All Comments
Date: 1/27/2005 11:16:39 PM
Author: rvmeder
... OK - let's start something else that's good and contraversial, 'cause this subject's been talked to death. Like if we think it's a great idea to fly VFR in 3 miles visibility (three guesses as to where I stand on that topic!).
Awe, c'mon, if it's legal that must mean it's safe, right?
Anyway, click here for the new topic!
Chad
(I’m not an aeronautical engineer, or even a very experienced pilot, but it seems that this would only be true if it were possible for the aircraft to instantaneously rotate 180° about its vertical axis so that it was suddenly oriented differently in the air mass. This is not a possible turn (that I know of). In practice, we bank the aircraft and fly a path through (i.e. along with) the moving air mass, around that floating balloon he referred to, so our airspeed doesn’t change.) Quote by Chad.
We are on the same track, here is some food for thought.
You have an airplane that can accelerate from 0 to 60 knots in 20 seconds at full power.
You are flying at 120 knots TAS into a 30-knot wind. If you turn your airplane 180-degress at a standard rate of 3-degrees a second around a floating balloon, you will have 60 seconds to accelerate 60 knots. no problem. Airspeed will remain the same and the acceleration will be steady.
If you use ground reference for the same turn, the acceleration for the first 90-degrees will be about 26.3 knots. The acceleration for the last 90-degrees will be about 33.7 knots.
If you are using 50% power and it takes 60 seconds to accelerate 60 knots, the airspeed will remain the same in the first 90-degrees of turn, but in the last 90-degrees there is going to be a loss of airspeed.
Have a Good Day and take care------------------old Ron
The more I think about it, I realize it may have been a mistake to bring up the theoretical “turning 180° on a dime†scenario. In that scenario, the airplane is yawing (i.e. rotating about its vertical axis) suddenly. Airplanes don’t like yaw. Large amounts of yaw can make them not fly because the wing is being repositioned relative to the airflow, so the air isn’t flowing over the wing properly anymore. Large amounts of yaw would be bad, regardless of the winds. This is why I suggest that maybe I shouldn’t have brought this up, because this scenario would indeed cause an airfoil to stop flying, but it has nothing to do with turning away from wind, just turning away from the relative airflow, which you never do in a normal banked turn.
Date: 1/29/2005 6:28:26 PM
Author: Old Ron
... You have an airplane that can accelerate from 0 to 60 knots in 20 seconds at full power. You are flying at 120 knots airspeed into a 30-knot wind. If you turn your airplane 180-degress at a standard rate of 3-degrees a second around a floating balloon, you will have 60 seconds to accelerate 60 knots. …
I have to question your premise. I don’t have to accelerate 60 knots in this situation, at least not relative to the air mass in which I’m flying. My airplane is being carried along in the air mass much like a fish in a stream. I can turn any which way I like in that air mass, no matter how fast it is moving with respect to the ground and it will not affect the flyability of the airplane.
If we make the situation a little more extreme just for fun, let’s say I’m flying along at maximum weight at a fairly low power setting at 70 knots into a headwind of 40 knots (suppose I’m inspecting a field in a 172 for a precautionary landing). My apparent speed against the ground (which has nothing to do with if the wing will fly) is only 30 knots, well below the stall speed. (I’ve done this; it’s kind of cool. In fact I’ve been in a situation where I’ve hardly been moving at all with respect to the ground. Turns in any direction were still fine. But I’m getting ahead of myself.) If I then perform a 180° turn, leaving the power alone, and keeping airspeed constant, my airplane will indeed start to accelerate with respect to the ground, but there is nothing I or my airplane are doing to effect this acceleration, nor does the relative airflow over the wings change at all. I will accelerate to 100 knots over the ground now, but the airspeed (all that matters for flying), is still 70 knots. As our airspeed has remained at 70 knots the whole time, our margin of safety above the stall speed is also the same (bearing in mind that the stall speed itself changed during the turn because of the bank, but that has nothing to do with which way you turn either).
