eaglewing7

Not exactly. What your running into is a limitation of all desktop simulators, the lack of physical feel and feedback... When you fly a real airplane, you can feel the subtle movements of the aircraft, and any outside influences that will cause the aircraft to pitch, roll, or yaw. When you feel the aircraft being disturbed from equilibrium, you correct as necessary. What ends up happening is that you are constantly making subtle adjustments during cruise, or straight and level flight, along with all phases of flight. In a simulator, you need to make the same adjustments, but, you cannot feel the upsets, so you generally end up with more reactionary responses, instead of more proactive responses.

No offence meant to those involved, but this "accident" concurs with what I've heard about aviation in China, from an instructor who currently teaches in Canada, but has been involved in teaching in China, Thailand, and other Asian countries. There is a lack of skill when it comes to hand flying, too much emphasis is placed on gluing your eyes to the instruments, and flying everything like you are in solid IFR. A gust of wind lifting a wing, in other words, a pilot that cannot compensate for either a crosswind, or a bit of light shear. Its a shame these incidents occur, but they are totally preventable...

Nothing wrong with Heinz's model, nice, albeit a bit dated. If you want one, go bug Alabeo, I'm sure it's right up their alley...

As much as historians, and scholars, like to applaud Gorbachev's reforms of Socialist Russia, the changes implemented by the technocratic government of the day, were only possible due to policies like Perestroika and Glasnost. Of course, when reforms were made to the ex-communist/socialist system, the people took the proverbial mile, when given the inch as it were... While it will certainly take a single person to sow the seeds of change in North Korean society, it will take a broader move towards reform to make any real changes happen. But, on another topic, I find it interesting how some Americans, who are normally quite unassuming, become absolutely venomous when there is any mention of Communism or Socialism. While I certainly know a thing or two about the Cold War atmosphere, and how deeply the fear of all things "RED" was instilled in the US psyche, I still find it shocking that they cannot see the positives in a political and governmental system where at its most fundamental level, equality is the goal. God forbid if that ever came to fruition...

Looks pretty good, and it will be a welcome addition to my X-Plane library, if it is compatible with Version 9... I will point out, though, that the Heritage Hangar, runs East/West, not North/South.

If a propeller decides to break free, it's going to come through the fuselage, there's not much you can do about it, other than hope it's well ahead or behind where your sitting. As for the dents in the photo of the Rosinenbomber, that could be from ice breaking off, or it could be from the crash, and debris being flung up. Or, it could also be stress related fatigue in the metal, sort of like crumple damage on a car after an accident. The tear in the fuselage is probably from a propeller blade...

I believe the additional layer of metal on the fuselage, that you are referring to, is for protection when icing is encountered. The idea being that, when you deice the propellers, either with alcohol or electric heaters, the ice will then start shedding from the blades, when that occurs, the ice can often be thrown against the side of the fuselage. To protect the fuselage from these ice projectiles, additional layers of metal were added. A good example of this can be seen on C-46 C-FAVO: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3557/3682606257_2fd0d2dc54_o.jpg

PPRUN seems to me to be the worst collection of aviation prima donnas to ever walk the earth. I once followed a link over to that forum once, never went back, the atmosphere even for just a reader like myself was venomous at best. Seems like the folks over there certainly are superior to all, and regularly walk on water, and all that BS. But, pilot error is pilot error, humans naturally make mistakes, and while I certainly have no problem posting my theories on what I feel may have contributed to the accident, I certainly do not feel the need to get abusive or rude. I've almost been hit midair by another aircraft, and it certinaly doesn't take much to make you chnage your attitude on flying, things happen quickly, and you either do the right thing, or your dead...

Mechanical issues were ruled out by the NTSB, not exactly surprising in my opinion, because no emergency was declared prior to the approach. As for for why the throttles were at idle, and stayed there, could have been A/T off, or (from what i've read, could be a few different combinations of autopilot settings): "...level of automation: A/p on a/t on here you have chose a vertical flight mode-vs or flch or fpa or vnav (path or speed) flch will close thrust lever and try to descent to selected altitude eg 500' above runway or even circling mda, which ever is selected. when close by the minimum usually the g/a altitude is selected if you are still in flch the airplane will try to strt climb back to the set altitude incl adding power unless you hold the throttles and the throttle indication is HOLD, vs.fpa or vnav will maintain the decent a/p off a/t on -normal we don't tun ofF at on the 777 unless in the sim all off and use flch,,,maybe not smart unless you have your hand on the thr lever or maybe ap on an at off not likely turning a/p or a/t or both will complicate things with flch especially when you are tired, being trained, etc depending on your focus like coming in high with high descent rate A bit of an incoherent story..." Odds are pretty good that the regular captain, acting as F/O, would just sit there and watch, he's used to being the captain, and used to being in charge, so he essentially is indifferent to what happens to the "new guy" in the left seat. KAL801 comes to mind, where Asiatic pilots were allowed to do stupid things by their crews. But, there is one case that also comes to mind, where a Japanese Captain actually owned up to the fact that he made a mistake (JAL2 - crashed just off San Francisco as well)... The Eastern/Asian culture is one deeply rooted in respect and honour, strange things happen when a culture like that gets Westernized practices like CRM introduced, because it goes against the grain of their society.

