brownshoe

Carenado A36 appears to work fine right out of the box. Dave

I haven't used the FS ATC in many, many years. Too frustrating. IRL, if ATC gives you instructions you can't follow because of aircraft performance or crew comfort level, you just say "unable" and do something else. If you need a runway other than the one they're trying to use, you may have to go somewhere and hang out in a holding pattern until there's a space in the sequence for you to slip in the way you want. But, as PIC, you're in charge of your flight, and responsible for the safe outcome. The guy with the radar and the microphone isn't. For TNCM, if you want to land on 27, practice hand-flying the airplane until you can do the visual. Basic airmanship here... if it can't be done safely in the type of aircraft you're flying, then your airline, in the real world, would have a note somewhere in their policies/procedures/SOPs prohibiting visual approaches to runway 28 at TNCM. A "visual approach" is just a way for you to join a VFR traffic pattern and land the airplane on the runway in use without cancelling your IFR clearance. It frequently includes downwind and base legs on the way to final, and is not the same a "circle to land" maneuver at the end of an instrument approach. Dave

Trying to pick an add-on or two to get myself for Christmas... Anybody tried the Carenado B200 or A36 yet? No previous FSX install- Steam only. Thanks, Dave

Thanks for the reply. I've already got one or two gauges that don't work because I'm on Vista now, so not much change there... What I'm looking at is something like this set of blueprints from Maximum PC: Ingredients Part Component Price Case Corsair Vengeance C70 $110 PSU XFX P1-750X-XXB9 750W $85 Mobo Gigabyte G1.Sniper Z87 ATX $160 CPU Intel Core i5-4670K $240 Cooler Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO $35 GPU EVGA GeForce GTX 760 2GB 02G-P4-3765-KR $250 RAM 2x 4GB G.Skill Ares F3-1600C9D-8GAO $65 Optical Drive Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD Burner $20 SSD Samsung 840 EVO 250GB $150 HDD Seagate Barracuda 1TB ST1000DM003 $65 or an Alienware X51 as an out-of-the-box alternative with an AMD Radeon R9 270 card. They're pricing out about the same. The X51 comes ready to go out of the box, but will most likely be harder to upgrade in the future if I ever want to. But it does beg the question of will I really save by building my own? Is there anything in the materials list there that I can't get in a ready-made machine like Alienware makes?

So I'm in the market for a new flight sim rig. I've been running primarily FS9 on a Sony Vaio laptop for the last 6 years or so. It's been a great machine and it's still going strong, but that's really old in computer years, and since it's also our primary computer for stuff like photos and documents, it's time for a new machine. I've always wanted to try my hand at building a computer, and this seems like a good time. I realize it's probably also a good time to update to FSX, but I'm still most comfortable with FS9 and I've got some add-ons I really like. So I would like to build a machine that will run both. Which brings me to my question: Is there any hardware I should avoid if I want to be able to run FS9? Do I need to stick with a 32-bit OS, or will everything be okay with 64? The design of this machine is still in the philosophical stage. I really don't know an awful lot about PC hardware, and FS9 and FSX are both old enough that I probably don't need the latest-greatest-mind-blowing stuff in order to get a significant upgrade from where I am now. My budget is not infinite, but I am willing to spend a little for things that are worth it in terms of what I'm trying to accomplish. Where do you get the most bang for your buck? Seems like a good video card is key, and the right RAM. Suggestions welcome. Hope everyone's having a great weekend!

There are ways around the problem of prop tips going supersonic. More blades, bigger props turning slower, tip geometry, etc. I think on the transport side we'd have planes that looked a lot like the piston behemoths of the 1950s. They pretty much reached the limits of what you can do with reciprocating engines on the turbo-compound radial monsters they hung on those things. Those engines just got so heavy and complex ( = expensive) that it only made sense to replace them with turbines. But the move away from pistons at the top end of powerplant development has left us with piston engines in the GA fleet that have changed very little in the last 60 years. Like Chris said, there are some cool new developments, but in small airplanes the payoffs just aren't big enough to overcome the regulatory burdens. It's too bad, in a lot of ways, because pistons have some advantages over turbines in terms of overall efficiency in some low-speed, low-altitude applications, which is why the Voyager was piston-powered. If some good, large-scale piston alternatives were available, they might still make sense for regional airliners. Dave

Thanks! If you ever do feel like trying it out, you're very welcome.