I think some of the confusion here is because of a basic lack of appreciation for how airplanes turn. They bank in the direction of the turn and then fly a curved path through the air mass (which may or may not be moving relative to the ground, which we care nothing about unless we are landing). They do not normally yaw (which means to rotate about the vertical axis) in the direction of turn in the way that an automobile does. Like I’ve said, if you were to suddenly yaw a lot, that would be dangerous. This is why airplanes have vertical stabilizers. The airplane can cope with small amounts of yaw by accelerating, this time with respect to the air mass, as you’ve been explaining.
However, I’m beginning to think that even this is irrelevant to the downwind turning debate, because extreme amounts of yaw would be equally dangerous in any air mass, with any groundspeed, regardless of the direction of the yaw, whether into the wind or away from it.
But in a normal, banked turn, as long as the airplane would be able to maintain a constant airspeed in calm air, it would be able to do so in air that was moving 200 knots over the ground (i.e. a wind), too. Even if we’re banking at 60° and just barely above the stall speed for the configuration and conditions, it will still make no difference if we’re in a wind or not, and if so, in which direction the turn is. And as long as you maintain that constant airspeed, and that airspeed is above the stall speed, you keep flying.
As Peter was trying to get at in his article, it’s all about frames of reference. Once we’re in a moving air mass, the ground is not a useful frame of reference anymore, at least not with respect to the flying characteristics of the airplane. It is a useful frame of reference for answering such questions as “are we there yet†and “do we have enough fuel to get thereâ€, but that’s it.
My wife beckons, and I don’t know if I can do any more to explain this anyway.
Cheers,
Chad
You are flying at 120 knots airspeed into a 30-knot wind
That is impossible.
You are either flying at 120kts IAS/CAS/TAS or you are not. Your relative velocity to the airstream is 120kts. Since your relative velocity to the airstream is 120kts, it doesn't matter what way you turn or fly.
Your groundspeed might be 90kts, but that is irrelevant.
cconrad definitely has some key points there;
"But in a normal, banked turn, as long as the airplane would be able to maintain a constant airspeed in calm air, it would be able to do so in air that was moving 200 knots over the ground (i.e. a wind), too. Even if we’re banking at 60° and just barely above the stall speed for the configuration and conditions, it will still make no difference if we’re in a wind or not, and if so, in which direction the turn is. And as long as you maintain that constant airspeed, and that airspeed is above the stall speed, you keep flying"
And I'll add a little tidbit;
You can fly a C152 backwards in slow flight given ~40kt winds aloft. That kind of blows the whole idea out of the water....
OK - I haven't seen the article yet (for reasons too convoluted to go into here, my mail arrives in one city and gets relayed to another, and, no, I'm not in the witness protection program), but I'll bet that it says, in effect, "MS Flight Simulator or an approved PC-ATD is a cost effective way to stay sharp on your instrument skills..." or whatever. No problem - they are. I've even recommended PC simulators to students to practice instrument procedures at home on the cheap. I've used a Frasca 142 as one of the greatest torture devices invented by modern man, not to mention running failure scenarios that I wouldn't or can't do in the real airplane ("OK, we're at decision height here, so I'm just gonna pull the mixture on the left one real quick..."). I'd love to get my hands on a full motion simulator for that matter, both for training my students and for my own benefit.
Actually, I was just responding to the whole idea of substituing MS-FS for the real deal. And no, I don't use that product, 'cause I really don't like the way the airplanes "fly." I'm not a test pilot by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the Jepps product is closer in behavior, although I can't put my finger on why I feel that way. Anyway, lots of my students have practiced at home using FS for instrument procedures with good effect, so I'm not entirely prejudiced.
Date: 3/1/2005 7:53:25 PM
Anonymous Wrote:
In response to rvmeder's reply ''Why simulate when you can fly for real?'' May I turn your attention to Jay Hopkins's article ''Training'in the March 2005 issue.
I too haven't seen the article yet (I've been out of town, and Flying takes a little longer to get up to Canada anyway). But I would also agree that such simulations have their place both for some procedures training and for entertainment.
But, having done both, for me the PC deal is just no where nearly as fun, beautiful, or soul satisfying as the real thing. Hence, why simulate when you can fly for real? I'd say simulating is great for when you can't fly for real. (Like when my wife has told me that I've converted enough cash into CO2 and H2O for a while...