So you've got a senior captain, who is PNF, he's used to being the PIC, odds are he's not all that happy not being the PIC... The F/O, who for all intents and purposes, is the lackey, is now the PIC, he's used to being the PNF. So, when shit hits the fan, the F/O, flying as PIC is suddenly left to fend for himself, while the Capt. sits back and watches it all unfold. Could be a case of a spiteful captain just feeding the F/O to the proverbial wolves... Sounds about right, CRM as usual is next to non-existent. Interesting write up, from AvCanada, basically one guy's opinion about what airlines are like (not exactly true of North American or European operations, but likely is quite accurate about Asiatic airlines): Every time you overshoot out of an dangerously unstabilized approach, does your CP publicly and ritually strip you of one of your gold bars, followed by a required Walk of Shame out of the room, in front of all of your fellow pilots shaved closely and dressed in their finest, pressed and dry-cleaned uniforms, with the drummer slowly keeping time with your step, going tick-tick-tick on the metal edge of the drum with his wooden stick. 'Cause, that's how it looks to the rest of us.

Additional time on type makes you a better pilot, at least when your hand flying regularly. That especially goes for GA flying, or smaller commercial operations, no AP sort of thing... Having 10,000 hours used to mean that you had moved up the ranks, hand flying all the way, and you had amazing stick and rudder skills, or you were a lucky SOB who survived that long, or both. Nowadays, ten thousand hours can mean you've gone from your PPL, to CPL, hand flying, working hard, or you graduated from a college type program, went straight into an airline training, and spent close to 9,500 hours on autopilot.... My opinion, as greggerm will be able to read over on the FSE forums, is that I now feel that this crash is entirely due to what has become a cancer on the system, the loss of hand flying ability and a loss of stick and rudder skills.

I'm starting to think that this had less to do with a phantom glide path, and more with a 10,000 hour wonder, being totally unable to hand fly an approach... Stick and rudder skills are absolutely PPL ab initio skills, get these airline pilots to go up at least once a year in something with a gross weight of 3000 or less pounds, preferably an underpowered, or maybe overpowered tube and fabric taildragger. If they can't accurately takeoff, cruise, perform basic PPL level exercises, descend, approach, land, and taxi, pull their PPC, and make them get recurrent training.

It could certainly be a biased view of the cultural differences, but lets face it, time and time again the same CRM related issues have popped up in some pretty high profile incidents and accidents involving Asiatic airlines, that there certainly is a trend emerging. I don't think we should be pointing the finger at anyone for having the ILS offline (and NOTAM'd out), and having visual aids also offline. Odds are, the ILS was out of limits, and needed to be re-calibrated, or it could be a maintenance issue... I personally hate to think that "highly qualified" airline pilots are unable to land a jet without the use of an ILS, and multiple visual aids (PAPI, VASI, what ever else you can think of). That's basic ab initio stuff right there, and if your so out of practice because you've been letting the A/P run the show, you should be forced to get into a light trainer and show that you can actually get the aircraft on the ground in one piece...

Quite an accident for sure. My theory has something to do with the fact that the ILS was NOTAM'd INOP or U/S, but the PIC followed in the phantom signal from it anyway (which can easily appear to be a good signal), but obviously that phantom signal was a bit out of tolerances so, the aircraft ends up short of the runway... I've been reading some interesting comments on aviation forums about Asian airlines CRM procedures, which could also have contributed to a bad approach being carried into a very bad landing...

The plugin is dead simple, all it has to do is allow you to log in, and start, finish, or cancel a flight. What more do you want it to do? Heck, the website is where you do the majority of your business, but what ever.

My advice is take your time, renting smaller aircraft at first, and figuring out how to maximize profit while balancing rental costs. Then, move progressively, into larger aircraft, doing the same thing. Eventually you will be more than able to realize when it is a good idea, or a bad idea to rent larger aircraft based on assignments you have found. If you want to get into a group, find an existing group out there, that looks like it might be interesting to you, and join up, or ask for an invitation to join. Of course, a portion of every flight's revenue will go back to the company to pay for expenses, so this is sometimes not the best way to make money. When I first started, I freelanced, and I made decent money. Later, I got together with a fellow X-Plane user (who had been in FSE much longer than I had), and I flew some of his aircraft around, making money for his group and myself. Eventually, I had enough money to get a loan downpayment on a Grumman Goose, and I went from there. I personally recommend buying your first aircraft when you actually have enough money to buy something "useful". I bought a Goose, some people buy C185's, others will buy C208's, Beech 18's, etc. Just make sure your first bird is something that you can make money with. There is no point in buying a C152, in my humble opinion, because you can't make good money with them, and the same goes for other two or three seat aircraft... At the same time, I recommend taking it slow, ignore what everyone else out there has, and make sure your having fun. If you start chasing the money, your going to burn out, and you'll start to hate the game... If you want to fly the Jetstream, rent a JS-31.

