PDA

View Full Version : I dare any of you



Airmail109
12-31-2007, 08:28 PM
To fly new york to heathrow in fsx without autopilot

You'll go insane

No really you will

Long haul airline pilots are weirdos

Airmail109
12-31-2007, 08:28 PM
To fly new york to heathrow in fsx without autopilot

You'll go insane

No really you will

Long haul airline pilots are weirdos

zardozid
12-31-2007, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
To fly new york to heathrow in fsx without autopilot

You'll go insane

No really you will

Long haul airline pilots are weirdos </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

long haul pilots use auto-pilot...

Skunk_438RCAF
12-31-2007, 09:18 PM
Its only an hour long flight in an SR-71.

Skoshi Tiger
12-31-2007, 10:01 PM
Do they have a simulated Spirit of St louis?

Stew278
12-31-2007, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
Do they have a simulated Spirit of St louis? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you check flightsim.com they have the FS2004 Spirit of St.Louis that has been updated to run in FSX. I imagine trying a trans-Atlantic flight with that has got to be pretty rough.

Cajun76
12-31-2007, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
Time compression is your friend... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Real men reduce game speed by at least half.

Copperhead311th
01-01-2008, 02:40 AM
Ya know i really don't get the lack of supersonic commercail travel. we can put a huge space station into space & house ppl for months even years, we can land on the moon, but we can't build a new supersonic airliner that can cross the atlantic ocean in under 4 freaking hours. WTF i realise the comcord was way past its prime but damn can't we come up with something new?

SeaFireLIV
01-01-2008, 03:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
To fly new york to heathrow in fsx without autopilot

You'll go insane

No really you will

Long haul airline pilots are weirdos </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pop a couple of loaded cannons on the wings and the possibility of enemy aircraft encounters and I`ll do it.

leitmotiv
01-01-2008, 03:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
To fly new york to heathrow in fsx without autopilot

You'll go insane

No really you will

Long haul airline pilots are weirdos </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pop a couple of loaded cannons on the wings and the possibility of enemy aircraft encounters and I`ll do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

MEGILE
01-01-2008, 04:35 AM
On eskyworld they used to run a special europe to USA flight.

I never did it, but if I had, be sure I would have flown a Concorde. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52Uther
01-01-2008, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
Ya know i really don't get the lack of supersonic commercail travel. we can put a huge space station into space & house ppl for months even years, we can land on the moon, but we can't build a new supersonic airliner that can cross the atlantic ocean in under 4 freaking hours. WTF i realise the comcord was way past its prime but damn can't we come up with something new? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quite like the gap.

cawimmer430
01-01-2008, 05:25 AM
I dare any of you to fly from New York to Heathrow using a BF-109 - without a drop tank (not that it matters). I hear the Atlantic is real nice this time of year. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

stansdds
01-01-2008, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
Ya know i really don't get the lack of supersonic commercail travel. we can put a huge space station into space & house ppl for months even years, we can land on the moon, but we can't build a new supersonic airliner that can cross the atlantic ocean in under 4 freaking hours. WTF i realise the comcord was way past its prime but damn can't we come up with something new? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Operational costs are the number one factor. Supersonic aircraft need to be slim and sleek, that sort of design doesn't allow for 300 to 500 seats. Such high speeds also means you need lots of power, that means more engines running at full power and that means a higher fuel consumption rate. The long and short of it is that supersonic flight has become too expensive to be commercially successful.

DuxCorvan
01-01-2008, 12:17 PM
How about supercruiser technology? They can adapt that thing to kill people but they can't use it to move them? Supersonic engines are far more advanced and economic today than in the times of the Concorde.

What happens is that air passengers are massed and stacked like cattle, and we can't demand a better service because we need it so badly we have to cope with whatever they give us.

They're not interested in researching faster and more comfortable planes for us, what they want is massive flying mammoths to carry 700 people or more in every flight, so they can increase their profit margin.

joeap
01-01-2008, 12:20 PM
Good post Dux, and Aimail, there is a reason they invented autopilots...to prevent the real pilots from going insane. I guess Alcock and Brown, and Lindberg et al were already crazy!!!