Now give me some time in one of those simulators the airlines use and I'd change my story maybe. But then those cost more per hour than 172 time...
Chad
Now give me some time in one of those simulators the airlines use and I'd change my story maybe. But then those cost more per hour than 172 time...
Yep, they are that good. When you get in one you might as well tell yourself it is for real, because it is going to fool you so well that it will see "more real" than real. Hard to explain, but definitely fun and a great experience.
I've done extensive 727 and some 737.
If you are looking for a little time for cheap in an airline's full motion I suggest you visit www.b737.com.
Date: 3/9/2005 12:25:20 AM
Author: Stryker
Yep, (the full motion simulators) are that good. ... If you are looking for a little time for cheap in an airline's full motion I suggest you visit www.b737.com.
Very cool! Now I have to convince my wife that Houston is a good vacation destination, and that it's a good idea for me to leave her alone for a whole weekend.
Assuming I could pass that hurdle, I wonder if they would take a Canadian pilot?
Very cool! Now I have to convince my wife that Houston is a good vacation destination, and that it's a good idea for me to leave her alone for a whole weekend.
Assuming I could pass that hurdle, I wonder if they would take a Canadian pilot?
Funny you should say that, there was a gentleman in my class from australia (but living in San Francisco) that had a hell of a time getting into the class. There's something about the TSA that requires you to submit a request to get clearence to take the course, and then from the day you submit it would be good for 60 days...if the TSA let you take the training, the catch was that they took so long to come back with an answer that the 60 days would almost be up and there'd be almost no time to take the dang class/training. This is probably a question best left to the guy that runs the ATOP program, he could probably give you some good information on this. It may be easier being a citizen of Canada, as relations with the US are always good and it's on the same continent, but that is just speculation. I can't say anything definite, only that this guy from Australia had a heck of a time getting into the class.
Definitely ask Wayne Phillips (I think that's his name) that runs the program, he's a great guy and should be able to give you some information.
Date: 3/30/2005 7:02:01 PM
Anonymous Wrote:
This (rvmeder) is just what i would call a fool.
I think he needs a woman..
Aircuna
Well, Aircuna, I happen to know rvmeder, and he is a really nice guy, very accomplished pilot, and nobody's fool! I don't know what brought on your statement, but it shows your immaturity and lack of judgement to be sure.
rvmeder is, in fact, one of the absolute best CFI's I've ever had the honor to fly with, and a genuine nice guy. I've had disagreements with people's opinions on this board, but there is NOTHING that warrants such a harsh personal critism as you have levied. I was very tempted to report your posting to the board moderators as being abusive.
rvmeder is right on the mark with his posts, and I have never found anything but sage advice and good spirited participation with his posts. I can't say the same for yours.
I've never seen anything from him that I would consider "nasty" in the slightest. He's extremely passionate about flying, and gives honest opinions based on his experience (which is quite significant indeed). Perhaps you are misconstruing that passion for something that it's not. One day you may find yourself in a situation where you will be grateful for a CFI that won't sugar coat things.... it literally can, or rather WILL, save your life one day!
I would recomend you steer clear of personal barbs. Technical disagreements are fine, and we all will debate things here. I just had one such debate relating to uncertified equipment being used in small GA cockpits and their possible effects on certified equipment. If you read through it, there may be technical emphasis on various points, but nowhere did anyone degenerate things into name calling and inferences as to the need for a mating ritual as you did.
By the way, rvmeder is married, happily, to a wonderful woman that I also know.... so your wise crack was highly unappreciated.
Take a deep breath, step back, and if you want to disagree with someone, fine. But we can all disagree without being disagreeable... agreed?!
Date: 3/30/2005 7:02:01 PM
Anonymous Wrote:
This (rvmeder) is just what i would call a fool.
I think he needs a woman..
Aircuna
Even if I agreed with you on Mr Meder; and I whole heartedly disagree for obvious reasons that some others on this forum have already listed, your comment is extremely derogatory towards women and certainly not welcome.
Ameet
All I'm saying is, just please take into consideration that a good percentage of the individuals that post on this forum only can dream of being able to pilot an aircraft.
