BigDuke6ixx

Windy is an exmilitary pilot and a current 777 jockey with 10,000hrs, his opinion not good enough? Like I said, I'll bet my house on you being wrong. Instead of desperately trying to prove us wrong, which has taken you down more rabbit holes than a hungry weasel, you should do yourself a favour and at least try to understand why we are correct.

I got mine (No. 43120) last summer and, after a year of use, it's still perfect with no stiction at all. Luck of the draw?

Triples are pretty much redundant for simulators, unless you're flying a drone simulator or do a lot of office work on your PC. VR and a Jetseat is a dream come true for me.

And the FAA section The Effect of Wind continues thusly: In other words, the pilot would not see any crosswind induced slip being registered on her/his slip indicator. But if she/he was low and visual with the ground s/he would notice the crosswind induced drift acting upon her/his ground track. You can try this yourself in DCS of course. Now, you also claim the a headwind increases a plane's airspeed, but the FAA are very clea about this: So, ask yourself this: if a headwind does not add addition airspeed to an aircraft in flight, how can a crosswind cause any yaw? It cannot of course, the FAA are very unambiguous in that they state very clearly that the wind only affects groundspeed and ground track. Is the penny any closer to dropping for you?

You should read this section from page 396: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

Only when in yaw.. As we have been trying to get across to you, the wind (movement of the atmosphere in relation to the ground) is not felt by the aircraft in flight as an aerodynamic force. The only 'wind' that the aircraft in flight feels aerodynamically is the relative wind. The green arrows in that diagram represent the relative wind. The direction of flight of that plane is the inverse on the green arrows. All the wind does is change the ground track and groundspeed.

I don't pretend to know anything about rockets. https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktaero.html

The transient effects produced by gusts and passing through layers within the wind gradient are just that, transient. The misunderstanding is on your side of the argument (yes you have taken sides) and it relates to you not knowing the difference between wind and relative wind. You seem to think that these two forces have a constant, combined aerodynamic effect on a plane in flight. They don't. Wind, movement of an air mass in relation to the ground, only influences navigation, while relative wind, speed of the air as it travels from the nose to the tail, is what generates the aerodynamic force. A crosswind will not overcome or the directional stability of the relative wind. The video you liked to only reinforces what we've been saying.

Why do I care? Well, because wrongheadedness matters in that people are all free to report inaccuracies and bugs in the flight physics. Anyway, some people were grateful for the steer in the right direction.

The wrongheadedness of the above post is just breathtaking and the conclusion at the end mind-numbing.

sad to see that you haven't learnt a single thing. What's your opinion now regarding my statement? Is it correct, yes or no? I said it right at the beginning, it's correct. Note that I haven't done any backsliding at all, unlike you and your side of the argument.

I wonder if the relevant wikipedia articles will be getting anymore sneaky edits? ;)

Relative wind is an aeronautical term. I defined it with a link right at the beginning of this argument and I put a simplified definition in brackets when I replied to you. Anyone well versed in the subject matter would know what it means. Anyone not well versed in the subject matter probably shouldn't be going around and corrected people who are.

There's no room for opinion here, just like there's no room for opinion when it comes to adding up two numbers. You're just spouting pseudo scientific waffle again.

Sorry, but the relative wind is the direction of movement of the atmosphere relative to an aircraft or an airfoil. It is opposite to the direction of movement of the aircraft or airfoil relative to the atmosphere. If the atmosphere just happens to be moving in relation to the ground (wind) that's neither here nor there when it comes to the relative wind.

I'd like you to explain this 1.5mm thing please? For sure if I'm doing a ground referenced turn and there's some wind, then there will be a difference in control input. That has never been disputed. But if it's just an air mass referenced turn, then it will be the same input with wind as with calm air.

This is just ridiculous waffle. But, anyway, explain exactly why there needs to be 1.5mm more?

The pilot would notice these things. Again, you're just blowing smoke.

This is just completely silly now. You're not fooling anyone, not even yourself, with this rubbish.

Obviously the 3rd law is completely relevant because powered aircraft are an excellent example of the application of the third law of motion, it's just that your interpretations were completely and utterly wrong. But your small fin rocket data was completely irrelevant, do you agree?

There's no extra aerodynamic influence from the wind when turning either, I can tell you that much for nothing as well. Apart from the momentary effects from gusts, the wind's influence is purely a navegatinal one.

And what happens with the controls once you up in the cruise and establish on the required heading? You were claiming a few pages back that the crosswind would still push the tail harder than the nose even with full directional stability. You even produced a graphic to 'prove' this point. Are you still insisting that a plane in the cruise will weathervane into the crosswind?

And you stand by this claim that opposite rudder and aileron is required to keep the 'nose pointing straight'?

:smilewink: This is the whole essence of their claim.

Doubling the windspeed will still result in the plane flying straight into the airmass, but the angle relative to the ground vector will increase. A string on the window would still run straight up the windscreen, but the TVV will be deflected more. No, he's claiming that the crosswind component is pushing harder against the tail and causing the nose to yaw in relation to the relative wind. Obviously that is not happening and he is mistaken.