At the close of our first week in business, I'm pleased to report that American Legend Airlines has managed to recruit pilots, log flights, and start an active forum for our members. American Legend is officially a living, breathing virtual airline. If you've been on the fence, come check us out! Before you think "oh no, not another virtual airline!" rest assured: You've never seen a virtual airline like this. American Legend Airlines seeks to realistically simulate a mid-size national carrier, currently doing business in the year 1952. We'll simulate the progression of time with the expansion of the fleet and route structure as new aircraft become available and the airline continues to meet its goals. Unique features include: -Scratch-built, hand-coded interactive website -Realistic timetable with airports named as they were in 1952 -Beautiful, period-appropriate livery with over 250 fleet downloads last week -"Business model" where success and progress of the airline depends on individual pilots' contributions and on-time performance If you're ready for a fresh take on the meaning of a virtual airline, with a unique and realistic premise, come check us out. Thanks, Dave

Are you looking for a fresh idea in the VA community? A new challenge?Join American Legend AirlinesAmerican Legend AirlinesHow to ApplyIf you're interested in becoming one of our founding pilots, please email a summary of your experience, interest, preferred title (Captain or First Officer) and equipment to americanlegendairlines@gmail.com.American Legend Airlines is a virtual airline set in the 1952-1953 time period, at the height of piston-engine airliner development. Advanced propliner aircraft such as the Douglas DC-6B offer a unique set of challenges to the virtual airline pilot. Other VAs have featured "vintage" departments, but American Legend is devoted exclusively to the realistic simulation of these magnificent and unique airplanes.In an effort to simulate "scheduled" operations, the main operational goal of the airline will be to fly every route on the schedule at least once a month. To that end, a custom website and dispatching system have been created. Each pilot will bid on which flights he/she will commit to for the following month. Based on seniority and the needs of the airline, every pilot will receive a "dispatch" which must be completed in order to remain in good standing. Once the assigned flights have been logged, the pilot will be free for the remainder of the month to fly any flight in the system.Available PositionsCaptainAs a new virtual airline, American Legend Airlines is offering experienced propliner pilots the opportunity to join the organization at the rank of Captain.The successful candidate will have documented experience flying propliners in FS9/FSX and a strong desire to help train less-experienced pilots in the nuances of propliner operations.Equipment assignment will be based on pilot's preference and the needs of the airline.First OfficerNo prior propliner experience required. Basic IFR navigation skills desirable, but will train motivated candidates.Initial equipment assignment will be either CV-240 or DC-3 based on pilot's preference and the needs of the airline.

I think the pilots made it out okay. But there were a lot of Marines in the back wearing heavy gear who didn't really stand a chance. I think this accident also led to the requirement for Marines to undergo dunker training prior to a shipboard deployment.

Marrying the right woman will definitely affect your flying career. You're still quite young, so there's really no need to hurry. But when you're sure you've got it right, there's no need to wait, either.But you have to be totally honest with her and with yourself. You're going to be gone. A lot. And you're going to be coming and going at all strange hours of the day and night. And at times it'll feel like you don't have much control over your life. And if you go the way most guys go, you're going to be really, really poor for a long, long, time.At the beginning of my career (not that long ago), someone told me "aviation is a fickle mistress who will one day leave you for a guy who's younger, handsomer, and can pass a flight physical." It might be after a long time, and it might be after a short time. But there WILL come a day when you no longer can or even want to fly for a living. And when that day comes, it'll make all the difference in the world what kind of woman you have to go home to. If you're lucky, you'll have a family and a rich, full life ahead of you and plenty of other skills and interests. You'll make great friends in aviation, but none of that will matter nearly as much as your domestic situation. So be sure you get that part right.And flying is great, but make sure you've got some other marketable skills, too. If you're going to do an "aviation science" program, plan on getting your MBA or something as soon as you can when you're done. Or go to college for something that'll give you in-demand, "hard" skills you can apply to another industry, like engineering or computer science, and then get your ratings on the side.Just my .02.

Ground resonance is pretty rare, but some models seem to be more susceptible than others. It's usually the result of improperly serviced tires, struts, or lead-lag dampers in the rotorhead. And yes, getting airborne again will immediately resolve the problem. If you can't get airborne (because you're chained down to a flight deck, for example), you have to immediately shut down the engines and slam on the rotor brake. Dynamic rollover is still a major cause of broken helicopters. I've seen that last video with the Frog more times than I'd like. Lots of lessons learned there. Dynamic rollover is just about always pilot-induced. You absolutely cannot accept any lateral drift in a helicopter landing or takeoff. You also have to be careful landing and taking off from sloped surfaces. Flying helos isn't entirely crazy, but they are a bit less forgiving due to the higher mechanical and aerodynamic complexity, and the closer proximity to the ground. I often thought I wasn't really flying the helicopter, but just stopping it from crashing itself for long enough to get to where we were going. Don't forget, though, that airplanes can still kill you, too. Every single flight in any kind of aircraft has to be approached with respect, caution, preparedness, and discipline in order to be done safely. Save the crazy stuff for the sim!

