petedob

So what's the difference a flaperon and an aerilon?

Good news...although it will probably take a year or two for the product to debut.

Yes, you can. I did it a few months ago after the purchase of a new PC.

"Project Coldfeet: Secret Mission to a Soviet Ice Station" by William Leary and Leonard LeSchack. 

can not get the activation to work. always get an error. wrong serial number. coping right of the page and pasting into the form.

I had the same issue and had to paste my serial number a few times to get the activation to work.

For those who are interested, below is a modification I made in the aircraft.cfg file to increase the turn radius of the nose wheel steering. Turns on the ground in the Carenado 850 seem a little wide, although others may think it is fine. 

In the [contacts_points] section of the config file I changed the value highlighted in red to 58 in the line below (you can adjust the value up or down for more or less steering range):   

point.0 = 1, 21.52,     0.0, -5.95, 1500, 0, 0.7, 58, 0.45 2.00 0.9, 3, 3, 0, 250, 235  //0.45, 3.0

They are - at least if people continue to email them. And if you do try to be tactful - also I think there are language barriers especially for the technical considerations when they build aircraft.... I was trying to discuss with them about how the FLC mode is very slow to respond. And how it needs to work in conjunction with ALTS - I think they got my point finally - but I was having issues conveying it well enough.

That's good advice for all who contact Carenado...

Pretty nice!  757/767?

Ryan,

Thanks for sharing your observations of the Hawker in this forum. They have been helpful and hopefully the developers at Carenado are taking note.

But my original comment is was pertaining to why these topics come up literally every couple months.

I think they come up because internet forum topics are like conversations...people have them without knowing someone else has deliberated a subject multiple times.

Besides a 757, what other aircraft types do you think PMDG would produce as a flight sim? 

Hasn't this topic been beaten to death already? Seems like every few months another one of these topics pop up. "Wouldn't it be nice if PMDG did ______?" Yes it would be nice if they did everyone's favorite aircraft but lets be realistic. Honestly I think if PMDG wants our opinion on what aircraft to do next they will ask it. The folks at PMDG seem to do a lot of market analysis to determine which aircraft they will make so starting these topics every month is pointless.

There's not much left for them to create given their current business philosophy...unless that changes.

Frankly investigative committees do not concern themselves in psychology and mind reading and attempt to have answers to questions 'why they did it', rather what it is that they did and whether it met SOPs. I don't see any attempt in explaining why Air China pilot took of from taxiway instead of runway in the middle of night at Anchorage airport or why Comair 5191 decided to take off from wrong runway or why Asiana crew failed to notice sinking speed and rapidly raising nose of their 777 before they struck a wall.

They do...maybe you haven't run across any yet. This report transitions from "how" to "why" a helicopter accident occurred when investigators were unable to determine any mechanical or weather related contributions to the accident: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAB0703.pdf.

And you can be hyperbolic all day if you wish. The only reason they stalled was because they impetuously shut down their only working engine. All they had to do was just pitch for v2 and fly out on the OEI path and do nothing else until above accel height. That's all. Their survival was guaranteed until they panicked and yanked the good engine's fuel cutoff, against any kind of proper training they should have had. You of all people should already know this, if you are indeed instructing air carrier pilots in a sim four days a week.

It's probably more important at this point to understand why the aircrew shut down (or may have been attempting to restart) an engine during the phase of flight they were in. Was the aircraft not climbing acceptably? Did the crew panic? Who knows...stating that they panicked or all they had to do was to pitch for v2 and fly to a safe altitude is premature.  

I wouldn't say the ATR climbs that well on one engine with the other not feathered. It is much more marginal than the Dash, and then you have to add the hotter temperature, low pressure and other factors like not too much altitude in the first place, so I don't think it was that easy. However I agree on your basic point that it would have been better to simply do nothing except carry on until the situation had been properly identified, rather than a panic shut down of the wrong engine.

Could it be possible that the aircraft was not sufficiently climbing to clear obstacles along their flight path and maybe the crew was attempting an engine restart? 

Assuming nothing catches fire, I believe good training says wait and absolutely confirm which engine might need shutting down before doing so.

It seems odd there is a procedure for shutting down an engine after a losing power in that engine (unless there is an indication of a fire) during the first few minutes of flight.

I suppose a sizeable donation could speed things up.

As it is, the DC-6, sadly, has nowhere near the commercial potential of 777, 747 etc. which are some of the most iconic jets ever built. Business-wise it would not be a wise decision to push the project forward.

 

 

Oh and btw. props to the OP for a great example of how it should be done. The post shows that he had done research, he is up to date with what we know, and he asks specific questions, while acknowledgeing his understanding of possible answers. And name is signed.

Thanks, I appreciate your expert knowledge of what PMDG thinks is profitable. 

