lnuss

Scott Crossfield was, among other things, one of the X-15 test pilots. For a number of years he was also chief engineering test pilot for North American. Robert N. Buck wsa an airline pilot, but was involved in a lot of specialized weather research flying and wrote, among other things, Weather Flying, a definitive work on how to learn about and incorporate into your flying the various weather forecast, reports, what you see out the window, and much more. It's a book shelf essential for pilots, along with Stick and Rudder, Instrument Flying, Once Upon A Thermal, and many others. Eric Hartmann was the top scoring German ace, in fact he was the top scoring ace of any country in any war. From Wikipedia, "He flew 1,404 combat missions and participated in aerial combat on 825 separate occasions.[2] He was credited with shooting down 352 Allied aircraft" Frank Tallman was a movie stunt pilot who did a large percentage of movie stunt flying until his death in 1978. He and Paul Mantz formed Tallmantz aviation (Paul died in 1965) and together they came up with many ingenuous ways to do movie stunts (including spectacular crashes) and survive. His book Flying the Old Planes is one of the treasures on my bookshelf. I'm going to add another one, since I'm re-reading a book about him (Glacier Pilot). Bob Reeve was an Alaskan pioneer, starting his Alaska career in 1932 and digging out a niche for himself in that cutthroat atmosphere when aviation was new and unregulated in Alaska. These folks and many more (Wikipedia has entries on them) have pioneered a lot of things in aviation over the years.

If we're going for real, Bob Hoover is my choice, though in reality there's no undisputed criteria for what makes a pilot the "best." So Chuck Yeager, Scott Crossfield, Robert Buck, Eric Hartmann, Frank Tallman and many, many others are also candidates.

Well, that DID used to be a brand of gasoline... :pilot:

FSX doesn't run on Linux, and I don't think WINE is good enough to run it either. I suspect that either XPlane or FlightGear (it's free -- both ways -- under GNU and has Linux versions) will have to be your platform.

I agree with Loki that the personal beacons are a better choice. You're more likely to get someone's attention that way. Also, some things might be "legal" in a true emergency that otherwise are not, but I'd check more about that than just some website about scanners and such, perhaps the FCC's site would have something about that in the regulations.

That's hard to determine. I've rarely monitored it in over 40 years, though keep in mind that a lot of my flying has been with a student, towing a banner or glider, or even flying aircraft with zero or 1 radios. Still, even on trips that was not a high priority. And I'm not specifically aware of many folks who make this a regular practice, though I'm sure there are some who do.

You may have to go to the ORBX forums to ask that question, but whether it's updated or not, it'll be so much improved in that area that it doesn't much matter. One big thing to keep in mind is that FSX dates back 13 years, and though the ORBX airports are giant improvements over the default ones, they still need some degree of backwards compatibility. And the improvements beyond the airports are great, too, including much improved mesh and landclass, along with many surprises such as tractors and combines in some farm fields, occasional animated animals, often near small airports, some unpaved runways that slope, and much more. Of course if you're just flying airliners, then there's not that much for you outside the airports. but if you get low and slow there's a LOT more to see than just the Global stuff or default FSX stuff, often almost photographic scenery, even in many areas that are strictly autogen non-photo stuff.

You spelled it wrong, should be: "Pile It" in which case I agree with Zipper. :pilot:;):cool:

If you're manually easing the nose down to descend with little or no power reduction, your airspeed will, of course, increase. This generates additional lift which will tend to level you off again. But, given the generalities in your post, you might give a bit more detail on how you are trying to descend, not only manual/autopilot, but starting altitude and airspeed (at least for an example, approach or descent from altitude -- they're different), any trim changes or power reduction or stick/yoke pressure, AP settings (if applicable), etc. But note mallcott's post, too. I ask this because procedures can differ a LOT, depending on configuration and exactly what you are trying to do (that is, beyond just descend).

Opening speed? Are you talking about startup or while running (probably frame rate)? If startup, ORBX might slow things down a bit, but so do airplanes, that is, the more aircraft you have the longer FS takes to load. If frame rate, ORBX has little effect most places, except certain individually purchased airports. So with frame rate problems you're probably running your settings too high. You might clarify where you see the problem for more help. Hmmm... I see Tim beat me to it.

I don't give legal advice (not a lawyer, etc. etc.), but I would suggest that often the readme or other text files included with freeware will give you a clue to what is proper for that particular item. Freeware is free as far as money goes, but still can be copyrighted with whatever restrictions the creator wants. There IS a separate term called free software (free as in freedom) which can be modified under the terms included with it, which also need to be checked.

Nope. Unless it's changed since I last updated, UTX includes few, if any, textures, but changes landclasses, that is, forest, golf course, desert, etc. and moves roads, RR, rivers, lakes, etc. to more accurately reflect the real world. I've never tried GEX, so will let others describe it.

