lnuss

OK, thanks -- I'd missed that.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but what does Logitech have to do with a Saitek yoke?

Unfortunately, the lack of spinnable aircraft is more than just a problem with insufficient rudder authority. A friend (now deceased) managed to make a number of FSX/P3D aircraft spinnable and slippable (among other improvements), and told me that center of gravity, various yaw effects (in the .air and .cfg files) and several other parameters needed to be modified, each found by experiment/testing on each individual aircraft -- there was no one-size-fits-all solution. He spent from 50 to, in some cases, well over a hundred hours of experiments and testing on each aircraft he changed, and that's after spending the last 20 years or so learning about what makes a Microsoft FS-type aircraft tick. So many things that you change will affect many other things, as well. He sure had more patience than I ever could. He was a real world pilot and flight instructor with more than 10,000 hours in a large variety of aircraft, and had a very analytical mind.

FSX runs better on my I7 machine that I bought new in 2010 than your description implies that you see on your newer and supposedly more powerful system. And I have lots of ORBX and other stuff. However I've been running P3D V2.4 also, for the last several years, and I get better performance with it than with FSX. With FSX I've never seen VAS issues that I could identify as such, and yes, if you're around big cities there are FPS issues, especially if you try to run everything maxed, but in more rural areas (where ORBX really shines) I typically can get FPS in the mid-20s with mid-settings for display. And this is quite sufficient for me to have a smooth animation in most cases, down low with mostly light aircraft (I almost never fly the airliners, and only occasionally a trainer or fighter jet). Also, note that some aircraft are very demanding in their drain on the system, while others are much lighter, so I'll often choose a lighter load that still looks good and (with a friend's mods) flies very well indeed. That's apples and oranges. Any of the MS FS descendents are doing a LOT more processing than the "games" people play, and FSX (and FS9, for that matter) was built before using the graphics card to any extent was incorporated. P3D DOES use the graphics card extensively, even in the earlier versions, so performance is considerably improved. Bottom line, though, is use whatever you want, and don't worry about other folks' choices -- your own choice is good for you.

A sweet-flyin' machine, isn't she... My favorite of the 60 or so types I've flown.

The first thing you should do is to ignore the VSI on a visual approach (and mostly on an IFR approach, as well). Establish the proper approach indicated airspeed (NOT groundspeed)and learn to visually notice where your nose would plow into the ground in a steady state descent (if you didn't flare, that is), which will be the spot that isn't moving either up OR down in the windshield. Slight power adjustments (while holding airspeed constant -- think SMALL changes in power) will let you change that "aim" point. Doing this, the rate of descent will take care of itself, and you'll soon learn to visually identify when things are correct. But I'd do all that in the C-172 first, then move up to, say, a Baron, and get comfortable there, then perhaps to King Air, THEN to a jet. Don't make such a big jump all at once.

You should be able to do both -- they're two entirely separate functions.

Many of you may enjoy this article on Ars Technica about the X-15. There's even a 27 minute NASA video.

Keep in mind that it was originally a WWII Army Air Force trainer, so it didn't need the fancy interior, nor did it need that extra weight. And interior padding wouldn't have affected the sound level, either, since the cockpit is open. Keep in mind that when on the ground you'll see nothing straight ahead, so looking out the side at a 30º to 45º angle, part of the time, comparing what you see in that range on either side, and part of the time looking straight ahead and using peripheral vision to align with the runway, is how you do it in real life. You experienced some of that in your flight, but the view from the front is even more limited than it is from the rear, so it'll be slightly easier from back there. I'd suggest using the VC, not the so-called 2D cockpit, and from the VC my above description works more or less as I described when I'm flying the Dave Eckert Stearman, which I've been simming with for years.

I'm not sure how you'd "gut" a Stearman cockpit. All that I've seen have no inner wall covering, just the inside of the metal/fabric covering of the fuselage with lots of large tubing and a power quadrant mounted on one of the tubes at the left side of the cockpit. Take a look at the pictures in this link and see if that's what you had. Oh, were the stick and rudder pedals removed? They're all you need, perhaps with the airspeed indicator once in a while.

Looks like you had a great time, Kirk. But wooden steps to get on the wing walkway? Wow! Now you know what it looks, feels, sounds and smells like, such a different experience. Did he give you any stick time? Did he do any aerobatics? Now, should you read Richard Bach's book Biplane, or his other book Nothing By Chance, you'll better understand some of the things he says in that book about the 1929 Parks biplane he had then. I'm in...

Nice article -- thanks.