If you suffer from some sort of condition that limits your physical capacity to keep something as simple as your conscienceness, you are putting your life and the life of your passengers in serious jeopardy. "AND IT DOESN'T TAKE AN ACCOMPLISHED PILOT TO FIGURE THAT OUT."
Firstly, nobody is trying to deal a nasty blow to anyone here who has a dream of flying. Especially someone that has a medical condition that would prevent one from achieving that goal. If your situation is such that you can not medically qualify, then I'm sure we all sympathize with you on that point.
I have had my own medical issues that kept me grounded for quite a while, so I can indeed say that I know what it's like to want to be up there, and not being allowed to do so. In my case I eventually proved to the FAA that I was fit and ready to fly. It sounds like you are not quite in that situation, and on that point, I am sorry and you have my empathy.
The fact remains that all anyone is asking you to do on here is to remain civil in your tone. I am more than happy to talk about flying with anyone at any time. I'm no expert at it by any means, but I will be happy to discuss whatever within my realm of qualifications, or refer someone to one that has such qualifications. If anyone ever tells you they know everything about flying... they're lying! I don't care if someone on here has 200 hours, or 2000+ hours, everyone, even non-pilots, should realize there is always one more thing to learn... at a minimum. We all take advice from one another, and we do so in a spirit of commeradre and co-operation. Even when we disagree with one another, or have personality conflicts, we all still remain open to the issues raised and will be happy to discuss same without degenerating into personal attacks.
Hopefully you will prefer to remain on this board and participate in a civil fashion. If you can do that, I'm sure we all will welcome your participation.
A note to Anonymous:
You have obviously touched a nerve by making a statement against someone that many of us greatly respect. Having met and flown with RV, I can also add acolades to this post, but I can't say anything that hasn't already been said better by someone else.
My advice is simple. If you are going to make a barb towards someone with malice or in jest, add some emoticons. Text doesn't have inflections so we can't tell if you're trying to pick a fight or joking. If it's the latter, no one will fault you since we all appreciate a joke. If it's the former, there are a whole lot of people in here (myself included) that will jump to his aide and rip you a new one.
One other thing...Grow a pair and post your name. It's just so cowardly to take swings at people from the dark.
Date: 4/6/2005 3:30:12 PM
Anonymous Wrote:
Ok guys this is the final draw.
I call myself Aircunalingus because i met a flight attendant from Spain on my way to Shannon Ireland on (Airlingus)
All i intended to do was kiss the Blarney Stone, and may i include that my vacation took a drastic change.
We spent 3 erotic days traveling from Limrick to Waterford in a drunken sexual stuper.
Since then, i have taken to the skies more often...
We flew back to the states together and we see eachother often.
UNLESS YOU GOT IT AT 35,000 FEET!!!
HAHAH GUYS ENJOY YOUR FORUM.....IT WAS FUN BUSTING YOUR BALLS.....
P.S. THE ABOVE STORY IS TRUE....
GOLF CLAP!!
Do you know what that is? I mean, other than something the doctor gave you antibiotics for once you were done with the flight attendant. That's all you're getting for your trouble.
I wish this software allowed me to use all of the explatives I could think to call you right now. I don't honestly know what kind of response you expected when you came on to this board and start talking smack about someone you don't know, but all of us respect.
P.S. Any anecdote that includes the words ''this is a true story'is usually a lie.
Wanna guess which finger I'm holding up for you?
Date: 4/6/2005 3:54:56 PM
Author: Master Yoda
Date: 4/6/2005 3:30:12 PM
Anonymous Wrote:
Ok guys this is the final draw.
I call myself Aircunalingus because i met a flight attendant from Spain on my way to Shannon Ireland on (Airlingus)
All i intended to do was kiss the Blarney Stone, and may i include that my vacation took a drastic change.
We spent 3 erotic days traveling from Limrick to Waterford in a drunken sexual stuper.
Since then, i have taken to the skies more often...
We flew back to the states together and we see eachother often.
UNLESS YOU GOT IT AT 35,000 FEET!!!
HAHAH GUYS ENJOY YOUR FORUM.....IT WAS FUN BUSTING YOUR BALLS.....
P.S. THE ABOVE STORY IS TRUE....
GOLF CLAP!!
