Sims

On Dec 15, 9:08 am, "Viperdoc" wrote:
Actually, I don't know which version of the Wrights they used. However, for
take off they did have water injection available, since the gross weight
increased to over 20,000 pounds.

Are you sure they had to use water injection? My information says
that they used fuselage-mounted JATO units for takeoffs near MTOW,
despite some early accidents where the rockets ripped themselves off
the fuselage and kept going.

The naval version had an arresting hook, similar to the Grumman F7F. In
fact, except for the wider cabin, they looked remarkably similar to the
Tigercat.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the Baron's MiG-killer history while
you were talking about the naval version. On January 12, 1991 a
Beechcraft Baron of VF-42 off of USS Enterprise intercepted a MiG-29
over Iraqi airspace and got into one of the few real turning dogfights
of Operation Desert Storm. Fortunately, the military version's fly-by-
wire system and blown flaps allowed Lt. Pete Mitchell to out-turn the
Fulcrum and defeat it with a single Sidewinder shot. Tragically, he
and his radar operator were both killed while landing that night, when
their arrestor hook snagged a wire and the rest of the Baron kept
going.

Then, of course, there's the little known fact that the missing F-19
designation actually refers to the "stealth" Baron...

-JTD

Anthony, are you copying any of this information?

"Viperdoc" wrote in
:

Actually, I don't know which version of the Wrights they used.
However, for take off they did have water injection available, since
the gross weight increased to over 20,000 pounds.

The naval version had an arresting hook, similar to the Grumman F7F.
In fact, except for the wider cabin, they looked remarkably similar to
the Tigercat.


Excelent. an chane I can get a go in it?

Better yet, why don;'t you model it for X-planes version 8.60? That would
be even better than actually flying it.

Anthony, are you copying any of this information?


With any luck....


Bertie

Presumably. The canopies of fighter jets are probably stronger than
the roof over the head of the pilot in a Baron, so if those canopies
can be blown clear or sliced, so can the roof of the Baron.

I'm now starting to understand how Le Chaud Lapin was being accussed
of being a sock puppet of Mxsmanic.

wrote in news:bf1e54af-1607-455c-a793-4d228f1d86b9
@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

Presumably. The canopies of fighter jets are probably stronger than
the roof over the head of the pilot in a Baron, so if those canopies
can be blown clear or sliced, so can the roof of the Baron.

I'm now starting to understand how Le Chaud Lapin was being accussed
of being a sock puppet of Mxsmanic.


Oh he was. I'm as certain as you can be without an IP. It was classic
sockpuppet stuff. The sock took a mildly opposing position so that Anthony
could "convert " him and thereby gain some cred..He couldn't hide his
personality, or lack thereof, however.



Bertie

Consider it done. My instructor is currently out of state, and so I'm
between lessons. I don't "learn" much by simming, but I can practice what
I've learned (to an extent nearly beaten to death here).

There one real advantage to simming. I have had two attitude gyros die on
me, so far under bright VFR conditions. I set the sim for random instrument
and radio failures during my approach. That keeps your cross check honest.
It just isn't the same to slap a suction cup over an instrument. (I also
don't have those nagging worries about whether the guy who towed the plane
to the maintenance hangar exceeded the nosewheel turning angles, and whether
that new noise I hear is the nosegear falling off.)

I also use simming to anticipate new flights. If I am going to a new and
complicated airport, I will set the time of day and weather to my
anticipated arrival, and sim a few landings. This has proven to be an
excellent tool to use in addition to traditional flight planning.

I find the sim to be much more difficult to, er, "manipulate" (I dare not
say "fly" after reading the past posts) than the airplane.

Simming will never replicate the sheer exhilaration of controlling a machine
as it leaves the earth below and returns, but the other day watching the
snow out the window and the very same thing on the screen, I was truly
struck by how well an inexpensive program, with a few little additions, can
simulate the mechanical motions flying requires.


