I want the deHavilland Dash 7. After flying around in Milton Shupe’s Dash 7, I’ve wanted an updated one. :Party:

Nothing that is a taildragger please... lol. I am all for the Cessna 182 with retractable gear and of course a virtual cockpit. I would like to have a flight where I can take off raise the gear and cruise at a respectable speed (over 105kts). This aircraft has been a staple for all of the flight sims before and it should be implemented.

 

Heck, I would spend so much time in Hawaii and Alaska they would never need to release another geographical area. (GASP!!)

 

I flew a C-182 with float kit. Don't think you can put floats on one with retracs, but I may be wrong.

Yeah... floats are fine, but pick another plane for that task... The 182 would be all I would fly if they would put it in the game... unless they included a Leer.

They are much safer in bush country.

 

Where did you get this logic from???

 

Where did you get this logic from???

 

Because off-airport landings and takeoffs often involve areas of difficult terrain that can take airplanes to their maximum structural, performance, and longitudinal stability limits, you must utilize "conventional" landing gear for most of your serious jobs in the deep bush.

 

While there are a number of important technical reasons behind this necessity, including the forces acting on the horizontal tail surfaces at rotation, and control of the wing's angle of attack during the takeoff roll over rough terrain, the two main ones are:

 

Structural and maintenance considerations. The "toe-stubbing" weakness of nosegear assemblies is well known, and while tricycle gear has its advantages, especially in very high winds on paved runways, the loss of payload you would have to suffer were they made adequately strong for rough-field operations is unacceptable in anything smaller than a Cessna Caravan or De Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter (equipped with high-flotation tires on all three wheels). Also, the prop on a tricycle gear airplane is much closer to the ground than with a tailwheel airplane, and therefore is much more susceptible to gravel damage during takeoff.

 

Longitudinal stability. Difficult terrain demands the use of a landing gear geometry which will best handle surface conditions. The simplest way to achieve this is to put as much distance as possible between the main gear and the third point of support, while keeping the center-of-gravity behind the main gear; this is especially important in ski operations. Conventional gear does this.

 

http://www.fepco.com/BF.secI.ptIII.intro.html

 

If you are unfamiliar with this book, it is the universally recognized authoritative guide to bush flying. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the subject.

 

I greatly prefer tricycle gear myself, but I'm not taking one into the bush.

 

Because off-airport landings and takeoffs often involve areas of difficult terrain that can take airplanes to their maximum structural, performance, and longitudinal stability limits, you must utilize "conventional" landing gear for most of your serious jobs in the deep bush.

 

While there are a number of important technical reasons behind this necessity, including the forces acting on the horizontal tail surfaces at rotation, and control of the wing's angle of attack during the takeoff roll over rough terrain, the two main ones are:

 

Structural and maintenance considerations. The "toe-stubbing" weakness of nosegear assemblies is well known, and while tricycle gear has its advantages, especially in very high winds on paved runways, the loss of payload you would have to suffer were they made adequately strong for rough-field operations is unacceptable in anything smaller than a Cessna Caravan or De Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter (equipped with high-flotation tires on all three wheels). Also, the prop on a tricycle gear airplane is much closer to the ground than with a tailwheel airplane, and therefore is much more susceptible to gravel damage during takeoff.

 

Longitudinal stability. Difficult terrain demands the use of a landing gear geometry which will best handle surface conditions. The simplest way to achieve this is to put as much distance as possible between the main gear and the third point of support, while keeping the center-of-gravity behind the main gear; this is especially important in ski operations. Conventional gear does this.

 

http://www.fepco.com...tIII.intro.html

 

If you are unfamiliar with this book, it is the universally recognized authoritative guide to bush flying. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the subject.

 

I greatly prefer tricycle gear myself, but I'm not taking one into the bush.