Do you know what that is? I mean, other than something the doctor gave you antibiotics for once you were done with the flight attendant. That's all you're getting for your trouble.
I wish this software allowed me to use all of the explatives I could think to call you right now. I don't honestly know what kind of response you expected when you came on to this board and start talking smack about someone you don't know, but all of us respect.
P.S. Any anecdote that includes the words ''this is a true story'is usually a lie.
Wanna guess which finger I'm holding up for you?
Well said, Master Yoda! It's a shame that someone like that manages to post on here and waste our time and energy on juvenile pranksterism.
Stryker...high five!
Ok, with a little more dignity this time. I want to apologize for my last post. Those kind of comments don't belong on this board and I stooped to the level of the guy who still declined to register before posting. I felt it was necessary at the time to state my feelings in a way he'd understand, however distasteful it may have been.
I just wanted to state that this is not my typical tone, as most of you know, and I look forward to returning this board to its intended purpose.
Date: 4/7/2005 11:30:07 AM
Anonymous Wrote:
I knew you pomous asses would reply..
Try not responding!!
It works
One might recommend that you take your own advice.... and if you are going to continue to sling around juvenile insults, at least use spell check and do it right.
Anonymous User/AirCuna,
Please be careful that you do not post any offensive material on this board. Any comments, when reviewed and found offensive or inappropriate will be removed from the forums. Users must now register before they can post.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Date: 4/9/2005 10:07:02 AM
Author: AirCuna
Admin,
You have my full cooperation anytime!!
Seems the only thing they got accomplished by complaining ''like wash flying woman'was getting me to register on this wonderful and informative forum.
Sorry they had to bother you in the first place!!
AirCuna
Watch your step junior, because next time we'll get your IP banned
"Watch your step junior"
Yoda are you being obtuse?
Please speak for yourself, and not use the term "We'll".
It shows signs of cowardness, and just being plain timid.
This thread was based on Garrison taking 20 minutes to turn around in the aircraft so he dont vomit on the guy sitting at 24c and pass out in his lap.
When you say "We'll" how many people helped you reply?
AirCuna
Date: 4/9/2005 10:07:23 PM
Author: AirCuna
... Please speak for yourself, and not use the term 'We'll'.
It shows signs of cowardness, and just being plain timid. ...
We are really getting tired of the personal character attacks. Nobody asked for you to analyze them to diagnose cowardice (learn English).
And about calling Master Yoda nasty (which I think somebody has since edited out?), give me a break! While it may have been wiser for Master Yoda (and for me now) to just shut up and stop giving you ammunition, he was in no measure nasty in the way you have been.
Your sudden mock-penitent attitude and feigned interest in the original topic do not fool us. You are not welcome. Go away.
Chad Conrad
(My real name, because I'm not afraid of standing behind what I write. Who is the coward?)
Chad,
Give it up already please!!
Cant you tell that i know nothing about flying except (good looking attendants and a little MSFS2004 from time to time.)
I sit here and get a good chuckle at all this and you seem to get angry.
Guess who is having a fun time?
Me!!!!
Now can we please get back to the thread at hand!
You guys got me thinking if i pass wind, i would have to calculate where and who will smell it and at what time will the stench peak in there nose's.
JUST RELAX AND ENJOY THE FORUM...
AirCuna
Brooklyn Ny
Ooops! In your direction Chad!!Sorry
Of course we seem to get angry. Perhaps if you'd stop with the personal insults we would relax. Surely you don't really expect to be able to walk into a room and start insulting people and expect the people to like it. Do you behave this way in "real life" or just in the on-line world? On second thought, don't answer that.
Anyway, let's have a truce: No more obnoxious posts from you, and we'll stop getting uptight.
Chad
Date: 4/10/2005 7:24:25 PM
Author: AirCuna
... was Garrison serious about taking all that time to turn around after going to the restroom? ...
Well that, of course, is what this whole argument has been about. His point, as many of us have tried to explain in this thread, is that just as it doesn't matter which direction you turn when you're in a moving train or airplane, it also does not matter which direction you turn your airplane in a moving air mass, ie, wind.
Yes, we were sure that Peter was not serious. But apparently many, many people did not get the joke.