Last year I joined the EAA and went to Oshkosh for the first time. It really changed the way I felt about homebuilt aircraft.I got my degree in Aeronautical Engineering, so building airplanes is something I've always had in the back of my mind to do. As a pilot with a fairly traditional training background, I thought your options for owning were pretty much just Cessna, Piper, Beech, or maybe Cirrus or Diamond or a couple of others. Homebuilts were, well, dangerous and you were crazy if you thought too seriously about it.Then I went to Oshkosh, and I've gotta say: There are a lot of homebuilts out there that are better designs with better construction, materials, and workmanship than anything on the "certified" market. Of course, it's entirely up to the builder. But a lot of people don't build airplanes because they want something cheaper than a certified, but because they want something better. And then they put in the time and money and elbow grease and spend every evening for a couple of years in their garage until they have it. And the results are absolutely amazing.That said, I think just wanting an affordable way to fly is a lousy reason to build an airplane. Doing it right takes about twice as much time and money as the manufacturer advertises. So if you just want a cheap way to fly, buy a tired old 152 and build the time. The guys who do well building their own airplanes seem to love the building at least much as (or, for many, even more than) the flying.If you're even remotely interested in this stuff, JOIN THE EAA! Find your local chapter, and go to a meeting. I couldn't imagine building an airplane without being an EAA member. Your membership gets you access to tons of expertise. They'll actually send an experienced builder to your house to check out your project and help you, one-on-one. Chapters often go in together to buy specialty tools for their members. The membership is only $40 a year, and if you spend a couple of days at Oshkosh, the discounted admission and ability to camp on-site pretty much pays for the membership. Meeting some guys who are building and getting a look at their projects will give you a very realistic idea of what to expect if you choose to build.Building my own plane is right at the top of my bucket list, if I've got one. When I've got the money and time, my plan is to buy a 172 to fly my little family around in for a couple of years while we build an RV-10. You can do it, but you've got to take a step back, take your time, and do it right.And, yeah, homebuilt helicopters scare the crap out of me, too. Regular helicopters are scary enough. I've got 450+ hours of whirlybird time, and my policy is I'll pay to fly a plane but you've gotta pay me to fly a helicopter.

*facepalm*I'm not sure you understood that last article you posted. (The second one is a dead link, btw.) The author is giving a technique for orienting oneself and how to AVOID reverse sensing. Your "tutorial" used a technique where you tracked a radial using a course which was the reciprocal of your heading. This is reverse sensing, and if used in the way you demonstrated will probably cause you to fail a checkride. Big difference. People are getting really wrapped around the axle about this VOR business. It's really not terribly complicated, so you're better off just practicing it the right way until you "get it" instead of inventing all these methods to confuse yourself and everyone else. Here are some exercises to try if you want to play with VORs:1) Tracking to a station: Position yourself somewhere near a VOR on a random heading. To find the course to the station, twist the OBS knob until the CDI needle centers with a "to" flag. Turn to the heading corresponding to the course selected and practice tracking with the CDI until you get to the station. You can use the same procedure, except with a "from" flag to track a course outbound. Radial intercepts: once you're tracking to or from a station, pick a different course you'd like to intercept. Twist the OBS to the new course. The CDI will deflect in the direction you need to turn in order to intercept the new course. There are various rules of thumb out there for how much of an intercept angle to use, but it really doesn't matter as long as you use enough to get there but not so much that you overshoot. Over-the-station intercepts: track inbound on a course to the station. Track outbound on a different course. As soon as you're over the station, turn to the new course. Then twist the new course into the CDI and intercept the radial. Those are the basic building blocks of radio navigation. As you practice, you'll get better at interpreting the instruments and knowing what's going on. If you're confused, take advantage of the fact you're using a desktop sim and take a look at the GPS or the map. It's confusing at first, but it really isn't complicated. You're better off spending your time practicing than trying to figure out new ways to confuse yourself like you've been doing.

