Hi everybody i noticed tha 737NGX don't have humidity effect on the wings like have the default planes

 

Why?

 

Thanks

Are you referring to the condensation vortices from the wingtips?

Are you referring to the condensation vortices from the wingtips?

 

Nope. Every once in a while, you'll get a cloud over the wing, in addition to what you're thinking of. It was really obvious on Concorde because of the high angle of attack and its related effect on the air pressure.

 

wow ! A supersonic passenger airplane. I can't wait to see one of those.

Ooops, They have been and gone already.

It was the result of the infamous England and France oneupmanship game, just like the transatlantic liners of the past.

In the 30' it was The Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth VS the Normandy.

In the 60's it was the QE2 VS The France.

 

It looks like the aviation business has taken a major step backwards.

 

Fred.

It looks like the aviation business has taken a major step backwards.

 

No joke. Branson offered to buy them, too, and was turned down because the airlines simply wanted to retire them. The industry was then failed by both government and industry in a lack of enforcement of clauses both requiring sale, and requiring support (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3005705.stm).

 

In the end, though, it does force people to come up with an alternative. With F-22s being able to supercruise without afterburner, among other advances in the 36 years since it first flew, we could certainly make a more efficient one. Unfortunately, all those who control purse strings see when they look at Concorde is the lack of profit at the very end.

 

Never mind the whole idea that you could make it from JFK to LHR in less than four hours...

 

Who knows what will happen.

Are you referring to the condensation vortices from the wingtips?

 

Yes you can see this particular effects in the mission of FSX that you could land at Quito by default 747 from the external view you can see this effects

With F-22s being able to supercruise without afterburner, among other advances in the 36 years since it first flew, we could certainly make a more efficient one.

Concorde was super-cruising long before the F-22 came on the scene. It couldn't have got across the Atlantic using reheat. Interestingly enough it could barely have crossed the Atlantic subsonic either, it had aboout 30% more range flying supersonic. The reason no one has come up with a successor is because the original was very hard to improve on and the economics still don't stack up. The technology got old and hard to support but the design solutions that made Concorde practical were elegant and unsurpassed to this day.

 

As for Richard Branson's offer to buy the aircraft no one took him seriously. It appeared to be another one of his publicity stunts. Virgin could not have maintained Concorde without Airbus support, which was sadly being withdrawn.

Yes you can see this particular effects in the mission of FSX that you could land at Quito by default 747 from the external view you can see this effects

 

I am sure this has happened with me many times in the pmdg 737.. Try some different weather or something.

I have never seen this.... Hmm, time to experiment..

i don't know what you are doing but i am flying from the cockpit so no way i can see that.

i don't know what you are doing but i am flying from the cockpit so no way i can see that.

This is the problem Daniel! I love watch out for observe the panorama while i'm flying! Excuse me but for now i don't know how you can fly in VC cockpit I try a lot of times but is impossible for me viewing the overhead correctly in fact i think PMDG made an error if lost the 2D view in next gen aircraft like 777.

I try to fly in VC a lot of time but for now I'm like 2D panel!

Excuse me

I've seen the effects on my ngx in the past, or at least I remember it, you need to have high angle of attack, try pulling the plane up as strong as you can, expecially at a not very high speed, FSX does not simulate it correctly, it has no relation (in fsx) with external humidity, and, fsx does not simulates the other codensation vortex that sometimes you can see from the engines, over the wings, at the tip of the flaps and so on.

Flap vortexes are relative easy to simulate in FSX using a small xml gauge.

 

The most difficult part is getting the XYZ coordinates for the anchor point and deciding when you want them to show up.

The code is very simple and feeds from a fx file.

 

Russ

Concorde was super-cruising long before the F-22 came on the scene. It couldn't have got across the Atlantic using reheat. Interestingly enough it could barely have crossed the Atlantic subsonic either, it had aboout 30% more range flying supersonic. The reason no one has come up with a successor is because the original was very hard to improve on and the economics still don't stack up. The technology got old and hard to support but the design solutions that made Concorde practical were elegant and unsurpassed to this day.

 

Correct. I didn't mean to imply that it needed reheat the whole time. Rather, it needed reheat on takeoff and to get a push into to that flight phase, while the F-22 doesn't. I didn't write that clearly enough. In fact, at altitude, the engines were the most efficient in the world, in terms of thrust per mile.

 

As for Richard Branson's offer to buy the aircraft no one took him seriously. It appeared to be another one of his publicity stunts. Virgin could not have maintained Concorde without Airbus support, which was sadly being withdrawn.

 

All the stories I've read say quite the opposite. The fact that he took it to the courts points to that fact. It may have initially appeared so, but in the end, people had to know he was serious. There was also a few fights about Airbus withdrawing support, as some found them to be obligated to continue under the AF agreement. The article I linked earlier does a good job of explaining both points.

Correct. I didn't mean to imply that it needed reheat the whole time. Rather, it needed reheat on takeoff and to get a push into to that flight phase, while the F-22 doesn't. I didn't write that clearly enough. In fact, at altitude, the engines were the most efficient in the world, in terms of thrust per mile.

What you wrote wasn't even close to that. When you mentioned the F-22 and supercruise as a new technology you implied Concorde was not able to do it. Concorde could accelerate to Mach 1 without reheat, but it was more economic to use it than not. Similarly I suspect it could take off without reheat, but maybe not with a full load.

 

The F-22 wasn't even the first military aircraft that could supercruise. The first was the English Electric Lightning and there have been a few others since.

 

All the stories I've read say quite the opposite. The fact that he took it to the courts points to that fact. It may have initially appeared so, but in the end, people had to know he was serious. There was also a few fights about Airbus withdrawing support, as some found them to be obligated to continue under the AF agreement. The article I linked earlier does a good job of explaining both points.

Branson didn't take it to court. Your own link describes what he actually did. BA wanted to keep Concorde flying until it's was out of hours, they had a profitable operation. AF had little appetite to keep it going after the Paris crash. That accident had required expensive modifications to the aircraft which hurt both operators. There had also been a long period while the aircraft were grounded which meant much of the business market had drifted away. The post 9/11 aviation recession didn't help things either. Airbus withdrawing technical support was the final straw for BA. It's highly unlikely Virgin could have maintained the aircraft without the design authority's assistance.

 

I'm sure that if Richard Branson had been able to buy the aircraft he would have tried to use them, but the general view this side of the pond was that it was primarily a publicity stunt to get at BA.