 

On that note, one thing Flight could really improve is adding a bit more sensory feedback when you are off of a paved surface. I was taxiing at high speed across some field the other day and the plane was not bouncing at all, nor was it making any noise. M$ should take a look at what Accu-feel does for FSX and maybe implement something similar...

I just landed at an airport that had in the notes: Runway not suitable for tricycle landing gear aircraft. It was Ugashik Bay, UGB. The first thing I though of when I saw that was this thread.

 

http://www.airnav.com/airport/UGB

 

Hook

Where did you get this logic from???

 

Many of the dirt runways in Alaska, and I have flown there, are not conducive to a tricycle gear. You touch down , and have your nosewheel hit a rut or ditch and your aircraft does a somersault or at least maybe a broken firewall pr nose gear. Not a good way to end the day. A CFII friend of mine was killed in a Piper Tri-Pacer, checking it out for one of his students that had purchased it, when this exact scenario happened. How are you going to put tundra wheels or skis on a tricycle gear aircraft?

 

I just landed at an airport that had in the notes: Runway not suitable for tricycle landing gear aircraft. It was Ugashik Bay, UGB. The first thing I though of when I saw that was this thread.

 

http://www.airnav.com/airport/UGB

 

Hook

 

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!

How are you going to put tundra wheels or skis on a tricycle gear aircraft?

 

 

Like this...

Like this...

 

Oh, that's right, I saw a ton of those in Alaska.....

Got any pictures off the pavement and nothing broken? :D

 

Really, of course, you can do it. The question becomes if you are trusting your life and the lives of your passengers to it every day, you do it the safest way possible. When you are landing in rocks and ruts, that means a taildragger.

 

Got any pictures off the pavement and nothing broken? :D

 

Really, of course, you can do it. The question becomes if you are trusting your life and the lives of your passengers to it every day, you do it the safest way possible. When you are landing in rocks and ruts, that means a taildragger.

 

I have always believed that you can look at an aircraft and sense whether or not you would want to fly in it. A tricycle gear aircraft with a tundra tire on the nose wheel, ain't doin it for me....

_{Ok, a Cat would be nice ,but how about a Grumman G-73 Mallard (Pratt&Whitney or Turoprop) or its replacement the SA-16 Albatross. Also a Curtis C-46 has a bigger cabin and larger payload capacity then a C-47/DC-3. The list could go on and on. But these are all twin engine aircraft and I don't think that will happen anytime soon.}

_{Ok, a Cat would be nice ,but how about a Grumman G-73 Mallard (Pratt&Whitney or Turoprop) or its replacement the SA-16 Albatross. Also a Curtis C-46 has a bigger cabin and larger payload capacity then a C-47/DC-3. The list could go on and on. But these are all twin engine aircraft and I don't think that will happen anytime soon.}

_{Ok, a Cat would be nice ,but how about a Grumman G-73 Mallard (Pratt&Whitney or Turoprop) or its replacement the SA-16 Albatross. Also a Curtis C-46 has a bigger cabin and larger payload capacity then a C-47/DC-3. The list could go on and on. But these are all twin engine aircraft and I don't think that will happen anytime soon.}

 

I believe the Mallard was the aircraft that Chalks Airlines in Miami flew out of Watson Island. I use to love to watch them take off and land there. Shame they went out of business, mostly due to a crash in 2005. They were the oldest airline in the US.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grumman_HU-16D_Albatross_Chalks_MIA_03.87.jpg

I have seen twin otters with tundra tires . The issue may be how much of the weight of the aircraft is carried on the front wheel... I have seen Hercs with skiis. I don't think that they could manage in any amount of fresh snow... It seems to me that the tricycle gear aircraft with skiis need to have the runway packed... Lesser powered taildraggers have problems in anything more than two feet of fresh powder..... that's why you carry snowshoes in ski equipped airplanes. I am sure that the 180 hp Carbon cub would handle deeper powder than what I am familiar with... that being a 125 hp PA12... I had to keep at least a hundred yards of runway packed down. No skidoo to do the job either.