Sign in to follow this  
Guest

A Wright Bros. plane? C'mon now!

Recommended Posts

Please don't take this the wrong way....but of all the planes we COULD have and all that we've been ASKING for as devotees of Microsoft's simulation products, do we really need or will we ever really use a Wright Bros. plane in FS 2004? I know it's called the History of Flight, and what would it be without it, but if History is correct, we won't need any navigational aids for this bird. Oh well, at least there are 26 or so planes included. Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

It doesnt really make any difference to me coz I never fly the default planes and i m certain the majority of ppl on these forums dont either.I dont get it, most of the ppl dont fly the default ac anyway so why is there such a big deal about the aircraft included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly default quite a bit just because they are so frame rate friendly, and I really am not a big fan of cluttering up my FS installation with planes I never fly. I remembered reading somewhere that they were trying to appeal to all kinds of people interested in aviation. Old and young. That is why there are 25 or whatever aircraft. The only reason the Wright Flyer will be included in this version of FS is because its the centennial of the first powered flight (well, at least the first powered flight that we give credit for). Anyways, I dont mind it being on there.....it will be a novelty item fun to fly a few times.Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the addition of such aircraft is a welcome change from such heavy metal. With the recreated autogen and improved terrain available in FS9, it offers an ability to fly VFR flights with such aircraft as never before. Microsoft have a nice balance of smaller, flyable aircraft, paving the way for big jets from the freeware/shareware/payware developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree with Bob, nice thing they made. Love the panel shots from the new SS series on the Insider. Looks really cute, should be fun to fly. Not all the time, of course. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stan,You do realize that Microsoft is one of the companies sponsering the traveling interactive flight displays of the "First Flight" don't you? Provided by Microsoft, along with Boeing and other sponsers, you can fly the Wright Flyer, including a seating arangement where you lay on your stomach to fly the MS designed simulation, which will appear at many of the key air show and air events this spring and summer. If you were to release a simulation package titled "Century of Flight", it would be assumed that at mimimum there are two aircraft that must be included; the Wright Flyer and the Ryan NYP! I cannot think of any other two aircraft that are as significant to the history of flight as those two! If you think about it, the choices that MS made are rather well thought out.1. Wright Flyer (first aircraft to make a controlled powered sustained flight)2. Ryan NYP (first solo non-stop trans-Atlantic flight)3 & 4. For the highest percentage of pilots in the 20th century, their first flight experience was most likely in either a Curtiss JN-4 Jenny or a Piper Cub.5 & 6. Douglas DC-3 and Ford Tri-Motor, two of the world's first "practical" airliners.7. Vickers Vimy (many of the earlist flight records were set with this aircraft)8. Lockheed Vega (Winnie Mae), Wiley Post was first to fly around the world with this aircraft.9. Comet DH-88, world's first jet airliner, which flew years before the Boeing 707. Had it not been for its square window design, Britain and de Havilland would be the world's driving force for commercial airliners rather than the USA and Boeing.I would have also liked to of seen the Bell X-1 and Sikorsky S-38 or S-39 included, but what the heck, those they choose are pretty cool!Bear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though the Aeronca Champ isn't included in FSv9 as far as I know, you can't leave the Champ out of the same category that the Jenny & Cub are in :)Aeronca Champion, for those of you who don't know what one is, check it out. The Champ actually was a better plane the the Cub, and why we all don't know the Champ today beats me.Paul MeyerMorris C09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with everything Bear says! A small clarification however, the Comet MS is including is the DH88 Comet, which was the racer designed for the 1934 MacRobertson England-Australia Air Race vs. the DH106 Comet, which was the Airliner.PS; My first thought was of the airliner when I first saw a Comet was to be included.PPS; Nice little site about the DH88;http://www.shuttleworth.org/collection/comet.