There ARE no FORMER real pilots (unless the FAA has taken some punitive action), although there are many INACTIVE pilots. The difference being that the pilot's certificate (at least in the U.S.) doesn't expire, even though for most operations a current medical is required and always a current flight review is required. So an inactive pilot can get active (we call it current) again by getting a flight review from an instructor and, if required, a current medical certificate.

I suspect that is copyrighted material, so if anyone does it, it probably should be Microsoft. But there are numerous online references for a lot of that material (even Wikipedia), and for free you can go to the FAA Handbook and Manuals web page and find essentially that material plus a LOT more in various books you can download, including the Airplane Flying Handbook, Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Instrument Flying Handbook and many more. There are also many companies selling Private Pilot Ground School material, which covers a lot of the same material, such as Sporty's, King, Jeppesen, Gleim and others. I'd also recommend the book Stick And Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiesche.

Great -- you'll love it. The one I pictured above was a 1943 Boeing PT-13 (same age as me). When you find out, I'd like to know what engine it has (perhaps the Continental 220 HP, or maybe a Jacobs). I presume it has the original fabric fuselage. Enjoy!

Great! I'm happy for you, Kirk. The picture on that shirt looks like a Stearman with a speed ring*. If that's what you're going in, you're in for a real treat! I took this picture in the mid-70s, just north of Albuquerque, looking north towards the Jemez Wilderness west of Santa Fe. It's the Stearman we had on leaseback at Pegasus Aerial Sports in Albuquerque. It had the 300 HP Lycoming with a constant speed prop and a metalized fuselage (a former duster). I got 138 hours in that airplane, giving rides, instructing for checkouts, towing banners, and such. It was a sweet flying machine, though a bit much for many folks in the ground handling. Once you see the world framed by a pair of wings, you'll never look at flying the same again. * A speed ring is the round cowling over the radial engine. On the machine pictured here it cut drag tremendously, changing the descent in the pattern at idle from roughly a 45º angle to roughly a 30-35º angle, so allowing a bit more speed, and an easier time getting over the top on a loop or doing a split-S. You see the plane here without the speed ring. The picture here is with the speed ring. It was taken while taxiing at Coronado Airport (4AC, now defunct, but in FSX) north of Albuquerque.

"aerodynamics and everything that comes with the subject" can get you pretty deep, well beyond high school math, even into college grad level engineering, if you wish, so you might want to narrow it down a bit to something that's more appropriate for modeling and working at the high school level. I'd suggest you start with this Wikipedia page and with this NASA page, both of which were found via googling for "aerodynamics" (without the quotes). There are also a number of resources on faa.gov, such as this page listing handbooks, such as Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators. Wikipedia and NASA websites are likely to have most of what you need, depending on the depth to which you must go for your needs. Or, there are any number of books on the subject at many local libraries, too. And, if you have more specific questions, you can also ask here, where there are any number of real world pilots, many of whom have RC experience. As far as RC goes, googling for "radio controlled planes" gets a tremendous number of hobby shops and manufacturers of both kit and RTF (Ready To Fly) models. Googling for "radio controlled plane plans" also gets a lot of good information for you about plans available to build from. Even if she's supposed to start from scratch (a tougher chore), the plans and kits available may help her decide what route to take. So, for a bit of clarification, does she have to start from scratch, or will a kit do? Does she have to write a treatise on aerodynamics, or just to explain the aerodynamics on a somewhat simpler level, perhaps at the level of a Private Pilot's required knowledge? Perhaps, after looking over some of the above materials, you can get more clarification from the teacher about what level is really needed. And perhaps a local model airplane club can help, too.

None, though that is irrelevant, but I am very aware (as I'm sure you are) that much of South America, much of Europe and Asia, and parts of Africa have rather high mountains. So why is it a radar altimeter, rather than radar height finder? Why is it radar altitude, rather than radar height. Enough -- we disagree, and I'm done. No need to hijack this thread any further.

I see those definitions, and by that document you are, of course, correct. Nor will I dispute your contention that it's an ICAO defintion, as well. You might note that, though I started flying in 1969, and though I've done a lot of instructing over the years, the first time I'd ever come across the QFH/QFE terms is when some UK folks used it on this forum -- by then I'd been flying for over 30 years. These terms are not used in the U.S. because we always set our altimeters relative to MSL. Setting so that the altimeter reads zero on the ground when anywhere but exact sea level, just isn't done. Note that the altimeter probably couldn't be made to read zero in much of the western U.S., and even in some areas in the eastern U.S. It certainly couldn't at my house (5230 MSL) or airports in the area. Or try Leadville, CO around 10,000 MSL. I expect that many (most?) other countries have the same problem that we in the U.S. do, that is, being unable to set the altimeter to zero at many airports. Nor do I understand a reason for doing that, though I know you do it in the U.K. You might note, too, that not all things ICAO necessarily apply in the U.S. -- flight plan forms, just for one example (there are others, of course), though it seems to be drifting in that direction somewhat. We've even recently gone to METARS. In any case, let's go back to trying to clear up the OP's confusion, rather than causing more confusion for him.