So, on page 106 of the March 2005 issue, Peter removes all doubt:
... My article entitled "The Last Word on Downwind Turns, Really," which appeared in the January issue and seemed like a joke, was a joke. ... My claim that turning around in the aisle of an airliner could result in serious injuryâ€"because of the 1,000-mph change in direction involvedâ€"seemed to me so ludicrous that it could not be taken for anything other than what it was, namely a satire of certain pre-Newtonian misconceptions, prevalent enough among pilots, about downwind turns. ... Let me be perfectly clear. There is no danger of being hurled against the aft bulkhead of a 767 if you change your mind about which restroom you want to go to. There is no danger of ending up flat on your face if you turn around in a moving train. There is no danger of getting a whiplash injury from looking over your shoulder to check traffic before changing lanes. And there is no danger of stalling when turning downwind. None. Really. ...
Hope that helps.
Chad
No, he was not serious - it was a sarcastic ariticle written in response to one of the greatest myths and misunderstandings in aviation. Without rehashing all of the posts that everyone's put up, this is probably one of the most frustrating misconceptions for an instructor or aerodynamicist to overcome. For some reason, even some experienced pilots are convinced that the downwind turn means a loss of airspeed. That simply is not the case. In steady winds, or winds with a smooth gradient as you climb, the wing doesn't know or care about the direction of the wind - it is merely flying through a parcel of air. This is much the same as walking up and down the aisle of an airliner - you don't know or care that your speed relative to the ground is increasing or decreasing.
The reason we get so adamant about this is twofold - first, it shows a complete misunderstanding of the physics of flight. This is, in itself, not bad. However, to continue, this misunderstanding on the part of a pilot could be fatal. Not so much in the "downwind" area, because the extra airspeed would just be sloppy technique, but because, more fundamentally, that pilot doesn't understand how the plane flies. The consequence occurs when pilots that are used to low terrain airports decide to go to, say, Denver. Because the air is much less dense, the true airspeed of the airplane is higher. However, the wing and airspeed indicator don't "know" this. What then happens is that the pilot, looking out the window, reacts to the speed of the terrain going by under his nose and slows the aircraft down to "normal" speeds. Thus, although the speed across the ground may now be 65 knots, the airspeed may now be down to 55 or less - getting very close to a stall, and certainly generating high sink rates. Similarly, a pilot may force the airplane into the air before it's ready, and get stuck in what's called ground effect. The consequence of this is that the airplane won't climb and will collide with terrain or structures at the end of the runway (BTW, the same thing can happen when landing or departing with a slight tailwind or extremely high density altitudes caused by high temperatures even at low-altitude airports).
Garrison's article, I believe, was just an attempt by him to be so over the top as to kill the topic. But then Chuck Jones' and Bob McKimson's goal with the first "Road Runner" short was to create the chase cartoon to end all chase cartoons - and look what happened there.
That was a very thorough and in depth answer to my question.
I must admit, I am a little preturbed at myself for even entertaining the idea that he wasn't joking.
Please know I am truly sorry for any personal attacks that I may have directed towards anyone on the forum.
The one thing that really got me going is when I read a post from a user that recommended MSFS 2004 and rvmeder
took a stab at him/her by saying he doesn't need to check it out, "I fly for real" or something close to that.
That's it guys! other than that, someone else on the forum, mentioned that he really wishes he could hear someone's tone of voice when they post. That would settle all feelings of doubt as well.
Please know that I feel all you folks on here are very informative as well as EXTREMELY KNOWLEDGABLE, even for a small time dreamer like myself that has to live that dream infront of a keyboard rather then real thing.
I only wish i could have the monetary means to achive what most of you have.If you smell jealousy your absolutely correct.I want to once again apologize to all.
God Bless You All And keep you Safe in The Skies
Johnny
Brooklyn,Ny
All right - all hard feelings aside. I went back over the posts, and I was responding, specifically, to a post by ka2zme (I think that's the spelling) suggesting that I get faster computers, etc., and insinuating that I've lost touch with the progress made in home computing (or desktop computing in general) since the ''80's. What really frosted me, though, was the comment "and add a few knots on downwind anyway." I am far from the best pilot that's ever flown, but that kind of advice I don't need.
