[Aus-soaring] air sickness in sims
Hi. Ive been fortunate enough to have a few goes in some big, full motion simulators. The range of movment they can achieve is scary to look at when you are outside the sim in the control room. Inside with motion turned on, they feel ALMOST real. They do acceleration, (ie pwr and braking) obviously pitching and rolling and also yaw. The problem is, that although they simulate most of these very well, they are still somewhat plastic. And for someone used to what actually happens in the real world it confuses your senses a fair bit. My experience is that this cant quite put my finger on whats wrong here feeling made me a little nausious. It passes but is rather weird to get used to. It is pretty cool to be flying such a big, heavy plane though. especailly when moderate turbulence is dialed in :-) James. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
Does anyone here have a good flight sim or Condor ? How about doing some turnbacks and getting back to us with the results. I don't have a flight sim on my PC anymore. All seems tame after taking out 5 Iranian Mirage 2000's with the gun on the MiG 29 (IR missiles were too easy) before backing into the sixth one. He cancelled burner and popped the speedbrakes to cause me to overshoot. I was a little too slow to do the same but he ran into the back of me. Mike At 02:55 PM 17/09/2008, you wrote: They don't think the optimum is 60 degrees though. Yep, I found that interesting too. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
Texler, Michael wrote: To throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Thanks Michael, This pigeon admits to being quite alarmed by some aspects of these papers =-O . Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180 (if required). Any comments or disagreements? OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument). I certainly won't poo-poo it, because I'm not strong on scientific and reasoned discussions with professors who are clearly expert in their field. As Mike says .They did the math.. Therefore as an exercise on paper it is quite credible. Unfortunately however, math or not, the history is that a lot of people who have attempted this option died in so doing. This suggests that whatever the math might say, it's a helluva risky manoeuvre which frequently fails to work out as the theory suggests.The concept might be plausible, even convincing, but this is no consolation if you are in the wreckage, or perhaps worse, if you are one of those who is put in the dreadful position of being the second or third person on the scene of the accident. (The first person BTW is the pilot - the second may be the instructor who was demonstrating the exercise). The difference between theory and practise is often much greater than the theory would suggest. IMHO this one such situation. As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, but a pilot with lesser ability (or experience - probably both) sees it done once effectively by the club hotshot, programs himself to consider the same option if it happens to him, but when it does, he is 50 feet lower, 5 knots slower in speed, about the same number of seconds behind what the aircraft is thinking, and a tad excessive with the rudder... You can guess the rest. It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield. That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often very dramatically. Terry (With apologies for possibly excessive cynicism, but pigeons can be like that if the cat is significant ) http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path. P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
Agree Terry. Mike Valentine would have said 'This type of maneuver should always be watched from a safe distance' Terry Neumann wrote: Texler, Michael wrote: To throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Thanks Michael, This pigeon admits to being quite alarmed by some aspects of these papers =-O . Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180 (if required). Any comments or disagreements? OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument). I certainly won't poo-poo it, because I'm not strong on scientific and reasoned discussions with professors who are clearly expert in their field. As Mike says .They did the math.. Therefore as an exercise on paper it is quite credible. Unfortunately however, math or not, the history is that a lot of people who have attempted this option died in so doing. This suggests that whatever the math might say, it's a helluva risky manoeuvre which frequently fails to work out as the theory suggests.The concept might be plausible, even convincing, but this is no consolation if you are in the wreckage, or perhaps worse, if you are one of those who is put in the dreadful position of being the second or third person on the scene of the accident. (The first person BTW is the pilot - the second may be the instructor who was demonstrating the exercise). The difference between theory and practise is often much greater than the theory would suggest. IMHO this one such situation. As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, but a pilot with lesser ability (or experience - probably both) sees it done once effectively by the club hotshot, programs himself to consider the same option if it happens to him, but when it does, he is 50 feet lower, 5 knots slower in speed, about the same number of seconds behind what the aircraft is thinking, and a tad excessive with the rudder...You can guess the rest. It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield. That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often very dramatically. Terry (With apologies for possibly excessive cynicism, but pigeons can be like that if the cat is significant ) http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path. P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
Thanks Terry, Unfortunately however, math or not, the history is that a lot of people who have attempted this option died in so doing. To make such a statement, you need to know the of people who have died doing this manoevure divided by number of times the manoevure is performed. I am sure that we don't hear about the majority of people that have performed this manoevure successfully without incident. As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. What would you do if there was no land ahead option (i.e. wooded area)? Landing in trees is not a low risk manoevure either. The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, The paper presented placed student pilots in the simulator as well. The point being made is that a pilot of average skill with appropriate training can do this manoevure safely. Thermalling turns are done at 45 degree AOB and at lower airspeed! Hence 45 degree AOB at 1.5 x Vs level (in other words at safe speed near the ground), should be a manoevure that a solo standard pilot can acheive. Again this underscores practicing the manoevure at altitude and making sure that the student can get it right. programs himself to consider the same option if it happens to him, We should all have our launch failure options clear in our minds during our pre take-off check. You can guess the rest. This is why a pilot should not be sent solo if they do not have good speed control, especially near the ground. It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield. That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often very dramatically. As I have said repeatedly, if you can land ahead safely, do so. This covers the situation where you can't. I am sure you could make the converse argument, seeing the wreckage in unlandable terrain off the end of the runway would be equally as sad. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] Turn backs.
Hi all, Terry said: As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. Having done the exercise several times myself from 200', and seen both my son and another junior complete it multiple times, I am surprised at the attitude shown by some towards it. I at no stage felt it was unsafe, perhaps trying it would be an idea to have a go before expressing an opinion gentlemen?. Consider, from 65 kt one can still do a 180 and need a substatial ammount of airbrake to land. A 180 takes about 10 seconds. To hit the ground one would have to have a sink rate of greater than 12kt, disregarding the approx 100 ft margin slowing from 65kt to 55kt gives. If the air over the runway was sinking at this rate, takeoff would be impossible (Climb rate behind a 265hp pawnee is less than 10kt) After all there is not always a suitable paddock at the end of the runway, just as land ahead is not always an option. Regards Dave L _ Are you paid what you're worth? Find out: SEEK Salary Centre http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fcareer%2Dresources%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Asc%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext_t=764565661_r=OCT07_endtext_salary_m=EXT___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] air sickness in sims
James, if you did get sick imagine how long you would last when the motion and the visuals get out of phase. 3 experienced crew sick within 5 minutes. some people have problems sitting in the middle seat of a sim as the variation in visual cues really knocks them around. Peter Heath james dutschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. Ive been fortunate enough to have a few goes in some big, full motion simulators. The range of movment they can achieve is scary to look at when you are outside the sim in the control room. Inside with motion turned on, they feel ALMOST real. They do acceleration, (ie pwr and braking) obviously pitching and rolling and also yaw. The problem is, that although they simulate most of these very well, they are still somewhat plastic. And for someone used to what actually happens in the real world it confuses your senses a fair bit. My experience is that this cant quite put my finger on whats wrong here feeling made me a little nausious. It passes but is rather weird to get used to. It is pretty cool to be flying such a big, heavy plane though. especailly when moderate turbulence is dialed in :-) James. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