I suppose that it depends on the individual. I like rudder pedals in real aircraft, but the sim pedals I've tried are not very good (perhaps the PFC pedals would be good, but I've never even seen them). The sim pedals (CH and Saitek) sit at a different angle and require a totally different foot/ankle motion/position than what real ones do, perhaps trying to accommodate car pedals, or maybe just being cheap. When I first started flying (1969- the Chief in my sig) the pedals were a bit awkward, as is likely to be the case with most anything new, but they soon became (in most aircraft) so second nature that it's been decades since I gave them much thought. On the other hand, I've tried the twist grips in the sim and it's not only awkward, but it's very difficult for me to make the very subtle movements (subtle pressures, actually, I don't usually think about movement as such) that are sometimes needed, and that are simple with proper pedals. It does take some practice with pedals, especially when using the brakes, and it soon becomes second nature to slide your feet up on the toe brakes when needed, too. Heel brakes are, however, another story. On the Aeronca Chief the heel brake pedals were actually mounted on the rudder pedal, making it not too bad, but in most aircraft with heel brakes (Cub, et al) the heel brake pedals are actually mounted in a fixed position on the floor and do not move with the rudder pedals, making their use much more awkward, though the rudder pedals themselves are just fine. On the other hand, I can't use the brakes on the CH pedals I have, since the angle is just way too awkward, so my heels rest on the floor and the balls of my feet rest on what's apparently designed to be a heel rest, so that I can get those subtle pressures when needed, leaving the braking for the "fire button" on the stick. Yes, I use a stick for everything. In real aircraft stick or yoke doesn't much matter to me (I've done a lot of both) so that in the sim I use my preference (stick), not only because it's more natural for flying than a yoke is, but also because with many sticks for the sim there are lots of assignable buttons and axes, making my sim experience almost keyboard free, with it being rare that I have to look away from the screen, whether for view changes, flaps and gear, mixture/prop, speed brakes, trim, etc. all being assigned on my Thrustmaster Warthog, slightly more things than were available on the Saitek X-36 or X-52. Besides, none of the yokes I've tried in the sim have a smooth feel, making control a bit awkward.

We don't use those designations in the U.S. And I'll disagree with you anyway, unless you're telling me that the definitions you use are defined by the UK aviation authority (CAA is it?), since altitude, elevation and height are, sometimes, synonymous and are always describing something similar. All we're really doing is describing different ways of measuring something's distance above something else. I don't think we want to get into the different things here, such as pressure altitude, true altitude, indicated altitude, etc., and in any case we're trying to keep things simple for the average simmer. In fact, in this thread we're just trying to clear up some confusion for the OP, not trying to confuse him more.

So that's what he meant. Then disregard my post.

Is it just the one plane you have trouble with, or is it all of them? I don't know that specific aircraft, but if it's all aircraft then you should go back to the C-172 and take the lessons in the sim, getting proficient in it first, then step your way up. The way aircraft touch down on the main wheels first is by the pilot setting the proper approach speed, then as you near the ground you add a bit of back pressure to raise the nose in what's called a flare. So shortly before touchdown you'll be in a slightly nose high attitude. Perhaps your approach speed is too high, or perhaps you're not flaring just above touchdown.

Hmmm... I didn't see anything about programming in the above posts. I did see suggestions about using ADE (an airport design editor) to create an airport name (you make it up) for that spot so you can get back to it. This is a fairly simple procedure in ADE. You're asking for something that doesn't exist. Read the above posts a bit more carefully, especially that of tiger1962 (Tim). People are telling you that there is NOT an airport there, therefore no airport code, but that it is just a piece of glacier or snow pack on which they can use a ski plane. In real life Alaska, just as in the sim, there are many places where bush planes takeoff and land that are not airports, just places long enough and smooth?? enough for an aircraft -- not even an established runway, just (relatively) smooth ground, which may be heavily sloping on some of them.

I don't know whether the airliners use another form of callout or not, but the callout will certainly be AGL if it is from the radar altimeter. Technically that is above Mean Sea Level (usually referred to as MSL, but almost the same thing), and (for the OP) is from the altimeter which reads barometric pressure and is set to the altimeter setting to compensate for barometer changes over time. Again, technically, the difference is the elevation of the spot immediately below the aircraft where the radar hits. While not much of a difference in flat terrain, the difference when approaching a place like Telluride, CO (KTEX) can be rather considerable.