I have nothing against any of the flight simulator programs. I just lose patience with them for a variety of reasons, probably because I spend a good part of my other life, outside of flight instructing, in a fairly abstract universe of keyboards, screens, and telephones. In fact, I don't really like any of the reality games or simulators, mainly because of that fact (other than hitting a few websites, a really good night to me is spending time with my wife and going to a good country western dancehall).
Anyway, if somebody likes the simulators and uses them, great. I've even recommended them, as I've said elsewhere on this forum, to my students as a way of practicing instrument procedures on the cheap. I myself like to use a Frasca to practice, because the controls and gauges are (kind of) "real", although it is a PC-based system. My comment was certainly not a shot at all simmers - just the one.
BTW, take a look elsewhere at my posts on the topic of MS-FS. A lot of my fellow instructors, both older and younger (just out of college) complain about the same issue with FS-users learning to fly real airplanes - we can't get them to look outside! We have an entire generation of self-taught instrument pilots, which is really not a good thing at all, for a lot of reasons that have been posted elsewhere.
Date: 4/10/2005 10:42:12 PM
Author: AirCuna
... a small time dreamer like myself that has to live that dream infront of a keyboard rather then real thing.
I only wish i could have the monetary means to achive what most of you have....
Well don't stop dreaming. I grew up fairly poor but I always had a nagging desire to learn to fly. It never seemed practical until my amazing wife gave me my first couple of lessons as a birthday present when I turned 30. Somehow we figured out how to pay for a private licence and night rating, and it is a dream come true. (I don't think I've ever cried before or since at a birthday present.)
But it is addictive. The more I learn the more I want to learn.
So, anyway, if it seems impossible right now, just keep dreaming. That's certainly some of the fun. Maybe some day it won't be impossible.
Chad
Johnny/Aircuna,
Apology accepted.
Just an FYI... I got my start in flying back in 1985. I was not rich, nor am I now. I do a lot of different things to be able to afford flying, including not doing a lot of other things to be able to squeak by and afford flight and instructor time. Like any endeavor, sometimes one has to make sacrafices in other areas in order to pursue a given goal. At the time I got my PPL, I had been fortunate enough (and young enough) to have still been living at home with my parents, and driving their cars. I didn't have to worry about food, lodging, tranportation, etc., so guess where the money that would otherwise have gone to that went? :) To put it in constrast, while inflation accounts for some parity in costs, I used to fly a C-152 II for my initial training, and it was $35 per hour ... wet... and that was an instrument equipped one (which meant a second VOR and GS needle on #1 VOR). Back then, a C-172 rented for $43 on average on the field! Today you can't really find too many using the C-152 for training at the field I fly out of, and the C-172's now run between $85 and $110 depending on equipment and age.
Yes... it can be frustrating, and expensive. But it is doable. You may want to see if you can do just an intro flight with an instructor sometime, so you can at least experience it in the real thing from the left seat. I think you'll find that while the technical procedures are closely emulated by MS FS 2004, the tactile sensations are completely another thing, and you really have to work to stay ahead of the aircraft, especially at first. I know you may not be in a position to go ahead and afford your intial training, but most places can arrange an intro flight relatively inexpensively to at least get you up in the real thing. You might want to check out the website for Be A Pilot. They have a certificate you can download that will get you an intro flight for only $49. The website link is: www.beapilot.com.
Hope this helps get you exposed to the real thing in a manner that is not cost prohibitive.
Glad to have you participating on the board without acrimony again. Looking forward to your participation.
Sincerely,
Bob Greenfield (aka Ted_Stryker)
With the money I have spent upgrading and buying new computers I could have had my license a long time ago. Anyway, if you have not checked out the latest fs2004 you should. Its come a long way since the 80's. Caution you will need a fast pc to enjoy. Happy Flying and add a few knots on the downwind turn anyway haha
Brian
RVMEDER maby you didnt notice the HAHA on the end, I was not giving you advice, I WAS JOKING, HENCE THE HAHA ON THE END!!!!!!! Happy Flying!!!!!!!
Brian-ka2zme
Top Rated
Tip of the Week
brought to you by
Take extra care to avoid activities that might detract from flying.
Partner Pages