PNR looks great, I've already downloaded the file. I'll hopefully get a chance to take her up at some point today.

I thought I had a pdf copy of a C-46 manual, unfortunately, I don't... But, I know where you can download a bunch of reference material on the C-46, and plenty of other aircraft. www.avialogs.com The only catch is, the site is now pay to download, but you only have to pay $14 for a 6 month subscription, so its pretty reasonable. I'm considering upgrading to the paid account at some point, and when I do, I'll let you know how the quality is on the C-46 manuals. Once again though, I will say that if your really in need of specific information or pictures, send an email or two to Buffalo Airways, from what I've heard, they are pretty helpful, and sim friendly, or at least I remember hearing that at some point...

Certainly correct, no reason you should have anywhere near cruise power on during a descent to land, unless you've really let your speed decay... I've got a good thirty hours of real world taildragger time, all of it in 7ECA Citabria's, and you certainly cannot lift the tail at low speeds, generally you get the tail up at 40 mph, and then lift off at 60 mph... Totally different aircraft though.

I have noticed that when you use more than half flaps, you certainly need a lot of power to just maintain your approach speed. After doing my real world multi-engine rating, I certainly don't want to have my airspeed decay below red line on the approach, but often times even at 30+ inches of mercury, it will barely hold 80 or so knots... Interestingly enough, on unpaved strips, I've noticed that the DC-3 really likes to pitch forward onto the main gear at higher power settings, so you can taxi around at really low speeds "two point". Something in the ground handling even seems a bit suspect sometimes on paved strips, where you need a lot of power to get moving, and then have to maintain something like 25" Hg to taxi at a constant speed. It could be that increasing the ground friction has caused other performance related errors down the line. I think I'll do some testing later today with different friction settings on paved, and then later unpaved runways, and see what happens to the performance numbers. Edit: As for a compromise between paved and unpaved, maybe coding something that would differentiate between the runway surface, and then either reduce or increase the friction as necessary, if that is even possible...

Hate to bring up an older thread, but I've recently begun running into the same issue as carthorse. Using X-Economy (or FSEconomy), I've been flying from CYEV (paved runway) to CYOC and CZFM (both unpaved). At both CYOC and CZFM, I have a heck of a time getting the plane airborne, and fro time to time have to use the local map and bump the airplane 50 feet off the ground at about 70 knots just to get into the air. Landing is interesting as well, as the plane will just stop dead on the runway with no braking whatsoever... Since you said this was being looked into, I can assume that when the post SAAB release patch for the DC-3 is released, it will hopefully be corrected, or adjusted?

Never seen that logo before. In some photos, it is only on the right prop (which also carries blade information), and others it is on both the left and right... I took a look at a Transport Canada system known as CAWIS (Continued Airworthiness Web Information System) which allows you to get a look at the AD's applicable for aircraft, based on propellers, engines, etc. According to CAWIS, C-GPNR has Hamilton Standard 23E50-047 propellers. But, Hamilton Standard's logo is not blue, or even remotely similar to the logo in the link. It could be a propeller maintenance shop logo, or it could be a sponsor logo. I have no idea. You may need to contact Buffalo Airways and see if they can shed some light on the issue.

Absolutely beautiful. Any chance that there is an english panel, or is it going to just have the Cyrilic Russian?

Looks amazing. Great work Leen. My only comment would be that there is no Ice Pilot's logo under the cockpit windows on PNR. Other than that, it looks perfect.

First of all, if this is in the wrong part of the forums, please feel free to move this topic somewhere more appropriate. The request in question is for an additional Buffalo Airways livery for the Leading Edge Simulations DC-3. Currently C-FLFR is rendered in stunning accuracy, kudos to Theo for his excellent work. What I would like to see made, if a painter is available for an additional project is C-GPNR. C-GPNR is one of the most famous DC-3's that Buffalo Airways owns, it's also one that gets the most publicity. Here are a few pictures of the aircraft, including it's famous nose art, "Summer Wages" is a reference to Ian Tyson's song with the same title. Joe McBryant (Buffalo Joe) is said to be a huge fan of Ian Tyson's work. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Buffalo-Airways/Douglas-C-47A-Skytra... http://www.airliners.net/photo/Buffalo-Airways/Douglas-C-47A-Skytra... http://www.airliners.net/photo/Buffalo-Airways/Douglas-C-47A-Skytra... http://www.airliners.net/photo/Buffalo-Airways/Douglas-C-47A-Skytra... Thank you for your efforts in advance, if you need any additional information, I will be happy to help with the search.