While I'm no engineer, I did work on the engine production line of Toyota for 4 years, the last 2 were on the engine testing bays.

No two engines were ever identical. In particular the power output and emissions they produced where all different. While they were within tolerances and differences were very marginal, there were differences non the less. Multiply this by adding other components to the cars (gearbox, drive train etc.) no two cars rolling off the production line were ever the same. You probably wouldn't notice the difference immediately but as the car was used over time, tolerances become wider as the car loosens up and quirks begin to appear.

Saying that two identical cars / aircraft would perform / feel the same is correct, but only on the drawing board. In real life it's very hard to get two mechanical devices to perform "exactly" the same. There will always be some variation in real world products, otherwise we wouldn't need to have warranties would we ;)

But I'm not saying two identical machines, I'm saying different machines with identical (or close enough for the real world) performance numbers.


I realize this is a somewhat cerebral discussion.

There have been posts in the past, going back all the way to the start of IL2, where there are those that say that if two aircraft have the same wing loading and power loading then they will perform the same.

This is a common thread among many sim pilots.

I'm saying this is not necessarily the case. One could be so difficult to fly that achieving it's max performance would be nearly impossible, whereas the other could have such beautifully harmonized controls that relatively inexperienced pilots could achieve the outside of the envelope with ease.

In the sim this difference would be so slight that it would make no difference.

It this making sense?

Since when did pilots fly on intellect alone...

I reasoned today that Pilot experiences where based upon:

Aircraft handling
Pilot Energy
Aircraft Energy

Thats it.

Argh, I should have quoted excerpts of the thread to direct my responses.

I was wanting to present my experiences to CaptianDoggles point about two identical machines performing the same (post #16).

As for your initial post El, I understand where you're coming from. From the many posts, videos and books I've read / viewed over the years I think it boils down to wear and tear. It's no secret that pilots found things "different" when jumping into a new plane from their old one.

I do recall during my Airforce Cadet days when taking a joy flight in a Macchi trainer at RAAF East Sale. The pilot I flew with had recently transferred from F-111's to be an instructor, and he was having a hard time adjusting to the Macchi because he was accustomed to having his own ride (F-111). At East Sale, he had use what ever jet that was available on the day. He mentioned that he found himself always checking the IAS gauge before going into an maneuver not just because of safety, but also because all the trainers "felt" different to him. He knew all the jets could all perform at the same specs, but to him they all had their own "feel".

Two identical machines (even down to the molecular level) can never perform truly identical unless they resided in their own foot print.

Basically, because of this:

Right.

And it's those differences that can account for differences in performance.

The point I was trying to make is that people should stop using the term "identical" when really they mean "similar". Because if they were identical, they wouldn't have differences.

Without splitting too many hairs..

Most of the attributes that set one plane (or car) apart from another can not be 'simulated' on a $1000+ desktop PC with $400 worth of joysticks, throttle, rudders

Why?

Because most of the attributes that set one plane (or car) apart from another is the way it moves..

And as we all know our lazy-boy ain't going nowhere when we fly our games.

A lot of people confuse flight simulation with flight simulators.. A modern PC flight simulation game can and in most cases does run a far more complex flight model than the air force F16 flight simulators of the 80s and 90s..

Mater of fact most military and commercial (read air liners) flight simulators care very little about how realistic the performance values are..

Why?

Well because most military and commercial flight simulators are more concerned with training the pilot on how to make use of all the systems on board..

That is to say most military and commercial flight simulators 'ASSume' the pilot already knows how to fly.

But there are things that can be done short of a million dollar motion platform to simulate motion..

How?

Easy, because the human senses are very Very VERY easy to trick!

For example, in a stationary jet simulator (F16 if I remember) simulated the sensation of the air breaks by simply attaching a small motor to the shoulder harness (seat belts for car drivers).. Thus when ever the pilot would apply the air breaks, these motors would simply tighten up (read pull back) on the harness, which to the pilot felt like he was being forced forward into the harness.

All the brain needs is the visual and the physical 'que' from the sensation of the harness and the brian will do the rest (read fill in the blanks)

That is just one example, there are tons of ways to trick the human senses into thinking the body is moving when in fact it is not moving at all.

I think ATAG Snapper is spot on, flight handing is all up to the local hardware settings, as such all controlled by us whiners, while flight modelling is all about the numbers put in there by Luthier and team.

Altering the axis curve can make wonders to the flying experience but despite that, I for one still can't hit a barn from the inside with my lovely Hurricane :(

All there is to it IMO.