I am a real-world instrument-rated commercial pilot in airplanes and helicopters. I'm a CFI and will soon be a CFII. I will never, ever, EVER teach any of my students to set up a VOR to deliberately use reverse-sensing to track a course, and if any of them do it or try to use this method, I will NOT endorse them for anything until I have thoroughly beaten this tendency out of them. I'm sure the other CFIs and pilots on here will agree.I really don't intend any offense here. But you asked for pilots' opinions, and that's what I think. I'm sticking with the current method because that's how we do it in the real world. Sometimes it's dogmatic to say that, but sometimes it's right, too. This time it's right. "Normal" sensing is the way VOR receivers are designed to work, and to say otherwise is false.When you're intercepting a radial, you put the COURSE you want to fly into the OBS, not the RADIAL. What radial you're on doesn't really matter, and figuring it out really doesn't enter my brain when I'm trying to track a COURSE to or from a station. If you ask me, I can figure it out, but it's really not the most important thing.To say this is the "easy" way, and how VORs were "meant to be used" is just plain wrong. VORs were "meant to be used" as a system of points to define IFR airways to replace the four-course radio range system. You're supposed to use them to fly point-to-point along known courses. Yes, you can use them to determine your position if you're really, hopelessly lost. But that's not really what they're for.Putting this out as a "tutorial" is confusing and counter-productive for people who want to learn about instrument navigation. You're a lot better off just learning how to do it the right way the first time around.Good luck,Dave

If the only criterion for judgement of great aeronautical engineering is performance, then my vote is for the SR-71. Across the US from east to west in less than an hour. Yikes. Sure, the Concorde could perform at a lower level on a more regular basis with greater efficiency. But speaking strictly in terms of pushing the limits of what an air-breathing airplane can do, the SR-71 flew higher, faster, and farther than anything but a couple of one-off rocket planes.But if you want to talk about a genuinely useful, durable, versatile product, then I've got to put in the first vote for the Douglas DC-3. More than 75 years after its first flight, there are still a handful of Gooney Birds making money for their operators in places other airplanes fear to tread. The guys who use them don't keep them around for sentimental reasons.Two or three generations of planes designed to replace the DC-3 now exist only in museums while the DC-3 itself remains in revenue service. I highly doubt anything we're "engineering" today will still be flying profitably in 75 years.

Sorry I didn't get back to you.Like Chris said, though, it's really not too complicated. I just looked at the charts on SkyVector. Here's how I would do that flight VFR:I would file for KTDF BILLA RDU KFAY with an initial cruising altitude of 5,500 to go right over the top of KRDU. As soon as I hit BILLA, I'd call Raleigh Approach on 125.3 (see the white box northeast of RDU) and request flight following to Fayetteville. I'd expect him to assign me a squawk and an altitude.I might get handed off to another RDU approach controller on the south side, or they might just hand me off to Fayetteville Approach on 125.175. Once I was past KRDU, I'd ask for a lower altitude (2,500 or so) to start down into KFAY. Since I'm talking to approach, I don't need to worry about "busting" Pope's airspace, or Ft. Bragg. At the appropriate time, approach will hand me off to Fayetteville tower. Easy day.You can go direct, too, and the comm flow remains the same. But with a busy airport like RDU, it's actually better to fly right over the top, since that's the one place you know you'll be out of the flow of landing and departing traffic.There seems to be a fear of airspace and controllers when you're just starting out. I had it, too. Best thing to do is just push through it and get some experience talking on the radio as soon as you've got "aviate" and "navigate" under control. Being in radar contact is much less stressful than wondering if you're going to bust airspace or mess up traffic. It actually makes your life as a pilot easier, not harder, when you're just flying point to point. So learn it, use it, love it.Again, sorry for the delayed response, and hope everything's cleared up.Dave