I doubt it.  As mentioned, it's a project that's meant to be addressed in developer down time.  It's simply not in enough demand to truly move resources to it as a full-time project.

Are you sure?

PMDG team,

Are there any updates you can provide on the DC-6, other than "it will be done when it is done"? Is there any way to elevate it from a pet project and get it to customers sooner?

Pete

So I go to buy the Carenado TMB 850 and what do I see in very small print....NO 2D cockpit. Put my credit card away and saved my money. Thats 3 down, including PMDG and Capt Sim, no 2D, no money from me.

 

For you VC addicts, dont bother, I dont like the VC, dont use the VC, dont care about the VC, dont like TrackIR, and really don't care to hear for the umpteenth time that 2D cockpits are a thiing of the past.

 

There are still many developers who dont shoot themselves in the foot and those I will continue to support.

Add a 2d panel like Jim says to do and your troubles are over.

If you read the SR-22 POH on the use of the CAPS system, it lists the conditions it should be used. None of them were partial instrument loss. Loss of control was listed, but he hadn't loss control yet. It also says the minimum decision height was 2000ft, He was at 8000Ft, so he had a little time to consider alternatives, even if he had loss control. Interesting the POH mentions as a consideration the safety of the pilot and aircraft occupants, but nowhere does it mention considering the danger of the people below!! If this happened to a regular plane without CAPS, the pilot would use his training and experience and probably do what this pilot ending up doing".

 

I think this pilot had an equal chance of not flying his aircraft out of the weather as he did. It's hard to say what alternatives could be executed if a loss of control occurred...I'm sure the POH says what you state about how it should be used, doesn't mean it can't be used in other circumstances.

If you read the SR-22 POH on the use of the CAPS system, it lists the conditions it should be used. None of them were partial instrument loss. Loss of control was listed, but he hadn't loss control yet. It also says the minimum decision height was 2000ft, He was at 8000Ft, so he had a little time to consider alternatives, even if he had loss control. Interesting the POH mentions as a consideration the safety of the pilot and aircraft occupants, but nowhere does it mention considering the danger of the people below!! If this happened to a regular plane without CAPS, the pilot would use his training and experience and probably do what this pilot ending up doing.

Well obviously in this case it was flyable - well because he flew it after the chute failure. Looking at the data from Flightaware, he was flying in a populated area called the Colony, NorthEast of Ft Worth. If he would have dropped there, he very well may have killed some people, and possibly himself. Now he did turn back to the airport which took him over a lake. (Lewisville Lake) If that was where he pulled the chute, then maybe he made the right decision. We'll have to wait for the NTSB report to see where he actually pulled it.

Loss of control of the aircraft in IMC could have also led to loss of life on the ground. I think there are too many unknowns to interpret the conditions and pilot's skill in this incident.

Pretty Poor (back-seat simmer) Analysis imo when you don't even know whether or not the SR22 has a vacuum system.

Until you get a REAL pilot's license with REAL training and REAL experience in IFR... including IFR flight in the vicinity of thunderstorms... preferably in a Cirrus SR22 and specific understanding of the CAPS system and training when to use it... you really have no business criticizing someone especially when you have no knowledge of the actual conditions the pilot was dealing with.

I have all the above, except the SR22 experience... and no freakin' way I'd criticize his decision. :rolleyes:

You're right, "PSolk" should have no opinion unless he was there.

it's not a good idea for all the FPS complainers in the FSX forum, my system loves FSX and XP10...over 30fps all the time even over cities :lol:

Your blowin smoke.

Not when the post opens a path that almost certainly leads to an eventual thread-lock. Its not hard to start a new gun debate thread if one is looking for that.

...well you're right, we wouldn't want a thread lock to happen.

What does a dancing rat have to do with anything?

I think it would be safest to stay on topic. I really don't want the thread to become a surveillance debate when opposing viewpoints weigh in.

If it acceptable to post news of this incident on AVSIM, then it should be ok to post any and all comments about it.

Well I just uploaded my most recent paint Southwest Airlines 2010 Oshkosh (N948WN). This as seen in photos had a decal on the nose. It no longer has it but I have painted it with it. As requested I have made dirty wings like Southwest planes have. The request was for a different tail number and I will paint that plane with that tail number with the dirty wings but as I had this one sitting in the paint shop I decided that I would put the dirty wings on it to see how people like it. Please let me know by PM or email included in the read me file and let me know how you like it or think I could improve the dirtiness on the wings. The bump maps are provided by Chris Hicks. PS I found out how to paint the little air foil thing on the side on the engine so it is painted. I have also added the new WiFi sticker on the side of the number 1 door like Southwest is doing on the planes with WiFi.

 

 

 

Thanks,

Ian Besemer

I think you added the right amount of "dirt" Ian, it looks realistic.