Waldo.Pepper
01-01-2008, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
I guess Alcock and Brown , and Lindberg et al were already crazy!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arthur Whitten Brown took his own life didn't he? He may not have been crazy but he was certainly troubled. (I think grieved by the death of his son.)

Bremspropeller
01-01-2008, 02:35 PM
Supercruise is far from being the most efficient way to get from A to B.
In fact, the Concorde could and did supercruise - it would only use it's afterburners to go trough transonic speed. At roughly M 1.7 it would switch reheat off and cruise at dry power only.

Modern fighter engines tend to have lower bypass-ratios than the ones of the preceeding generation.
In civil aviation, however, the opposite is going on - engines have an ever-increasing bypass-ratio.

Just look at the GE90 - puts out 512kN (over 100,000lbs) of thrust (depends on rating) and has a diameter of more than 3m. Only the smallest share of air going through the engine gets in contact with fuel.
Those engines are exceptionally powerfull and efficient in cruise.

The reason why we never had a successful supersonic airliner is quite simple:

Economics - or the lack thereof.

Phil_C
01-01-2008, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skunk_438RCAF:
Its only an hour long flight in an SR-71. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its actually 1 hour 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds. It was set September 1 of 1974.
And the fastest Concorde transatlantic flight was 2:52:59, set on 2/7/1996.

Autopilotless trand atlantic flight is easy, if you trim the plane, and tape the stick in the position you have it set (or unplug it) to keep from messing up your track :lol:

ImpStarDuece
01-01-2008, 11:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
Ya know i really don't get the lack of supersonic commercail travel. we can put a huge space station into space & house ppl for months even years, we can land on the moon, but we can't build a new supersonic airliner that can cross the atlantic ocean in under 4 freaking hours. WTF i realise the comcord was way past its prime but damn can't we come up with something new? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The economics of supersonic passenger aircraft are a cast iron b1tch, particularly with the improvements in the performance of current/very near future aircraft (777-200/300, 787, A350, A380 will all cruise at .85 Mach or better) and the increasing prevalence of teleconferencing, VoIP and other measures and reluctance on behalf of business to spend money on travel.

Even in the mid-80s, when greed was good, Reganomics was booming and aviation fuel was approximately half of what it costs (in real terms) at the moment, the Concorde was only marginally profitable for BA and Air France, and certainly inferior to the cash generating potential of a 747, which was approximately the same price (if they had been forced to pay for them... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

Building an aircraft to withstand the heat/turbulence at Mach 2 + is not a cheap proposition either, even with modern composite technology. The Concorde used to expand 7 inches during flight. Furthermore, the fuel required to push an aircraft along at this kind of speed is almost prohibitive, given current engine technology (although there are several hybrid engine concepts that appear to be workable).

However, neither Boeing nor Airbus have announced that they are considering a supersonic aircraft, with Boeing swinging into 787 production and design of the 787-10 and the 737 successor (probably due to fly in 2017, although one concept is reportedly a very high subsonic narrowbody, cruising at .95 Mach) and Airbus working on the A350XWB family.

Nowadays, with the volume of business/first class travel is trending only slowly upwards (IATA data shows that premium travel between continents is growing at about 2-3% p/a, while domestic premium travel in the US and Europe is nose-diving, down 17% in Europe in the last quarter). Even with the improved levels of service and product (lie flat beds, personal suites ect), only the carriers with the newest equipment and biggest budgets (Lufthansa, BA, Singapore Airlines, Qatar Airways, Emirates Airlines, Etihad Airways) are really the only ones benefiting from premium traffic growth.

If you look at Boeing's and Airbus' order books, twin aisle, twin engine aircraft are the flavour of the decade. There are now more than 1,000 A350XWB/B787s on order, not bad for aircraft that haven't even flown yet.

At the moment, there are a couple of supersonic regional/business jet projects kicking round. Sukhoi/Gulfstream, Aerion and Cessna are all working on concepts/designs at the moment, with projected entry into service around 2014/15.

If fuel drops in price or some breakthrough in engine efficency is realised, a large SSPJ is workable. But, given current design, development, testing, service cycles, don't hold your breath as it will probably be 25 years before we see something supersonic that is larger than 120 passengers.