In a PAPI  with, for example, four lights, you want it to be an even split with half of them red, the other half white, and that means you are on glide slope.  You can actually see them change, and they offer more precision than VASI as a result.  Let's say you are on approach and you seen the PAPI with all white showing.  As you cut power back and start descending lower, you should see the first PAPI light on the right side go from white to red, then the second, etc.  The trick is to use that as a guide in adjusting your approach to keep the number of white and red ones equal.  If you see more red than white you are drifting lower than the glide slope and know to add some power back in to correct it.  A normal approach is a 3 degree descent angle.

From the ground, a PAPI system looks like a bar of floodlights, wheras a VASI looks like lights enclosed in orange boxes with filter lenses built into the front of the boxes.

For a better understanding of airport lighting systems, here is a link that is of interest describing these nifty visual aids... including the ALS (approach lighting system).  This is straight out of the AIM (Airman's Information Manual).

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap2/aim0201.html
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 31, 2006, 05:34:34 PM
And, if you find yourself in that position, right yourself quick before there are any witnesses.

There's a DE in Montana that was busted all the way down to private for flying a traffic pattern inverted.  It didn't take him long to get all his ratings back.

I remember there was an airshow performer that had a landing gear system on the top side of his plane too, and would actually land the thing upside down on purpose!  Now there's a pucker factor for you! :)

Oh... it can also mean one is really high above GS without being inverted on some systems... I don't think they use that much anymore, but it is in the AIM.

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap2/aim0201.html
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 31, 2006, 07:06:12 PM
Ted, do you keep a copy of the regs at your computer?   ;D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 31, 2006, 07:10:50 PM
Ted, do you keep a copy of the regs at your computer?   ;D

Moi?  Nah... I'm just that good!  ;D  (If you believe that I've got some land about five miles east of Miami I'd like to interest you in  ;D  )

Gotta love the Internet nowadays  :D
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: happylanding on May 28, 2006, 01:02:47 PM
You want realistic, fly X-plane.  If you want eye candy, fly MSFS.  ;D

X-plane will actually do an honest-to-god Vmc roll in a twin, something that MSFS doesn't even come close too.  You can spin and slip in X-plane, and the aircraft respond as they do in the real world. 

XPlane is actually much better than MSFS. But I noticed that it often has old information about airports.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 31, 2006, 05:22:59 PM
I actually saw one place that Piper had X-Plane versions of their planes for download on their site once, not big giant downloads but still interesting.

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: happylanding on May 31, 2006, 10:57:39 PM
I actually saw one place that Piper had X-Plane versions of their planes for download on their site once, not big giant downloads but still interesting.
Frank

XPlane is really good. at least I like it much better that MSFS, or - at least - that is what I can tell you about it, considered that I used the two for a very short time...Actually I had some some sacred problem during simulation. I've never been able to take off properly. and if I ever did, the flight went quite short. at the end I disinstalled the game and stopped trying. I was having much more fun in reality and I was quite embarassed seeing my bro, who doesn't fly, having no problem with big planes, and me - on the contrary - stalling after T/O or in base. it was quite frustrating!!!!
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 31, 2006, 11:25:01 PM
Consider yourself lucky, I'd rather fly in real life too, but I can't.

Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: happylanding on June 03, 2006, 01:08:20 PM
Consider yourself lucky, I'd rather fly in real life too, but I can't.
Frank

Sorry I reply so late, just noticed. than, my dear, a big big good luck, hoping you will be able soon to do it also in real life!
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on June 03, 2006, 01:14:12 PM
Np at all, and don't be sorry, I'm not one that gets sad or envy when good things happend to good people, I just sometimes wish I could be with them, but never instead of them so no worries at all :)

Actually I should give an apology since it could be recieved a bit negatively but that wasn't what I wanted. Take care and have fun :)
Frank
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: happylanding on June 03, 2006, 02:11:27 PM
Np at all, and don't be sorry, I'm not one that gets sad or envy when good things happend to good people, I just sometimes wish I could be with them, but never instead of them so no worries at all :)

Actually I should give an apology since it could be recieved a bit negatively but that wasn't what I wanted. Take care and have fun :)
Frank

No worries on your side either! I never met you, but in this forum, and you do not really seem a difficult person to talk with, or a naughty/nasty person, on the contrary…all the contrary!!!! But I can see your point of view: sometimes I get worried about having written something that could be read in a different way from what I mean, the meaning lost in translation!  ;) ;)
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Roland on June 04, 2006, 09:22:09 PM
Frank, now let me tell you one of my stories. This one is for you personally:

As I was young I tried to become a pilot. It was my greatest whish. But at that time I had to wear glasses already. My parents had been not so rich to finance my a licence so I had to try it via the army. But they did not take me on as a pilot due to my glasses. I also had been quite gifted with technical talents, so I became an aircraft engineer. But still I dreamed to become a pilot. It did not work. I went on to earn more money to buy me a licence, should mean, to finance it myself. It didn’t work out ether. In the meantime I became a reasonable engineer and top specialist on the Bell 206 Long Ranger. I also met a wonderful wife and was allowed to be whiteness of the birth of our first son.