Have you tried the ORBX free demo in western Washington? It's typical of the regional sceneries, vs the Global stuff, which is good but doesn't have enhanced airports and many other things.

I'll disagree with that, though I'll agree that they're not useful for practicing pilotage without add-ons. Granted that RRR and a few other things are not up to snuff, but all else is still there for simulating flight. Any of these sims can be treated as a game, and many people so treat them, but they also can be treated as actual sims in exactly the same configuration, so game or sim is in the eye of the user.

UTX can work for your purposes. It's pretty good, and I used it for a number of years, and it certainly does add the items you list above, improving VFR "IFR" (I Follow Roads/Railroads/Rivers), but I've long since gone to ORBX scenery, though it's a bit more expensive. But it also adds life to airports and some places between, with animated people, some animals, static aircraft and many objects on the airports, and more. I'd suggest you first try their free demo of the Olympic area of Washington state. It's a relatively small area, but it's complete within that area, free, and doesn't expire. The regional sceneries like that include essentially all that UTX does from California to Southern Alaska, plus much more, as I mentioned above. Of course if they don't have a regional in the area you prefer to fly in, then perhaps their Global stuff can help (it covers the whole world, where UTX is US, perhaps Canada in another package). Hope this helps.

Which program are you using, FS2004, FSX, P3D, X-Plane? Each has it's own way. What is your internet setup? That is, do you have a router or other means of running a LAN, or do you just hook up straight, or maybe a cable modem? Any router/firewall has to be configured to let your connection go through. Whichever sim you're using needs certain ports open in a firewall/router. So a bit more information from you might help get some good directions.

IMC is when IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) apply and covers a wide range of conditions, and it doesn't require CAT III in all of those. IMC is the opposite of VMC, and is when the law doesn't allow visual flight (VFR, or Visual Flight Rules), so typically when visibility is less than 3 miles and the ceiling is less than 1000 feet. Of course there are some airspaces in which the VFR requirements are different, and it's sometimes country-dependent as well. So "next to no visibility" would be very low visibility, or it's right on the edge of "zero-zero," that is, zero ceiling and zero visibility (you can't even see to taxi), but not quite there yet.

Welcome back, Len. Sorry to hear of the loss of your friend. I just lost my best friend recently, too, so I feel with you.

Huh? IMC = Instrument Meteorological Conditions How does that apply to the quote?

That "cruise speed at 35,000 ft of roughly 490kt" is TAS (True AirSpeed), or actual speed relative to the air around you. That "about 350 kt, I get the Overspeed clicking noise" is IAS, or Indicated AirSpeed. As the others mention above, you need to learn about the different ways of measuring airspeed, and what they actually mean. I'd suggest you look below at the Real Aviation Tutorials & FAQs section of the forum, under "Speeds and Altitudes" where all these things are discussed. The FS lessons also can help you learn about such things. There's a lot more there that you can learn, too. Aviation is NOT very intuitive, and the terminology can be confusing to one who is not well versed in "aviation speak."

Amen! That is the sort of meaningless drivel expounded by managers who just barely understand something about the job you're doing (or don't understand anything about it), but want to sound encouraging, knowledgeable, or otherwise make themselves seem important. It certainly has little to do with being a professional pilot. For example: "lack of fear of heights," is irrelevant to a pilot. I'm afraid of heights, yet had no problem flying in a wide variety of aircraft (including open cockpit) over more than 40 years of flying. Yet standing next to a large glass window with the sill below my waist in a skyscraper makes me extremely uncomfortable. If you're the "flight director," whatever that is, I hope you develop more sense of what is really important.

There are several programs that can help with this, but the excellent freeware ADE is (IMO) an excellent choice and is also versatile.

I'm not sure exactly what you're calling the "Landing Characteristics" but aircraft handling in general is from the .air file and the aircraft.cfg file combined. The model files are more to do with visual. And a VA (that is, multiplayer mode) shouldn't have anything to do with it, one way or the other. As to what to copy, you can edit the .air file with a program called AirEd and you can, of course, use a text editor to edit the aircraft.cfg file. I'm not clear on what you expect to be able to copy, though. The vertical speed on landing will vary, depending on what the pilot and weather (including winds and turbulence) are doing at any given instant (it'll often be different from one moment to another), or if on autopilot will vary depending on the glideslope angle, winds/weather or other factors at different airports or other weather conditions. It's not something that is locked in every single time at the same figure. I think there's more complication than you realize in this question. Perhaps a clarification of what you're actually trying to achieve would help get a better answer.

I don't know about that particular aircraft, or about V4, but if you go into the C-172 or C-182 and turn the fuel selector to both, that might help -- sometimes settings will carry from one aircraft to another.

Your point is well taken, with engine power varying widely with manifold pressure changes (throttle), even at a constant prop RPM.