Sims

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Jeff Dougherty writes:

The only custom-built military version of the Baron was the T-42A
Cochise, used by the U.S. and Turkey. Everyone else who used it
(mostly sundry African nations) seems to have bought off the shelf
from Beech. A quick look at pretty much any photo of the T-42
reveals that it is equipped with regular seats, the only special
feature of which appears to be upholstery.

I didn't think it very likely.

How would you eject from a Baron anyway? Explosive panels directly
over your head?

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.


Your idiocy grows day by day. soon you will be in a universe of stupidity
all your own...


Well done.


Bertie

"Viperdoc" wrote in
:

I now have about 500 hours in my Baron, and of course have studied
them extensively. The military model ejection seat was in fact an
early version of the MB7, made by Martin Baker. They consisted of a
cannon shell to eject the pilot, co-pilot, and rear seat passengers
through the roof of the plane, as you suggested. Once the cannon shell
fired, a rocket charge ignited, clearing the seat and rider from the
plane, and contained an automatically opening chute, with an attached
raft and survival kit, similar to the ACES-II seat.

Each seat weighs around 600 lbs. It's use has been credited with
saving many Baron crews over the years.




Wow, I stand corrected.

Did the cockpit face rearwards also? Like in Captain Scarlet?

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Mazor writes:

For someone who has spent so much time with computer programs, your
grasp of logic is remarkably deficient. A simple exercise in set
theory can disprove that all opinions are equal.

Opinions are not abstract mathematical entities.


Quite correct, but my opinion that the earth is round and that you are an
asshole are both beyond reasonable discussion.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Mazor writes:

Because you posit your opinions as though they had factual support
equal to those of people who actually know WTF they're talking about.

No, I do not.


Yes, you do.

That is the inference of others who interpret my lack
of wimpy deference to the alpha dogs as some sort of aggressiveness.
They have a tremendous emotional investment in everything they post
and read; I do not.


Because you don;'t know anything


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Ron writes:

It doesn't matter. Flying is aviating in the air no matter what your
aircraft is.

No, sorry, it's apples and oranges.


It's **** and shinola. Your ass and your elbow..



Flying a tin can doesn't qualify
you to fly a fighter jet or airliner. Flying a fighter jet doesn't
qualify you to fly an airliner or tin can. And so on.



And you aren't qualified to fly a rubbr band powered stick and tissue
model.

Tell you what, you succesfully build and fly one and you can come back with
a frsh opportunity to actually speak as someone who has aviated!



But you won't....

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

B A R R Y writes:

Neither do instrument pilots.

Exactly.


Nope.



You don't have zero vis. You can hit "P", and get up and walk away.

There is no connection between the two.


That's right. Maybe we're getting through after all.



Bertie

wrote in news:a1b9f5a7-ba8b-49cc-975c-
:

On Dec 14, 8:03 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
... VATSIM provides ...

Maybe you can get VATSIM to require a diversion to some other
unexpected airport at some random time during cruise, to spice it up.

Or, how about simulating an instrument failure, or loss of
communications.


Cockpit smoke and fire, icing, CB, hail, pestilence, flood!


Aaaaargh!


Bertie

writes:

Maybe you can get VATSIM to require a diversion to some other
unexpected airport at some random time during cruise, to spice it up.

That is determined mostly by the weather, not VATSIM.

Or, how about simulating an instrument failure, or loss of
communications.

Occasionally people simulate emergencies on the network; in fact, they have a
lot more simulated emergencies on the network than you would expect in real
life, especially improbable things like multiple jet engine failures.
However, these are often the kiddies on the network who have the wildly
improbable emergencies. I simulate emergencies about as often as they occur
in real life, and so I have yet to simulate an emergency thus far.

"Viperdoc" wrote in
:

Actually, the rear seat passengers also faced to the rear, to work the
avionics packages.. They generally consisted of a Sperry radar system
capable of air to air detection, and this equipment weighed several
hundred pounds as well.

The original Baron was designed as a light recon/attack aircraft, and
mine still has the hard points for the addition of drop tanks, or two
500lb Mark 82 bombs under the wings. Later versions can carry either
the AIM-9 infrared missile, or the AIM 120 AMRAAM. The associated
radar package is mounted in the nose.

A mean machine!


Unlike the civilian version, the early military version of the Baron
had twin Wright 18 cylinder R-3860 engines, each capable of producing
over 800HP. This gave a top speed of over 350knots, burning 200gallons
an hour.


Wow, so cool! Were they the R-3860 W4N,s or the VW1109's? I hear the VW
1109s tended to overheat slightly when you used the galley.

Did you keep it in the optional revetment under a retractable swimming
pool?

This is why I like flying my Baron- it has such a great military
history, although it never gained wide spread acceptance. I'm
surprised that it's history is not better documented, but it must be
on the internet somewhere. Anthony must obviously be too pre-occupied
to do the research on the plane that he claims to know so well.




Obviously.
I'm a little surprised at this, actually. His research is usually so
thorough.



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Maybe you can get VATSIM to require a diversion to some other
unexpected airport at some random time during cruise, to spice it up.

That is determined mostly by the weather, not VATSIM.

Or, how about simulating an instrument failure, or loss of
communications.

Occasionally people simulate emergencies on the network; in fact, they
have a lot more simulated emergencies on the network than you would
expect in real life, especially improbable things like multiple jet
engine failures. However, these are often the kiddies on the network
who have the wildly improbable emergencies. I simulate emergencies
about as often as they occur in real life, and so I have yet to
simulate an emergency thus far.

Oh, and BTW, in one night last week, I had a pack failure on one
airplane which required a descent, then an alt hold problem (only in
VNAV, so it was manageable just by reverting to alt hold) and then a
windscreen fire on another airplane on the next sector. All in well
maintained airplanes, BTW, not dogs.

I've had six engine shutdowns (four actual failures and two
precaurtionaries) just in turbines, and about the same number in
pistons, some in singles.

So, if you want to argue with me you're going to have to up the failure
rate a bit.

Oh wait, you never argue with me.

wonder why?

Bertie