If you're approaching class C airspace to land, you should call approach. Maybe you don't technically HAVE to, but it's the right thing to do. It doesn't cost anything extra and it gets you on their radar sooner.You don't have to request an airspace transition. It's redundant. A "transition" is what you use when you want to go through the airspace without landing.So you're on the right track, but I would strongly recommend calling approach. It'd go something like this:"Raleigh Approach, Cessna 191KI." (This is called a "courtesy call." You're about to give him a lot of information, but he might not have his pencil yet.)"Cessna 191KI, Raleigh Approach, go ahead." (Now he's telling you he's ready.)"Approach, Cessna 191KI is 25 south, 4,500, with Raleigh-Durham information Mike, to land Raleigh-Durham.""Cessna 191KI, squawk 0301. Raleigh altimeter 2985.""Squawk 0301, altimeter 2985, Cessna 191KI." (Always read back an altimeter setting, and don't shorten your callsign unless he does it first.)As soon as the controller (approach or tower) acknowledges your tail number, you're legal to enter the class C, so don't worry about that. Just keep going until he tells you otherwise, but expect to be vectored once you're in radar contact. When you're about 5 miles out, the approach controller will hand you off to tower, who will give you instructions about pattern entry and landing order.Talking to approach will also alleviate any confusion with complicated airspace like in your original situation. You won't have to worry about when to call what tower, because you're in contact and approach will tell you whom to call and when.Don't be afraid to talk to approach. Those guys are there for a reason. There are lots of other airplanes in and around Class C, and approach will help you find them. Sometimes when you ARE in radar contact, approach will say something like "Traffic is on your two o'clock, three miles, VFR, type unknown, indicating 2,500 feet." That means there's somebody out there who isn't talking to him, but is close to you, and nobody has any idea who he is or where he's going. Don't be "that guy." :crazy:DaveCFI

Very nice livery!PM'd you.

PM'd you.

PM'd you.

Got a website?Are you using some kind of economic system, or just your own accounting?What are you using for flight reporting/ACARS?Good luck,Dave

Thanks to all who responded sympathetically. I've checked out DVA and Platinum before... maybe I'll have to give them a try.Unfortunately, the integrated GeForce video card in my laptop has completely worn out. Computer's been freezing up and crashing a lot this week. Luckily, the problem with this particular model is so common that the manufacturers of the computer and the card have gotten together and extended the warranty to four years. It's a 3.7-year-old-computer, and they're dispatching a technician to come to my house this week and replace the motherboard, free of charge. So, I've been grounded all week, but I'm hoping to be back soon.Happy landings,Dave

I'd really like to be part of a great VA. I fly a lot of airline-type flights in FS, and I think VAs in general are a fun way to associate with like-minded people.I think I fly pretty realistically. I'm a real-world commercial pilot, ex-Naval Aviator, and I'm expecting to pass my CFI checkride next week. I tend to favor add-on aircraft that at least simulate an APU and bleed air system (if appropriate to the type), and I fly SIDs, STARs, and IAPs. Once I get leveled off in cruise, though, there's really not much to do until TOD. So, once I'm satisfied that everything is in order with my plane, I kick the sim rate up to 16x and monitor the systems, fuel, and progress of the flight until it's time to slow down and come down again. It's really a cool feature of FS, and I'm sure that whoever can first implement this in a real airliner will make a killing for himself.But apparently, my philosophy is at odds with the greater Virtual Airline community. Every time someone talks about sim rate on these forums, they're immediately flamed for a lack of "realism." Seriously? Like I said, if we had the feature on real airplanes, I'm pretty sure we'd use it.I hope someday I have the time to "enjoy" a "realistic" FS flight from JFK to LAX with winter headwinds in real-time. But as it is I'm a busy guy with a young family and I'm lucky if I get an hour and a half here and there to make a flight. But you know what? Even if I HAD five hours to kill watching virtual prairies drift below me, I don't think I would. I'd probably just crank up the sim rate so I could fly more than one leg.So, my current VA options are: 1) Lie/cheat when it comes to logging time, if I can even find a VA that doesn't use some sort of ACARS to enforce their silly sim rate rules or 2) restrict myself to short hops, which is also kind of lame. I haven't had the heart to lie/cheat, and I enjoy transcontinental and occasionally transatlantic flights for the level of planning required and the change of scenery involved.Am I a bad person? Am I crazy? Am I the only one who flies like this? Are there any VAs out there that will take me the way I am? I've found a few that allow sim rates other than 1x, but it seems to be frowned on, and in no case is anything more than 4x approved, ever.For you guys who do the long hauls at 1x: Am I missing out on something magical that happens during those long hours of simulated straight-and-level at FL360? What do you do to pass the time?I hope nobody takes this seriously enough to take offense at anything I've said. I guess I'm just a little frustrated and wondering if I'm the only one.Have a great weekend, everybody,Dave

If you just want a place to log some flights, check out the Airline Flights feature at my site, fsairpark.com. I think you'll need to register to see it, but basically you can log flights in any airliner and on any route you want. The site will analyze some stats for you about hours in each make and model.Here's another feature you won't find anywhere, though: If you "dispatch" your flights (announce them in advance) other users of the site can book themselves on the flight and get a ride.It's nothing fancy, just a fun way to interact with other people and keep track of your flights.Dave