eaglewing7

Looking good. It's nice to see someone come in and take on these large projects, and hopefully in the relatively near future we'll all be buzzing around in a highly detailed B-29, then later on, your other projects. Hopefully you don't mind a touch of constructive criticism... It could just be the angel of the picture, but the vertical stabilizer and rudder look a bit too small, and the shape looks a bit off at the moment. I'm sure by the time the project is finished though, that those sort of details will be ironed out. Also, the horizontal stabilizer and elevator are definitely not a B-29's in there current form. The B-29 shared a similar horizontal stab/elevator shape to the B-17, that is, the leading edge of the stabilizer was swept back gently, to the curved edges, then the trailing edge of the stabilizer and elevator ran back to the tail end of the plane curved in a similar fashion, almost making the entire surface look like an elliptical wing. Good luck on this project, and your future endeavours.

Pretty old story, I remember hearing about this incident way back in October. Guess the Daily Mail is a little behind the power curve eh?

Just because countries have ordered something, does not mean that they will actually purchase them. Besides, the Rafael was never really produced as an export fighter, but Dassault would likely be more than willing to make a batch up for anyone to purchase... As for the F-35, it's not the right aircraft for Canada, actually it's not really right for anyone, because from the start it has been an airframe with too many goals to meet, so too many compromises have had to be made. To make it stealth, you can't have any external hard points (low payload capacity due to a small internal bay). Avionics wizardry trying to do too many things at once has caused numerous cases of severe pilot disorientation. Single engine, which is fine if your not going to operate over vast tracks of tundra, is not fine for Canada. We all know, and the top brass in the RCAF knows, that having two engines has been a life saver many times over for Canadian pilots flying the venerable Hornet. Besides that, even with the most advanced jet engines, they will still fail. This is not like flying a single engine passenger aircraft around, these are fighter aircraft that are designed to get beat up on a regular basis on training flights, simulated combat, etc, which puts a huge strain on all components, but especially engine components. When your single engine conks out over Hudson's Bay, or over Baffin Island, your well and truly SOL. The best option for Canada is to go to Boeing, and order 65+ Super Hornets. You will then have maintenance, training, and weapons commonality, which will be a huge asset for training existing pilots. Whereas with the F-35, every Hornet pilot in Canada is essentially going back to flight school... Second best bet, is the Eurofighter Typhoon, because, it is a twin, but also because it is still in production, thus your more likely to get a deal, but it will be expensive none the less... The other option, is to ignore what the US has been telling Canadian's since the 1950's, and tell everyone to screw off, and design, build, and maintain our own fleet of Canadian designed and built aircraft. Canada has the capability to do this, we just need to gear up our industry, and by going purely Canadian, we can ensure we get the very best aircraft, and you can contribute to keeping the costs down, supporting local industries, growing the economy, etc...

Looks good so far. I actually fly out of CZBB in real life, so I can tell you that everything looks pretty accurate. It will be nice to see a highly accurate Boundary Bay, one from which I can easily park on apron 1, and taxi via alpha to runway 12, or 07. Takeoff with a Nickel departure, fly over Mud Bay towards Blackie Spit and Nickel... Return via King George and the Gas Station, back for a smooth landing on 12... Any chance your going to model the land marks like Blackie Spit, Nickel, the Gas Stations, and King George Airpark? How about buildings and hangers at CZBB?

Only time will tell how well refined this project actually is. Needless to say, from what I've seen, there are other freeware aircraft out there of much higher quality.

Thanks for the clarification, although it does in a way seem odd that it can be branded as an Aerosoft product.

I find it interesting that on the main site for TropicalSim, there is no mention that any scenery has been ported over to X-Plane... Then, taking a look at the Simmarket X-Plane page, I see some products I've certainly never heard of, such as the Aerosoft Challenger 300, and the Aerosoft CRJ-200? Was this approved by Javier and Dennis?

Technically it is illegal for the average user to use P3D. The odds are, Lockheed Martin won't do much of anything to stop users from purchasing the license and using it for entertainment purposes. Of course, if they start losing a potful of money because there not selling the $500 licence, they might change there tune. The same would be true if Microsoft notices too many people are using P3D for entertainment, they may have legal grounds to sue Lockheed over the exploitation of the licence agreement that transferred FSX to Lockheed Martin.

That man had an amazing career at de Havilland Canada...

Very nice! It's so vintage, you could probably paint it up as CF-FHB-X. And yes that was a real registration...

Not even a hope in hell of that happening. Why, because it was rejected months ago by the Federal Government. While it is a nice thought, it isn't exactly the most practical design for the modern era. The reason being, if Canada wants a purely supersonic interceptor - with no other missions in mind, the CF-105, is a good choice. But, Canada is a NATO and NORAD member, so were destined to be slinging bombs, and other garbage around, making the Super Hornet a good choice. The F-35 is a pariah, and a waste... Besides the fact that the Arrow is over 50 years old, if production needed to be put into effect, you would need to get CAD and what not up and running, and the fact is there is a good deal of information out there so it could be done. Of course, with the way technology has evolved, you could get a very good fighter, with FBW, FADEC, etc... I'd be all for seeing a Mk.3 Arrow with the Iroquois engines. We can dream...

Take your time. I think the majority of people will have gone back to work now after the Labour Day weekend, and with school back on most of the kids around here will also have less forum bitching time haha. I really don't know much about the turbine DC-3's, other than they have a higher payload and cruising speed than the classic DC-3. Although, lets face it, the DC-3 was meant to be a smoking, ear drum splitting, piston pounder. Any imitations will not be tolerated.