Still I tried to become a pilot. I went to Africa to earn even more money to make my dreams come true. Down in Port Harcourt (PHC)  I became a specialist on the AS 365 Dauphin and could track and balance this second to none. So I flew a lot. This helo. As an engineer on the second seat. I got support from the pilots there to become a pilot to do maintenance test flights. All was set up perfectly. I spoke to my chef engineer, the operations manager, senior training pilot.

Than, one morning, very early, I had to do a track and balance flight to get an aircraft ready for the regular business which started at eight o’clock in the morning. A lot of pressure was on to get the job done right in a very short time (sun raises at seven in PHC). We took off and I did my things. On the way back I always was allowed to land the Dolphin. At this morning my thoughts went off with the track and balance problem and how I get this problem fixed in that short time available. I did a lot but not flying the helo. So I slammed it into the ground. The PIC took over right in time and gave be a big blow. Without his reaction I would have destroyed the Dauphin and killed myself and all on board. Ashamed I went away.

Then I started to think. I found that this will happen again, if I fly on my own. I had to make a decision: ether be a good engineer or a good pilot. To become a good pilot I found for myself I’m to old already. So I sat there and decided to drop my wishes and plans, to save the money, and to survive. Today I’m still glad with my decision. I went on to be a good engineer on the Dauphin and did a lot of perfect track and balance jobs. With flying the Dauphin back to base. I got lessons to fly this helo. I learned how to taxi, how to take off, to hover, to fly. I had a great time on the second seat. Thanks to all who let me do it.

I just want to give an other perspective to you. With this story I don’t want to talk you out of your dreams. Never-ever! All I try to is to take some strain. Key Sarah, Sarah, what ever will be, will be. The future is not ours to see, key Sarah, Sarah.
Title: Re: Flight Sim
Post by: Frank N. O. on December 08, 2006, 05:47:00 AM
I'm sure I read it, but I must've forgotten to reply to this. Thank you for the post, it's very insightful and confirms what I've already analyzed about myself (a natural skill of mine that I surely got from my dad and one that's extremely useful) and I know my limits and what conditions I need for me to do certain tasks (this varies with the circumstances and how hard/important the task is, driving on icy roads while being tailgated by a truck is hard and important, arranging my desk less so, just to give an example).

If I ever even get close to a flying machine again I know I'll never get to fly a 747 or Concorde, but I don't want to either, at least not as PIC, maybe a passenger, and also my dreams aren't that wild compared to others, they may dream of a mansion, a Ferrari and a Gulfstream, I'm more of a nice house made to suit my use, a Ford/Subaru sedan with no more power/equipment than I need, and a Cardinal/Commander (ok the first and last both seem totally unoptainable, even just one of them but those are my highest dreams and my dreams are usually made to be realised, not just dreamt about).

I've had several shocks close to me this week but I'm trying to relax my nerves and regain concentration, and it seems to be helping. I've had bad times before so I've learned to read myself when I need to rest and not do anything with consequences, sort of like damage control when having a depression and sorrow spell that I know will stop in a few days from past experience. I'm still trying to live, still trying to enjoy life, I just need to find a place to do it, but life is vast so there are a lot of things to consider, but I'm still trying. I've got some questions out atm for how to live and what work I might get that I am capapable of and that I might enjoy, which is what I need to do to give it my best, and I got some searchers out for helping me and my mom, and we're already well underway getting that bad Peugeot replaced with a better car that's also cheaper to run in some areas (lower insurance (although I have no idea how a Subaru AWD can be cheaper than a small Peugeot 1.4) and the county pays the annual owner's tax since it'll be a handicap car).

And now back on topic, has anyone tried FSX? I'm sad to see Rod Machado is no longer the instructor, but the missions are great fun and very varied, from stunt flying to CAP and rescue missions, emergency tests, test flying etc. etc. and there are tools included (in the Deluxe Version) that has everything needed to create all kinds of add-ons, and it seems the SDK's are even better and easier to use than before.

Frank
Real Time Web Analytics