I don't think either Flyhalf or myself were having a dig at what you were saying, but rather responding to this comment:You don't have to leap to the defence of everything you say, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, and if people disagree it does not mean they are picking on you, it is simply interesting to discuss such stuff. :( Al

I understand what you are saying, and I am sorry if I am giving off the wrong impression. As you can read in though, some individuals have made some rather rude and uncalled for remarks. It was my fault for not stating what I meant more clearly, and using the wrong words (for which I got smeared). I don't think you guys were digging at me either. In fact, I would have loved to see an A380 doing those types of maneuvers. Considering I work at a major airport, I get to see planes all day everyday. And the coolest thing I get to see is the Continental 757's going to KIAH taking off and getting to 10,000ft with in 3 minutes (and the occasional emergency landing)

Excuse me sir, but you need to take a refresher course or go talk to a CFI. Pitch is directly related to the AOA. The angle of attack is the difference between the pitch attitude and the flight path angle. Hence why you can be nose up and descending or vice a versa. Also, AOA is determines whether the wings are stalled or not. Sure you can get any plane vertical if you have the momentum and/or the elevator surface needed. but you are eventually going to run out of airspeed and stall. I confused pitch angle with AOA and that was my fault, but to say that pitch has nothing to do with the angle of attack is just plain wrong. For a trailing aircraft to be effected by wake turbulence, it has to be behind and below the bigger plane. Hence why wake turbulence advisories are given out for 757's. They have incredible climb performance, and there are not many aircraft that can outclimb a 757. After all, the 757 was designed to operate out of hot and high airports where density altitude plays a major factor in performance. I'm sure you already knew that tho. By the way...how did we get on to wake turbulence?? No post in this thread even hinted to wake turbulenceOn to your video: the 757 was doing a good 300kts, not 165kts. You could also see how fast he shed the airspeed, and he didn't make it to 8,000ft. I bet you he wasn't carrying 172 passengers, and 30,000lbs of fuel either. Please do not come on here trying to prove people wrong. It just makes you look ignorant and uneducated.Never did I say that I was an airline pilot. I said that I worked for an airline, and was a rw pilot. BTW, what statements have I said that were misleading??Matt

Actually, I believe it got rude with this post you made You're on a public forum! The very definition of "forum" is public discussion. Let's not be so quick to get testy around here! I was just responding to your ranting Captain Sim post!

Actually, I believe it got rude with this post you made You're on a public forum! The very definition of "forum" is public discussion. Let's not be so quick to get testy around here! I was just responding to your ranting Captain Sim post!

I guess the "talk to the hand" emoticon is not considered rude in North Carolina?? Another thing about pubic forums is that you never know who you are being rude or snide to.Just a little food for thought

Injecting a little fun here:Here's my CS 757 climbing out of KLAX with zero weight cargo. :( At nearly 80 degrees nose up, I started suffering from Shaken Pilot Syndrome and the nose abruptly pitched down in the stall.

Well, it does say UP on the tail. Have you got a picture of it before you jettisoned the Solid Rocket Boosters?Actually, as I noted in an earlier post, I have seen an empty 757 doing that sort of thing at an airshow (I'm not kidding, it really was doing that sort of pitch up just prior to each time it turned back toward the airfield for another high speed pass, which is of course an Immelmann Turn in the original sense).Al

Another thing about pubic forums is that you never know who you are being rude or snide to.Just a little food for thought

I seriously hope that's not a threat. It could be taken as such, and I don't take threats lightly. On a lighter note, I seriously think you should use that "ignore" button :( At the same time, I'm sorry you took anything I said as an insult.

I seriously hope that's not a threat. It could be taken as such, and I don't take threats lightly. On a lighter note, I seriously think you should use that "ignore" button :( At the same time, I'm sorry you took anything I said as an insult.

Someone just lock this thread already... The 767 is for FSX only so who really cares about it in a FS9 forum. If you want to fight about anything fight about the fact that they dropped support for the FS9 757 and left us with a ton of bugs while the FSX version is at 4.3... They didn't even care enough to fix what they sold us... Maybe everyone will get lucky and be able to land with empty wings and full center tanks in the 767 also LOL!!!-Paul

Someone just lock this thread already... The 767 is for FSX only so who really cares about it in a FS9 forum. If you want to fight about anything fight about the fact that they dropped support for the FS9 757 and left us with a ton of bugs while the FSX version is at 4.3... They didn't even care enough to fix what they sold us... Maybe everyone will get lucky and be able to land with empty wings and full center tanks in the 767 also LOL!!!-Paul

I agree, this thread needs to be locked. It has gotten completely out of hand, and now has absolutely nothing to do with why I started this thread in the First place. My point was that CS is diving into this "new" aircraft while leaving their unfinished aircraft to sit with so many bugs

Well, it does say UP on the tail. Have you got a picture of it before you jettisoned the Solid Rocket Boosters?Actually, as I noted in an earlier post, I have seen an empty 757 doing that sort of thing at an airshow (I'm not kidding, it really was doing that sort of pitch up just prior to each time it turned back toward the airfield for another high speed pass, which is of course an Immelmann Turn in the original sense).Al

No rockets were needed. The effort I was hoping to achieve was climb power immediately after takeoff and not assisted by max forward speed or descending forward flight before the climb. What I failed to record was my airspeed before increased AoA approximately 250 knots, but this airspeed quickly bled to 110 when the stick shake occurred. Okay, now I'm scared of the 757. Immelmann? This maneuver requires turning completely inverted and rolling wings level at the top of a half loop. Just to satisfy my curiosity I took my CS 757 UPS for another spin out of my hometown KSAN San Diego Intl with 40 percent fuel in wings and center tanks, zero cargo.Real weather download was 238@8kts 69F 57F dew point and 29.97 alt. Flaps 10 got me V1 at 100 kts and rotated 110 kts without any back pressure on the slick and center trim. I started a 300kt climb at 6000 fpm and pulled past vertical to roll through an Immelmann. At 8000 ft or so I was getting the MM indicator for KSAN RWY 9 and flying directly back over the field. :( Sorry no pictures this time.

