Jump to content

lnuss

Registered Users
  • Posts

    2,543
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

lnuss last won the day on June 5 2023

lnuss had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Personal Information

  • Location
    Westminster, CO

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

lnuss's Achievements

Super Grand Master

Super Grand Master (7/7)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

70

Reputation

  1. It's been a long time since I messed with that part of it, but I think I use FSUIPC to properly map the buttons.
  2. I can't recall a single car I've ever had that can go 500-600 miles on a single tank of gas. Where does your "average" come from? Generally I've seen 300-400 miles with some reserve before fillup. The cars with better mileage also had smaller fuel tanks.
  3. Beautifully done, as always. I've always told my students that it's simple things that use rules of thumb, as shown here, that can so often simplify your tasks, and can often also act as a reality check, that is, an approximation that you quickly do in your head gives you an estimation that you can use to be sure that any other source/method is at least in the right ball park. A quick double check like this can save problems from mistakes, whether yours or that of someone else. This is true in many areas of life, not just aviation, even just checking on your change received when you pay cash for something. So thanks for again helping folks to simplify their tasks...
  4. One example would be the steam powered flight by Samuel Langley, who gave up after a couple of crashes, shortly before the Wright's legendary flight. Full, 3-axis control was the single most important thing the Wrights brought to the table, though far from the only thing.
  5. Fairly simple: The departure point is not at the numbers of the runway, rather it is, in the case of Boulder, far enough along the runway that you can land (spoilers are GREAT!) and stop there, generally not having to brake hard, yet leaving plenty of runway for departure from that point. In the case of Coronado, that area I showed is a 900 foot section of dirt just before the numbers of 21 (just past the end of 03), so the sailplane is 200 ft or so from the 21 numbers (tow rope length) and the tow plane taxis out onto the numbers, then the rope is hooked up, and they can depart with the full length of the runway ahead (21 also sloped downhill slightly). There are plenty of other variations, depending on the airport layout and traffic patterns and terrain around. Of course there are also some places where they do, in fact, have to move the sailplane to the departure point -- lots of variations. You might enjoy this YouTube video of our glider operation in ABQ in the mid-1970s. A compilation from a TV station's (ch 13) 16mm film of Pegasus glider operations from Coronado Airport (4AC -- now defunct) in Albuquerque, NM in the mid-1970s, made using Pinnacle Studio with music from SmartSound. The tow plane is a 1953 Cessna 180 and the sailplane is a Schweizer 2-33 training sailplane. I'm the guy in the red hat at the start of the video, and buddy Mike (RIP) is in the white hat.
  6. In real life, it's quite common to land and stop at approximately the point of departure, in order to facilitate the next flight, especially for commercial operations. We did that at Pegasus Aerial Sports in ABQ (at 4AC, Coronado airport, now defunct) and it's also true at Boulder airport in Boulder, Colorado. Many club/private owners do that too. So that pushing it to parking is only once a series of flights is ended, especially true on days with poor lift. It's been so long since I tried gliders in FSX (or P3D V2) that I don't recall the limitations in the program, though. The photos below were all taken in the mid-70s at the approach end of runway 21 (in the dirt underrun) at Coronado Airport (4AC) on the north edge of Albuquerque, near Tramway Road, for those familiar with the area. The two screenshots from P3D V2 are taken from the Carenado Baron, but are showing the northwest and southeast sides of the underrun area of rwy 21, respectively (scenery by me).
  7. lnuss

