Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Shiny Things' started by EvilGenius, Jan 1, 2009.
He is really fucking Green / efficient.
To a fault
Now, that's simply untrue, my friend. I'm a wordy fellow.
We can tell!
And to keep the thread kind of on track... If this were a real airplane, how well do you all think it would fly? I got the picture from www.dannychoo.com and I believe it's of an aircraft from an anime movie.
I think it would fly very well.
Its all about balance and thrust lines.
really its a backwards airplane, the engine, main wing, How-Stab are in the same relationship as a 'conventional' airplane. As long as it balances its will be fine.
its just like the beechcraft starship, the Piaggio things, the Rutan Vari-Eze variants.
Oh, and it looks VERY kewl as well
Very short span and short coupled (short couple + pitch sensitive). Short span/low aspect ratio = high wing loading = runway hog with high takeoff and approach speeds If it doesn't have leading edge slats and or substantial/sophisticated trailing edge flaps, and it appears it doesn't. Seems to be a turbo-prop engine = relatively high fuel consumption. where to store the fuel, in the wings? Then there's that weight so far aft, with the engine and pilot way back there, making cg problems + that with the short coupling = maybe nasty issues. Put the fuel in that long nose, that will balance some of the cg issues, until you actually use the fuel. The dual vertical stablizer/rudders would be be a complicated redundancy, and extra unneeded weight. The addition to the canards, would that solve it all. I don't know. But they'd have to be flying canards, which = more complexity, and with all the aft cg and thrust provided they'd have to have a lot of down force (and probably have to be much bigger to be effective, and be a major drag producing item. Of course I failed most advanced math classes, so I bet it'll fly great! I guess it its CGI its supposed to look sinister. But for the presumed pilot I am sure it would be sinister.
It's a take-off on the Kyushu Shinden:
Wonder if it had the prop release feature prior to bailing out like the xp-55.
No disrespect was intended.
I asked this a while ago but didn't get an answer...
How many people fly a desktop simulator? I have wanted a PPL for some time and I am getting to the point where I won't have to mortgage everything to make it happen. I am thinking about buying X-Plane and a nice set of replica Cessna controls to get some virtual flight lessons. A young FI acquaintance says it is a great idea. An older, former FI and current 757/767 PIC says I am better off spending the money for a few more flight hours.
The new version of X-Plane has some pre configured scenarios for flight lessons.
I think my attention span is just too short for X-Plane, and I'm not very computer-literate, so I never got into it. I fly Microsoft FS2004 a great deal, though. I fly the 737 a lot, which took a while for me to figure out. I have all the realism setting maxed out to make it fun. Microsoft FSX is too demanding for my computer/video card.
It looks like I am in the market for a new computer. My MacBook older than dirt. So do I spec it for Xplane or just the low rent stuff my kids play for school?
It is interesting how polarizing this topic is for pilots.
From what Klay wrote earlier about MS Flight Sim and the 737 it seems like the fidelity/dynamics were off. Myself, I'd love to have a simulator, but not a desktop simulator. So far, although with limited exposure, I've not been impressed with any desktop type devices. A "real" simulator will run $100,000+ and then into the millions. (Don't forget the dedicated room or barn to put it in). With that outlay you can afford regular flying - which I still think is the goal a simulator is best suited for.
I believe that it's more likely me messing things up. I've read other sources that say the actual flight physics is good with the Microsoft simulators. I've seen setups where people take a gaming computer and use many monitors to make a better simulator. Not sure of the value of any of this, but it's fun to play with. I'm not willing to spend money on flight lessons. I fly my bike right out of the garage...no trip to the airport or other expenses. I also sold my boat, so I don't have to lose sleep at night wondering if it's smashing itself to pieces on the rocks.
I dunno, what you described as far as pitch angles and power settings and what the plane was doing sounded like the modeling was off. Not that is easy to model....
I am thinking big machine like aircraft like the 737 are maybe hard to model for a desktop and are also very difficult to fly mostly because they are not visual seat of the pants sorts of machines - there's a lot of inertia, and more subtle feed. Also, things are very proceeduralized (the depth of airline operating regimes/regulations is a huge influence on how you fly) and, for all that, besides the complex aircraft, you also pretty much need a second pilot. (That is a complex psychological training undertaking unto itself). Then there's the whole contextual environment they fly in, ATC, IFR routes, departures, performance limitations, and the whole zeitgeist of what's going on with the weather while listening in and fitting in with other traffic and how that shapes how you'd fly the plane. I think that part is way beyond MS flight Sims - that's often lacking in even the best of airline simulator training. So, to me, that sort of leaves me with the feeling of flying something rather out of its element. I have been around simulators a fair amount and its kind of fun to goof around and fly them VFR, EG flying a 747 under the Golden Gate Bridge, but that's good for about 5 minutes, otherwise its a waste. Can you load an aerobatic aircraft, like a Extra 300 or a Pitts on MS Flight Sim?
Think of a desktop simulator for a motorcycle.....not very appealing compared to riding? However, (and I think Honda may have done this) a high fidelity motorcycle simulator, one you sit on, with proper controls, a 30 foot wide high res screen, that could be a huge training benefit. You could program; different bikes dynamics/performance; great scenarios with differing traction, tires, tire pressure, lighting, road, and traffic conditions - you could even ride with zero beers or ten beers. The data could be useful for bike designers and the immediate feedback quite a training aid for the individual rider.
I read somewhere that the physics was quite good. I'm sure it's me. No training.
It took a long time for me to get used to any of the jets in the simulator...I had to develop much more of a sense of energy management and a sharpened routine of constantly checking the instruments. Also, I lean on the autopilot in some cases and let it sort out things.
I ignore that stuff...I'm just playing around.
There's an Extra 300 in FS2004 that's a hoot to fly. I also loaded an add-on, Wings of Power, and get to play with fighters and bombers and even German jets that were under development at the end of of WWII. The flight physics are good enough that you'll find controllability problems that theoretically exist with the designs, for example, the Focke-Wulf Ta-183 has compressibility problems where the elevator becomes unresponsive at high speeds. I found this out by flying into the ground at 800 km/hr.
Also, the jets in the add-on include effects of G-forces. If you fly in cockpit view and pull a tight turn at speed, your vision blacks out starting at the periphery.
...but when you start to see the gray out with a simulator you can still reach for that cup of coffee sitting next to the mouse......However, there's a good deal of evidence that motion simulators in airline training add little, if any, added training benefit but they do add a lot expense. I'm not ragging on desk-top sims, I think for initial exposure they probably are quite good. For example, I know very little about helicopters and maybe using a desk top sim I could get at least the basics down.
So far, I have been utterly unable to control any helicopter I try on the simulator.
What helicopter sim did you try?
It is said if you can fly the simulator you'll have little or no trouble with the actual aircraft and so far for me that seems to be true. Although...I heard a story of a helicopter sim instructor when faced with the actual aircraft did terrible with it. Could have just been a story.
I am almost the opposite. Sims have always been hard for me to work with. With no inertial feedback, limited sight, etc. All of my actual flight time (less than 10 hours at this time) has been very easy and made MUCH more sense on what I need to be doing and when.