Jump to content

flyultimate

Members
  • Content Count

    177
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About flyultimate

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes
  1. Hi, Ryan, I knew it was after reading the posts. Just pulling your chain. :smile: You can see the difference, specifically in the panel lighting. But, Carenado did an outstanding job. I love the Carenado B200 in spite of several things that aren't correct. Wish they would modify the 200 and update it to the 250 with the Collins Pro Line. It sure is a slick system to work with! Again, thanks for your C90 input and pics. This really helps a lot.
  2. Ryan, thanks for your C90GT overview. Great shots. Your last shot looks so ....... real! I'm just about to push the "buy" button, mostly based on your post. Carenado may have a few issues, but they sure do produce some fantastic machines! I really love their Citation 550 after they fixed most of it. And, then JanekBln comes along and makes it even better! There are some extremely talented folks out there! Appreciate your input.
  3. Hello, Daniel, Just a note of thanks for what you have given us. Your mesh has beautifully transformed my scenery such that I don't want to pull away from the sim to get any "real" work done. Every area flown into is made so much better! What a great early Christmas gift! So far, there haven't been any areas showing irregularities. Just a great view! I certainly do appreciate the work you have put into FreeMeshX and for your great contribution to the Simming Community. Sincerely, Jim
  4. Hello, Simon, You takeoff from your departure point and upon arrival at your destination, you are surprised by unforecast fog, preventing your being able to land straight away. If you performed your preflight fuel loading appropriately, would this present a problem or a safety concern? Bear in mind if you would, my primary destination doesn't necessarily mean my final destination. "Folks, we are now having to divert to our alternate destination due to "unforeseen" weather present over our destination. They are telling us that the weather isn't going to improve any time soon. Please sit back and enjoy the next (fill in the blank) minutes while we fly to our alternate destination." Would you need to top off the fuel tanks before each departure to accommodate for the probability of not being able to land at your initial destination? How are your flight planning capabilities? Did you do due diligence enroute and check for weather updates for your destination and alternate airports? What was, and while checking enroute, is, the T/DP currently and trending at your primary and alternate destinations? "Why would you knowingly choose to reduce your options by not brimming the tanks before every departure?" Landing weight restrictions come to mind. Personally, I choose to properly preflight my trip and it's fuel requirements. Do I reduce my options by not brimming the tanks before every departure? Of course options are reduced. If I'm at my ETP over the ocean, wouldn't it be better to have more fuel available, especially if the pressurization system fails or an engine fails? But, since there are times when full tanks aren't an option, wouldn't it be nice to properly preflight the fuel requirements for the trip and know that you have the fuel on board for most known and common unexpected events? Short of a major fuel leak in the system. Which could never happen on an AirBus out of Canada. The real question is will the reduction in options of not flying every flight with full fuel tanks get me killed? So far, not in over 40 years of worldwide flying. Hopefully, the next 40 years of flying will yield the same results. So, alternatively Simon, back on topic: Why would you knowingly choose to reduce your options by not using the full length of the runway for every departure? Were the two recent 777 engine failures at KLAS and KFLL, before runway lineup, safer for passengers and crew in the aircraft? Would the passengers and crew be as safe handling the engine failures during a departure if instead of using full length an intersection departure was used instead? Or, would the safety factor be the same for both an intersection departure and a full length departure? Is it safer to depart from a runway and do so leaving 300m of runway behind you from your starting point of the takeoff roll? Leaving 300m less available runway off the nose during the takeoff roll? Especially if all of a sudden you realize that the aircraft isn't performing as expected because of fouled data entry input. That neither the Captain nor co-pilot caught (Cross-Checking). Could this ever happen? Would having just enough runway for departure be safer than having all available runway remaining for departure? Was the MadDog departing not long ago out of KLAS safer when they aborted takeoff AFTER VR following a loss of flight control during a full runway departure if they would of opted for an intersection departure? Go off the end of the runway or try to fly the crippled aircraft. Pretty bad set of options to have to pick from after making a poor takeoff operational choice. Fortunately, the flight crew made the safest of the two choices before takeoff. Their decision gave them more runway available for takeoff, than just enough runway available, which allowed for a successful post VR abort and stopped the aircraft on the remaining runway. Our boxes do not take into account "Runway Required" for an abort at or after VR. As the FAA puts it "You become test pilots." Cheers, Jim Wilkerson
  5. Hi, Kyle, Now, you have a compounded situation to contend with. Incorrect pilot data and an intersection departure. So, you make an error in your takeoff calculations. So, you didn't catch, nor did your co-pilot, the mistake before power application. You perform an intersection departure. You have an unexpected emergency that requires aborting the departure. Do you have the same available runway remaining to stop the aircraft performing an intersection departure in comparison to using the full length for departure? This question makes the Qatar incident at KMIA more than applicable. Point being ... you will only miss the runway that was wasted when you need it. Until then, you are rolling the dice performing intersection departures and degrading your safety factor in the process. Putting your passengers and aircraft in a less safe than available operational consideration. Cheers, Jim Wilkerson
  6. Hello, William, I don't know you or whether you are just a simulator pilot, or a new real world beginning pilot, or an "old and bold" pilot. But..... My advice would be not to look for a "quick" way to depart the airport. Get into the habit of using the full length of the runway for every departure. You thereby allow yourself the additional safety of having more runway available off the nose of your aircraft to work with should you encounter an emergency. I advocate never trading expediency to depart using an intersection departure over retaining a safety factor higher than what would be available if an intersection departure is implemented. We are on the same safety related page, Wilhelm. Our operation prohibits intersection departures as well. Any time a pilot elects to "leave runway behind" instead of using all runway available, they degragate their safety factor and have less options available to them in the event of an emergency. Regardless of whether or not a pilot has the numbers to depart "safely" using less than available runway, they are placing themselves, and more importantly, their passengers, in a less safe environment than otherwise would be available. The Qatar incident at KMIA is more than sufficient to justify not using intersection departures. Among other events that never needed to happen. Our mission in aviation is to make it MORE safe, not to take chances and make it LESS safe. But, there will always be those in our industry that are willing to take risks and roll the dice of chance for expediency. Cheers, Jim Wilkerson
  7. Even though I downloaded your software for the Baron 58TC awhile back, I just started flying it lately. I LOVE this plane! You did an outstanding job with the mods and the sound pack. She flies a lot like the real machine! Thank you very much. Jim
  8. Whoooaaaa! Thanks for the Youtube link, Elaine! I hadn't seen anything new, just heard some things about it. The graphics in this new game are their best yet. Oh, if we could only get these visuals into FSX or P3D and not end up with -400FPS! Looks a lot like Burnout Paradise....just so much more eye candy! Can't Wait! Cheers, Jim Wilkerson
  9. Other than FSX, Need For Speed Series, especially Rivals (outstanding graphics!), Train Simulator 2016, Pinball FX2, and RaceRoom Racing Experience. No wonder I can't get any work done! Cheers, Jim Wilkerson
  10. Just a couple of shots showing the outstanding mods of 1.71 my Mr. Janek. A quick trip from KROW to KASE. Thanks for sharing what you have put together. Jim http://www.fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2015/03/29/2015-3-20_11-5-0-528.jpg http://www.fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2015/03/29/2015-3-20_11-6-49-637.jpg
  11. Mr. Janek, thank you very much for sending me the ISG 1.71 update files for the Citation II. After installing the update, I did a quick trip from KROW to KASE and what a difference these mods have made. VNAV, LNAV, the checklist, performance tabulated data, etc..... ! What a wonderful piece of work! After having ISG for years, this is the FIRST successful installation! Thank you for what you have put together for us. Keep up the great work. Vielen Dank, Jim
×
×
  • Create New...