    This Ain't Good

    I got this a few hours ago, too- first time I've seen it. But that "Invision" thing has caused me delays many, many times, sometimes over a minute (I posted about it under the New Forum Software section:
  8. Sounds to me, based on the many reports I've read and TV segments I've seen, that Boeing had an initial problem which, on the specific aircraft in question, could have been caught by not letting the aircraft fly again after the first pressurization light warning until the problem was resolved. Apparently (my opinion) that section was initially loose enough to let some pressure out while still holding, but worked its way loose on subsequent flights (note that this is semi-informed speculation, not established fact). So it seems to be Boeing's problem initially and Alaska Airline's sloppy regard for proper maintenance combined that let the problem happen. A third party, Spirit AeroSystems, may also be involved (that's not yet established) who has " numerous production-quality lapses on 737 and 787 subassemblies—its two largest programs." Since it was a rather new aircraft (delivered last October), it's not certain that maintenance (other than the warning light lapse) was involved, especially since I gathered that an inspection would have been mandatory anyway after 4,000 cycles, although that was only implied, rather than explicitly stated. So there are enough complexities in this incident that the thorough evaluation that the NTSB will do should give the proper answer, rather than blaming everyone in sight before the truth is known. We don't know nearly all of the details and it's not a five minute job...
  9. Yes, that's in addition to the existing facility which is near the old Stapleton airport (now a housing community) and it has been there for decades. I was fortunate a number of years ago (perhaps 2005?) to get a couple of hours on the 757/767 simulator at the old facility, which is an amazing experience. A neighbor was, at the time, an instructor there. Curiously in the middle of the session it locked up, reminiscent of the Microsoft sim at the time, with not only the software, but even the physical controls (yoke/pedals) locked up, immovable. It took a while for the techs to restore operation.
  10. Wow! Thanks for bringing this back, Nels. A nice article by Dan on how the "mobile" market was for flight sims a few years back. It's interesting to revisit what it was like back then.
  11. Nels is right- while the sim is very helpful for many procedures, such as VOR navigation, instrument approaches, flying by instruments, and in so many other ways, the takeoff, landing, and maneuvering in relation to the ground won't be helped much by using the sim. The "feel of the aircraft" that Nels mentions is way beyond just control pressures: sounds, the exact look out the window with the reference points on the aircraft nose and wings, the feel in the seat of your pants, pulling g's, and much more is needed in the real world. I might mention, too, that for all my students I've always required that they actually fly the traffic pattern, including takeoffs and landings to a full stop with the instrument panel covered by my coat. In preparation for that I'd have them do slow flight, minimum controllable airspeed flight (MCA) and airspeed changes, as well as turns, climbs and glides, raising and lowering flaps while maintaining altitude and airspeed, all with the panel covered. This forces them to look out the window and learn to judge performance by attitude, sound and feel (seat of the pants, control pressures and more). It surprises them when they discover that they can, with the panel covered, get within two or three knots of the target airspeed, and mostly maintain close to the desired altitude, just by the sound of the right power setting, the pitch attitude, the control sloppiness and more, none of which can be taught/duplicated in a desktop, non-motion sim. I could go on about differences, but hopefully this will get the point across. All of that said, the sim can be useful for your later training (but don't practice your mistakes- learn it right), and it can be a fun thing to do, even exploring areas where you've never been, but not very much help for pre-solo work, as you've been discovering. The sim is way too different from real aircraft in that area. Luck...
  12. I don't think FSUIPC works in Microsoft Flight (a completely different program than FS2004, FSX, etc.), and this might be better served in the FS2004 forum, but FSUIPC changes aircraft behavior only so long as it is installed and active. It intercepts the software in flightsim and changes what is sent to the aircraft, and when using FSUIPC you have the choice of changing things for a single aircraft or for all aircraft, for any given change, thus you can control what you want done within FSUIPC. Or if you uninstall it, then all changes made with it are gone. If you don't have the paid version, then what you can affect is strongly reduces, but the same thing is true, that removing it removes all changes too, because it's no longer able to intercept the commands to the sim.
  13. I've not seen the Steam version, but in FSX there are camera views in the cameras.cfg located in C:\Users\usrname\Application Data\Microsoft\FSX and in the aircraft.cfg file for each aircraft. I don't recall ever finding a camera setting in panel.cfg.
  14. In the early days of COVID, when they did flyovers of various medical sites (hospitals, etc.) for reasons of morale, I was able to video some of it, including a brief shot of the Thunderbirds. I've compiled that into a 4 minute movie here:
×
×
  • Create New...