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

Just do me a favor will you please? Don't go out and try to fly IFR with
all that "no instructor or safety pilot needed" simulator time in your log
book without getting some of that "instructor and safety pilot needed"
stuff as well.
Don't EVER be misled into believing that what you can do and what you see
on MSFS will replace the actual experience needed to safely fly the
airplane.
It's nice to enjoy MSFS, and God only knows I have even reviewed it for
its role in real world aviation and found it has many a useful purpose,
but MSFS will NEVER replace actual flight instruction and produce a safe
pilot, especially a safe instrument pilot.


--
Dudley Henriques
CFI/MVP2007 MSFS

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:27:00 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:
...
That's the beauty of small airplanes. Most have tremendous internal
airflow when needed.

Tell me about it. Airflow if it's needed or not.

Parka, Hat, Gloves, the bottom of my shoes which are so effing hot I can't
put them on the rudder pedals, and all the rest of me is still cold.

But, cars build in the 1940's probably weren't much better...

Still , flying on a clear, cold, night beats the **** out of playing with a
sim. (based on my experience with both)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com writes:

Still , flying on a clear, cold, night beats the **** out of playing with a
sim. (based on my experience with both)

I would not enjoy being cold.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com writes:

Still , flying on a clear, cold, night beats the **** out of playing
with a sim. (based on my experience with both)

I would not enjoy being cold.


You wouldn't enjoy anything.


Bertie

Oh he was. I'm as certain as you can be without an IP. It was classic
sockpuppet stuff. The sock took a mildly opposing position so that Anthony
could "convert " him and thereby gain some cred..He couldn't hide his
personality, or lack thereof, however.

I know LCL personally. In person he has the same trollish approach to
discussions as he does on usenet. He will say "I'm not an expert,
but..." and then contradict expert knowledge. He exercises the
strategy of borrowing from whatever title he has to be an expert in
areas he has no title in ("I'm an engineer, and I say insert weak
idea about area of engineering / physics / math that he did not
study". He drops names of experts in a field to pretend he's at the
same level as the expert, usually saying something like "when I spoke
with XXX, they claimed so-and-so, but I told them they were mistaken".
He will invent terminology for concepts that already have terms. He
will say something the exact opposite of what you say and then later
claim that you are both saying the same thing. He wants to reinvent
things that already exist and work well. Most of all he wants to be
regarded as a great teacher and gift giver of knowledge -- which since
it isn't so is a constant laugh and great fun for the rest of us.

Maybe LCL also does Mxsmanic. There seem to me to be more
dissimilarities than common traits in my opinion. Maybe he's good at
disuises, in the same way as Inspector Clouseau.

The match between LCL posts and LCL the man is exact and usually a
barrel of laughs when it's not getting in the way of actual work being
done.

wrote in
:

Oh he was. I'm as certain as you can be without an IP. It was classic
sockpuppet stuff. The sock took a mildly opposing position so that
Anthony could "convert " him and thereby gain some cred..He couldn't
hide his personality, or lack thereof, however.

I know LCL personally.


Lucky you!


In person he has the same trollish approach to
discussions as he does on usenet. He will say "I'm not an expert,
but..." and then contradict expert knowledge. He exercises the
strategy of borrowing from whatever title he has to be an expert in
areas he has no title in ("I'm an engineer, and I say insert weak
idea about area of engineering / physics / math that he did not
study". He drops names of experts in a field to pretend he's at the
same level as the expert, usually saying something like "when I spoke
with XXX, they claimed so-and-so, but I told them they were mistaken".
He will invent terminology for concepts that already have terms. He
will say something the exact opposite of what you say and then later
claim that you are both saying the same thing. He wants to reinvent
things that already exist and work well. Most of all he wants to be
regarded as a great teacher and gift giver of knowledge -- which since
it isn't so is a constant laugh and great fun for the rest of us.

Maybe LCL also does Mxsmanic. There seem to me to be more
dissimilarities than common traits in my opinion. Maybe he's good at
disuises, in the same way as Inspector Clouseau.

The match between LCL posts and LCL the man is exact and usually a
barrel of laughs when it's not getting in the way of actual work being
done.



Hmmm. OK. Just seemed too perfect. I thought they had almost identical
personalities myself. There;s another idiot who's slurping anthony on
RAS who some think is a sock, but pretty obviously not IMO.


Bertie