I'm very surprised they have gone head to head with LevelD. Normally, when a commercial decision is made to compete with a product, you have to look at how your product is going to provide an alternative spin - what can be bettered than the LevelD? As far as I can see it's got everything, including support for loads of hardware.I was going to buy the CaptainSim 757 but I am concerned to see negative comments about it - what's up with it?

Someone just lock this thread already... -Paul

NO,NO, please don't. My cable TV is out and I can't watch my soaps so I have been following this thread instead.

Immelmann? This maneuver requires turning completely inverted and rolling wings level at the top of a half loop.

That's not strictly true, note that I said 'in the original sense'. What you describe certainly is what we would regard as an Immelmann Turn these days, but originally, the Immelman Turn (as allegedly pioneered by Max Immelman, but more likely to have been named such by the popular press linking the first notably successful German flyer with it) did not involve going inverted, and was more in the nature of what we would now call a Chandelle, or modified stall turn.You have to keep in mind that when Max Immelman was getting the 'kills' that made him famous and ended up with the Pour Le Merite being named after him, aerial dogfighting was in its infancy. Most flyers at that time had not even sussed out that turning was a good idea if someone was shooting at you, so figuring out a stall turn would allow you to make repeated slashing attacks was really pioneering stuff. Immelman flew the Fokker EI monoplane (AKA the Fokker Eindecker). I have photographs of the Eindecker being flown by Anthony Fokker, and it was certainly a nimble craft as far as the rate of climb and pitch authority was concerned, based on those (quite amazing) pictures, but it would have not been capable of rolling off a half loop with the added weight of a Spandau machine gun, and it probably did not have the necessary roll rate given that when Max Immelman was gaining fame with it, it was using wing warping rather than ailerons for rolling plane movement; ailerons were only added to the later variants. Immelmann did indeed fly the later EIII (he was killed in one), but even the EIII would not have had the roll rate or power to weight ratio capable of pulling off what we know as a modern 'Immelman', since the EIII often sported more guns. The Eindeckker was actually a fairly average plane in many respects, but it was made deadly by its forward firing gun.You can read a good description of the original Immelman technique, which was further enhanced by Von Richthofen's mentor - Oswald Boelcke - in Manfred Von Richthofen's autobiography, Der Rotte Kampflieger, which is an excellent book, even though it was largely ghost written from dictation, and subjected to a bit of wartime censorship. There is an English translation of it available published by Airlife Books and it's worth tracking it down if you like air combat history.Al

I'm very surprised they have gone head to head with LevelD. Normally, when a commercial decision is made to compete with a product, you have to look at how your product is going to provide an alternative spin - what can be bettered than the LevelD? As far as I can see it's got everything, including support for loads of hardware.

Well, CS has brilliant exterior and interior models. While the LDS767 has a very good exterior model, the interior will probably be crappy when compared to the CS767's interior.psolk: the LDS767 is for FS9 too, so yeah, I'm afraid we do care about it in the FS9 forum!

Well, CS has brilliant exterior and interior models. While the LDS767 has a very good exterior model, the interior will probably be crappy when compared to the CS767's interior.psolk: the LDS767 is for FS9 too, so yeah, I'm afraid we do care about it in the FS9 forum!

Disregard my post below... I thought you said the CS767 was for FS9 too... But again to my question. If the CS767 is not for FS9 why do we care? This was not a post about the LVL-D 767 it was a post about CS doing a 767 that isn't even for FS9 to begin with. Benjamin, care to reveal your source? CS clearly stated that version 2.0 of the 757 was their last release for FS9. Subsequently they have released a few more patches for the FSX 757 bringing it to V4.3 while we with FS9 are stuck on 2.0. Furthermore, from their website: 02 Jul '09: The 767 is coming!To continue popular series of Pro Line products we are pleased to introduce the 767 Captain expansion for FSX. (Nothing mentioned for FS9)And from the product description:• Designed according to FSX standards Again, FSX so please show me where I missed this was for FS9...-Paul

Disregard my post below... I thought you said the CS767 was for FS9 too... But again to my question. If the CS767 is not for FS9 why do we care? This was not a post about the LVL-D 767 it was a post about CS doing a 767 that isn't even for FS9 to begin with. Benjamin, care to reveal your source? CS clearly stated that version 2.0 of the 757 was their last release for FS9. Subsequently they have released a few more patches for the FSX 757 bringing it to V4.3 while we with FS9 are stuck on 2.0. Furthermore, from their website: 02 Jul '09: The 767 is coming!To continue popular series of Pro Line products we are pleased to introduce the 767 Captain expansion for FSX. (Nothing mentioned for FS9)And from the product description: