19dcavscout

I am in the U.S. Army. I used to fly OH-58D's but now fly a few variants of the C-12 (King Air 200).

This doesn't look like it will buff out: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/sia-flight-catches-fire/2907544.html?cid=fbcna

I prefer the single cue, but that is also what is at work, so I am used to it.

1070 is supposed to outperform a 980ti by a decent margin. If it was between the two, the 1070 would be the way to go.

I was thinking the same thing.

Those look incredible

Best wishes. Good luck!

I have had to change it in real life depending on what I was doing. Usually if I am flying cross country, they won't, but once I get to my destination and want to do some practice approaches or upper airwork the local controller will have me change it. Its not terribly uncommon and really not a huge deal. It does happen in the real world. They say if you want a cool up close and personal airshow, squawk 7500 and wait a bit!!!

He is no longer working on the Typhoon. His computer was attacked by a virus the other day and he lost the source files for ALL of his projects.

I only have a little bit of experience in the 1900D, but the King Air 200, which is very similar, has a very nose down approach. A turboprob wont make an approach like a jet, you have to point the nose down to go down. If you are talking about just a normal descent, having anywhere between 5-10 degrees nose down is very normal on descents from altitude.

The F-22 and F-35 both have sidesticks because of what was learned from the F-16. I remember reading that in the design process one of the reasons the F-16 incorporated a right-sidestick was the ability to have increased controls of the stick in high-g maneuvers. This was carried over to the advanced 5th Generation fighters as they were developed.

Are you in the cockpit of the airliner when the crew takes off? Same principle. Just the other day at work we were talking about how much more control input you need when flying an airplane rather than a helicopter. When I started flying planes, (I learned to fly rotary-wing first) I remember thinking about how much more control inputs you would needs compared to what I was used to. But I completely agree and understand what you mean. The engineers who designed the plane designed them with comfortable control pressures in mind.

No I wouldn't, but I would find it odd to criticize my surgeon on how he holds his scalpel. It is one thing if he cannot perform what needs to be done, but another to see someone doing it different than you would and call it wrong.

The 737 will have added Fly by Wire controls, though not complete. As of now the Spoiler system will be a FBW system. As for VNAV, so many things can go wrong that can mess up the descent. Everything from not knowing exact weights, to winds, and a host of other variables that are just impossible to predict entirely. It can assist however, but like what was said earlier, its just a computer. I don't blame Boeing for not making huge modifications to the 737 family. It is the most successful airliner in history. They say at any time in the world a 737 is taking off or landing somewhere. Thats impressive. The ability to keep commonality among the airplanes has been a huge selling point for Boeing. Airlines don't necessarily like new airplanes. It is cheaper for them to have a newish one that doesn't require a ton of training on for crews and maintenance. And why mess with an almost perfect product? The efficiency and readiness ratings on the 737 are something like a 99.7%. Thats crazy.

A lot of runways do not have the PAPI or VASI indicators on the same glidepath as the ILS, so though you may be on glideslope, you may see 3 red or all red. The approach plate will say this. Usually something along the lines of "VGSI and ILS glideslope not coincident" Here is an example: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1604/00414IL16.PDF