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think FS9 will have the racer Comet (DH-88) rather than the airliner Comet (DH-106). The one thats in FS9 is the red twin prop DH-88 racer G-ACSS 'Grosvenor House'. It was winner of the 1934 England to Australia MacRobertson air-race. It was piloted by Charles Scott and Tom Black. I don't know why DeHavilland named 2 planes Comet, I guess they wanted us to get confused :) LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,I agree that the Aeronca Champ was a fine airplane and I personally have a couple of hours logged in one, but when Microsoft decided to include 10 aircraft of historical significance there are going to be alot of aircraft NOT included. Its difficult to compare an aircraft where there were only a few hundred built (Aeronca Champion) to an aircraft where there were thousands built (Jenny and Piper Cub). The Jenny and the Piper Cub each simply provided more impact on the history of flight.Bear!Note: There are only 9 aircraft listed for Microsoft's historical aircraft, but there are in fact 10, that is because you do get two versions of the Lockheed Vega (the standard model and Wiley Post's Winnie Mae).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>It doesnt really make any difference to me coz I never fly >the default planes and i m certain the majority of ppl on >these forums dont either. >I dont get it, most of the ppl dont fly the default ac >anyway so why is there such a big deal about the aircraft >included. Regarding defaults.......I have most of the "major" payware add-ons as well as many freeware. But lately, I find my self really enjoying the default Baron, 172, & 182 with 3rd party modified air.files. Specifically because of the smooth frame rates, and the VC's of the Cessna's are just kind of fun with the eye point pulled back a bit.edit: Just wanted to mention....... I prefer my frame rates in the upper 20's and into the 30's with most sliders to the right. In most cases, the defaults achieve this. Besides, they still have the best "prop arcs" :)L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Bear...and considering that this year's EAA Airventure is subtitled "Celebrating 100 Years of Powered Flight" and that MS's plan is to have a release that coincides with Airventure, I'd say they have really planned this thing out well. Many of the folks that will be visiting Oshkosh will likely have more of a fond attraction to the classics being showcased rather than airliners. And I'm suspecting that MS is positioning themselves to use Oshkosh as a big marketing tool. And that highly detailed Oshkosh scenery they released to the public for the current version is one of the added detailed airports for the next version.My personal opinion is I think they are positioned to have one of the biggest releases yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,Thanks for the clearifcation on that point. I am not that fimilar with the early de Havilland aircraft and I assumed that the DH88 was the jet airliner. Made more sense to me that Microsoft would have included the world's first jet airliner rather than a racer, but I'm not privey to their thinking on this. Its also rather unusual that an aircraft manufacturer would use the name "Comet" on two completely different types of aircraft? Interesting.I am quite fimilar with the engineering details surrounding the crash of the two Comets (DH106s) in 1953 and 1954, which lead to the demise of Britain's lead in the jet airliner design industry (and opened the door for Boeing and their 707), but I am not that aware of their (de Havilland) model numbers.I've always been amazed on how one simple thing can have such a dramatic impact on history, like the fact that by de Havilland designing square windows rather than round windows on the Comet (DH106) would effectively eliminate de Havilland (and Britain) from the airliner design industry and Boeing would become the power in airliner design.Bear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,I checked out that website link you provided and Oh Wow! I've seen photos of that aircraft over the years, but never knew what it was, but I am impressed and that is simply outstanding to get something of that classic design as a default aircraft! Microsoft..., I believe you've just made my summer! Between the Wiley Post Winnie Mae Vega and this beautiful de Havilland air racer, it is unlikely anyone will hear from me for months!Bear!Give me a propeller, an engine, the wind in my hair, and a compass then I'm as happy as a pig in slop!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bear,One of the earliest influences on my love of flight was an hour long B&W documentary covering the investigation of the Comet crashes in the 50's (either that, or we didn't have a color TV then - can't remember). For some reason, it was one of those things that always stuck with me: the image from that docu of them building that massive bathtub to stress the frame is still one of my strongest.It must have been thirty+ years ago (back when the number of channels to watch was *maybe* four, on a clear day :-)) and I've never seen it again on Wings, PBS or anywhere else.Since it sounds like you've read up on and were interested in the whole Comet episode, do you by chance have any good sites that delve into its detail? I'd love to read some in-depth material on it now that you've brought those memories back.Thanks,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this