Jump to content

allardjd

Administrator
  • Content count

    22,982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    122
  • Country

    United States

allardjd last won the day on April 9

allardjd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,653 Excellent

1 Follower

About allardjd

  • Rank
    Administrator
  • Birthday 24/12/1946

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    allardjd

Profile Information

  • Real Name
    John Allard
  • Location
    Florida - USA

Recent Profile Visitors

7,243 profile views
  1. I believe that DTG in this case, and MS before them with MS F-Light, was looking at Apple and their success with the Apple App-Store with relish. Apple has done very will with a closed shop and all "add-ons" having to come through them. It's not hard to imagine that DTG and MS saw that with a gleam in their eye and thought maybe they could do the same for flight sim related DLC. It didn't work out for them, mainly since flight simming and phone apps are not the same kind of market at all - Apples and oranges if you'll excuse the pun. Can you think how much extra revenue MS could have generated over the years if all the FS add-ons for all the versions of FS had been through them with them getting a piece of the action? Even allowing for the stifling effect an arrangement like that might have had on independent development, it would have amounted to serious money over quite a long time. I'm not surprised that MS and DTG were tempted to try to make that happen, but I guess they didn't reckon with the fact that flight simmers as a community may not be quite so gullible as the great unwashed smart-phone-named-for-fruit users of the world. I'm not sorry for DTG, but am sorry for all the employees who will lose their jobs and am kind of bummed out that one of the successful licensees of MS software has mucked it up. Not sure if and when someone else will get a chance. DTG still holds and uses their license from MS for development at some level and distribution of FSX-Steam, but that's all now. I've thought for quite some time that P3D is where we will all be going eventually, though X-Plane is becoming an ever more promising alternative to the FSX-based sims. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out. Anyway, it gives us a couple of ways forward still, even with DTG having gone more or less static on FSX-Steam and out of the game for a 64-bit sim. For me, for now, FSX-Steam is good, stable and works well and P3D v 4 is very good and improving. John
  2. Here's a link to their official announcement on Steam. https://steamcommunity.com/games/389280/announcements/detail/3400657079148405506 John
  3. Fan blade failure, 1 dead sadly.

    The earlier failure was in a conical hub section, not a blade per se - they lost the whole LP compressor section, about five entire stages as I recall. UT of blades is barking up entirely the wrong tree with respect to that one, though I don't have any comparable info on this new one. I guess it's possible that losing one blade could cause a cascading failure but I don't think that's what happened in the first event - the airbus that landed in Canada (Gander, Newfoundland?) John
  4. Fan blade failure, 1 dead sadly.

    That captain and her FO had the double whammy - a catastrophic, un-contained engine failure AND sudden decompression at altitude. Makes for a busy next half hour but it appears they performed admirably. They could do nothing about the catastrophe in the cabin other than get down to breathable air promptly, which they did. It also sounds as if the cabin crew and pax did all that could be done there too. What a shame for that pax and her family. John
  5. Naval Station Norfolk

    I think Jury is right. Anyway, great shot. John
  6. Naval Station Norfolk

    Been there (as most USN veterans have). Most of what we saw flying were F4s, A6s and S2s. Lots of them. I think maybe the red light in the background is a VASI for Oceana NAS. John
  7. Note: While the data in this thread is still valid, the entire thing has been superseded by the Mutley's Hangar Airport Diagram Download Center. Top level is here... http://forum.mutleyshangar.com/index.php?/topic/23067-airport-diagram-download-center/ At this writing there are almost 400 bundles available by country (by state/province in US, Canada, Australia) and something north of 7,400 airports diagrammed. Production continues and more airports are being added to the existing bundles every month.
  8. Surge protection

    I think the varactor, which is the active protection component, is subject to aging and failure in normal use. John EDIT: My mistake, it's a varistor, not a varactor, which is an entirely different animal. From Wiki: "MOVs [metal oxide varistors] have finite life expectancy and "degrade" when exposed to a few large transients, or many small transients." John
  9. Transitioning to Electric Aircraft