I'd like to see a modern cockpit at some point down the line in the DC-3, something akin to a Buffalo Airways setup would be nice, but what ever kind of setup is modelled will be great I'm sure. As for turboprop DC-3's, there's at least two different types out there these days. There are some that are equipped with PT-6's, and the other is known as the Basler BT-67. Just sayin' LOL...

It is a Hawker Fury, an interwar biplane interceptor used by the Royal Airforce. He is building it as far as I know, and it is not available yet. By the way, it looks great!

It'll be done when it is done. Until then, sit back, relax, and shut up.

The weight was only a secondary issue. The primary issue was the extreme risk being taken playing roulette with high density altitude. If the density altitude is above strip elevation (especially seeing how the strip is around 6000 feet or so MSL), your going to be fighting adverse conditions on takeoff and climb. The fact that he was flying a tail dragger (what was a beautiful Stinson 108) afforded him all kinds of opportunities to save his sorry ass. Anyone could have noticed the exorbitantly long takeoff roll, then to add insult to injury, the touch and go after the first hop/takeoff. At that point, no, at the point in which he had travelled greater than half way down the strip (who's condition had no affect on the accident), he should have rejected the takeoff. As he continued to saunter down the strip slowly, and painfully, gaining airspeed, he barely leaves the ground as he reached the end of the prepared surface. From there on for almost the entire duration of the flight (until the trees), there was ample opportunity to make a forced/precautionary landing (again I stress the great advantage afforded to him by flying a tail dragger - where you can actually land on an unprepared surface and have a good chance of not only surviving but also causing fairly minimal damage to the airframe). The end of the strip, most of the way to the trees, had ample space to set the aircraft down. Of course, our valiant fool pushed on, until he nears the trees, at which point he makes a couple of mistakes. First of all, he turns away from the clearing, and heads towards the thick stand of trees (which is stupid for all kinds of reasons I don't feel like getting into), and he continues towards the rather menacing mountains (which by the way you can't see more than a quarter of the way up!). Then of course the aircraft struggles to maintain a climb, the nose rises more and more, until the aircraft hits either mechanical turbulence, or a downdraft, rolls over in mushing stall, and plummets into the trees nearly on a knife edge turn. If your going to fly in the mountains (which I will admit that I only have limited experience doing so - but I have flown in them, so...) you better make sure you've got plenty of options, and escape routes/plans. If your going to fly into a valley, or towards rising terrain, make sure you can get above the terrain before you try and head over/towards it. And, from what I've read/been told, if your going to crash/force land into a wooded area, your best bet is to keep the wings level, and gently raise the nose before impact to almost stall into the canopy. Which will hopefully allow the airframe to mush into the trees, and gently decelerate and descend into the canopy. Of course, he didn't have much of a canopy to descend into, but the principal still applies. The guy is an idiot, and frankly, he is the reason why general aviation gets blasted every time anything happens. Because there are just too many idiots out there trying to kill themselves, and everyone around them. I will still maintain that flying is extremely safe, because the cost is exorbitant, so not every idiot can get a pilot's license, but there sure are enough idiots out there, kind of like the roads, where anyone can get a driver's license, but I digress...

Wow that VIP interior is beautiful. Certainly shows how aviation, back in the day, was much more comfortable than it ever is today... Besides that, we wouldn't want the brass to be uncomfortable now would we?

Well I say it will crash frequently, because from what I've read, because if you try and increase your settings too high you get memory errors. I'll probably get Version 10 shortly after it becomes 64 bit, at least then, in my humble opinion, it will be worth both the price, and then it should be able to really give Version 9 a run for it's money.

For X-Plane 9 an older iMac is fine, but it certainly is not fine for 10. I had an older iMac and used it for version 9, now I have a new one, and still only have 9, because there is no point in my upgrading to 10, when it will crash frequently, and still cannot take advantage of my full system potential.

I take offence at your anti-Macintosh comments... As a Mac user, I can tell you that you certainly get what you paid for, which is a highly stable operating system. Your not paying for something that is highly upgradeable by any end user. If you want something highly upgradeable, buy a Mac Pro, but wait until the next version comes out, which should be fairly soon. As for running X-Plane 10 on an iMac, you shouldn't have any problems doing so, if you've got a decent set of hardware behind the case. If your running a four year old iMac, with 4 GB of RAM and a 512MB video card, your obsolete. Move on, and upgrade if you can afford it. As for running X-Plane on any laptop, you've got to be kidding me right? You shouldn't run Version 8 on a laptop, let alone 9, 10 is a sure bet that it will melt your laptop just starting up. Laptops are just not designed like desktop computers, and lets face it, most serious gamers will use a desktop because it can be upgraded easily, and also, because it gives you plenty of options to upgrade and customize your system. Edit: As for bitching about crashes with settings that you like, lets face it, X-Plane 10 is a resource hog at this point, and it certainly isn't like Version 9, where you could crank up your settings and not crash it. Wait until it goes 64 bit, then you'll be able to crank up the settings, and take advantage of your systems full resources.

A: You've got the wrong model in mind, this was a very safe airframe, even the first Comet's were incredibly safe, they just suffered from metal fatigue and pressurization cycle issues. B: It's not funny in any way to poke fun at the tragic losses of life, and airframe that occurred.

Hmmm... Probably would have just been easier to clean the fuselage off later. Of course, if they have a spare wing, its not a huge problem, but you can bet this is still a hassle for the owners and pilots.

She looks pretty bad on fire, but sometimes the damage is less substantial than it initially appears.

Very nice. Did you happen to hear what happened to poor ol' HA-MEA (the AN-2 you modelled yours after)?

The dash indicator has the needle in it, but no indicator pointer on it, or the label on the dash... I got my rating in a 1979 Cessna 172N on Edo 2130's.