    All true, Coff, and you do well to point it out. I have no disagreement with anything you said, though it bears mentioning that there is some reason to believe that Musk is well on the way to becoming DeLorean in his automotive venture. He's in serious trouble there. He may not be "Money Goal oriented" in that company, but he's not going to shake up the world if his company fails financially. He's got to stay in business to make much of an impact. SpaceX doesn't really have too much to do with the idea of electric powered aircraft (the thread topic) or automobiles - I just couldn't resist pointing out the irony that Musk is doing rocket science quite successfully on fossil fuel, but really struggling with a production model automobile whose only really unique feature is that it does NOT use fossil fuel (except maybe at the local electric generating plant). What I did was to compare his level of success at the two enterprises. His rockets work these days, pretty much as he predicts. His auto production fails, every quarter, to meet his predictions, and not just by a few percent. Electric powered vehicles are not easy. Electric powered vehicles that can fly are all that much harder given the Amp-hrs/pound capability of current battery technology. What he's attempting to do with the Tesla Model 3 appears to be very, very difficult, yet the Tesla doesn't have to fly, just do what every normal automobile can already do but do it without using an internal combustion engine. Being money oriented at some level is necessary to remain in business and you can't change the world with a few prototype electric cars or airliners. You'll have to be able to crank them out in their thousands, at competitive prices, with competitive performance or it's just another DeLorean that didn't quite pan out. If these ideas are ever to materially benefit humankind, they'll have to be successful both technically and economically. People, even some very smart ones, are sometimes not very good at discriminating between the technically possible and the economically feasible. My point in all this is simply to illustrate that producing a viable, useful electric powered vehicle, whether with wheels or wings, that can do what its petroleum-fueled counterparts can already do rather easily is harder than most people realize. Battery performance is the main issue, but not the only one. John
  10. Surge protection

    Florida is supposedly the thunderstorm capital of the world and we do get our share along with someone else's share too. Have never lost anything that I know of to surges (thunderstorms are not necessarily the only source), but at this house we had the option to have whole-house surge protection installed by the power company for a small fee per month. It's a ring they install behind the meter and the power to the whole house goes through it. We have local protectors on some of the other outlets too but don't feel too compelled to do that in every case. John
  11. traffic in sight?

    No, wain, certainly not wrong. It's exactly correct. Other aircraft are sometimes pretty difficult to see when in flight (real or simulated). Seeing GA aircraft much beyond 1-1/2 - 2 miles is nearly impossible. You might manage better seeing larger AC at longer distances but it's still only a few miles unless at night and you're seeing lights instead of the actual AC. In the sim, the traffic labels option is a big help. Those become visible at 10 NM. In the real world, the worst case I can remember is seeing traffic lower than you against city lights. Even if you spot him, blink your eyes and he's gone. Strobes help a lot, but there's no silver bullet. Eventually, HUDs will project the "targets" in our field of vision and all will be easier. F-35 drivers have that now, with helmet-mounted HUD displays in 360 degrees. He can look between his legs and see any traffic there, as long as his sensors can see it (or anyone else's sensors, if he's sharing data with them). John
  12. Transitioning to Electric Aircraft

    They don't talk much about the fact that somewhere, that electricity has to be generated, do they? This whole idea is crazy given technology levels today. Unless storage battery technology can make an order of magnitude leap (~10X) in energy stored vs. weight, electric powered commercial aviation is a pipe dream. As Brett notes, probably inevitably some day, but not soon, it will happen. I expect at some point, which I won't live long enough to see, we'll be on a fusion-nuclear basis with almost everything stationary being electric-powered and with transport fuel being mostly hydrogen, from electrolysis of water. Recent technology leaps in fracking and extraction of oil and natural gas from tightly bound geo-structures from which it was not economically recoverable until recently will delay that day. I also expect that commercial aviation will be among the last of the industries to use oil for fuel because it's damned hard to use anything else and still be light enough to a) carry a commercial-sized payload and b) still fly. To date they can't even replicate the speed/range/payload performance of a Cessna Skyhawk on batteries, though somebody is close with a hybrid using - - - wait for it - - - - - an internal combustion engine burning fossil fuel to help out along the way. Amazing, isn't it? They have a very long way to go. I'm not against trying, but battery energy density is the key that's needed and evolutionary changes won't be enough to get it done. It will require something truly revolutionary. That will happen, sooner or later - human ingenuity is nearly infinite - but it's not just around the corner. Another factor to think about is the fundamental difference between the ever-diminishing weight of fossil fuel as it is burned and that of batteries, which weigh essentially the same whether fully charged or depleted. Some airliner flight profiles today use step climbs as fuel is burned off to reach the desired altitudes, and they gain fuel economy/range/performance benefits materially in the latter part of their flights from the reduced weight as fuel is burned off. Electric powered aircraft will have to forego that benefit - they will land at about the same weight they take off at. Think that one through. Elon Musk is having a much higher level of success with kerosene-fueled rockets than he is with battery powered Tesla automobiles despite the fact that building cars isn't exactly rocket science. Just saying... John
  13. Probably ought to reduce the dosage a little... John
  14. How a Radial Engine Works

    Nice piece of work. This guy has way too much time on his hands. John
  15. Just back from 5 years leave

    Do you really need FSX if Steam (I assume when you refer to "Steam" you mean FSX-SE) is working OK? John
×