Jump to content

allardjd

Administrator
  • Content count

    23,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    131
  • Country

    United States

allardjd last won the day on July 12

allardjd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,713 Excellent

1 Follower

About allardjd

  • Rank
    Administrator
  • Birthday 24/12/1946

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    allardjd

Profile Information

  • Name
    John Allard
  • Location
    Florida - USA

Recent Profile Visitors

8,070 profile views
  1. I'm often tempted to screw with them. Lately I've been doing my best to keep the phone scammers on the line as long as possible without doing anything dangerous, just wasting their time. It's great fun. John
  2. Replacement is called for, obviously. A devious crack like that will continue to propagate, becoming larger, less subtle and less able to satisfactorily perform its original function. Repairs that simply close the fissure, while tempting, are not practical in this case. Bob
  3. Umm...Incorrect...his cars are trying to Not spew Carbon from a tail pipe, something they do Far Better than a gas or diesel or hybrid. Matt, you're just re-stating the "that" in my "other than that". The "that" is "...the fact that he's trying to build them without them needing fossil fuel aboard." What I said is not incorrect. That feature is the only distinguishing difference between his cars and everyone else's. His difficulty is that he can't seem to figure out how to manufacture them in quantity at the cost he's trying to sell them for, and he's a pretty damned smart guy, ergo it's hard to do. He does rocket science using fossil fuels without much in the way of serious problems, but building economically viable electric cars seems to be much more difficult. My point, which the magazine cover seems to agree with, is that building automobiles without an internal combustion engine and fossil fuel is pretty damned hard with today's technology. Lets not forget the power plant where the electrical power required to build, repeatedly charge and dispose of those batteries comes from. John
  4. Happy Birthday, Arnie. Many more! "A very well-liked and popular member " - - - I agree. John
  5. Headline: Russia admits defeat on its 'stealth' F-35 killer by canceling mass production of the Su-57 fighter jet http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7 Scathing article debunks the Su-57's capability. 12 built - that's all there will be. My favorite line from the article: "By all means, the Su-57 appeared a next-level dogfighting jet capable of taking out the US's best fighters in close combat, but its failure to integrate stealth made getting in close with an F-35 or F-22 an unlikely bet." John
  6. Saw this magazine cover and thought it fit right in. As noted above, "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." The problems, of course, are mainly to do with the fact that he's trying to build them without them needing fossil fuel aboard. Other than that his cars aren't trying to do any more than other automobiles already do quite easily, just as well and for a lower price. John
  7. For me, attempting to use the automation would probably be a mistake. My plan would be, a) leave AP engaged for the moment, b) ask the cabin for a second set of eyes/hands in the other seat to assist c) set the transponder to 7700, d) get someone on a radio - on 121.5 if necessary, e) declare emergency and request vectors to a survivable destination airport, f) disengage AP and hand fly per vectors. I think I could fly a heading, maintain an altitude, maintain a directed airspeed, make a gentle descent and/or easy turns, get the gear and flaps out when needed - not to ATP criteria or anything close to it, but probably well enough to not lose control. Trying to enter or edit data into anything more complicated than a radio or a transponder would be a disaster. I understand yoke, trim, throttles, rudder pedals, gear and flap switches, wheel brakes and other basic stuff. I know that "Attitude is Airspeed - Power is Altitude" doesn't work in heavy aircraft. Fooling around with the keypads and blinking lights is almost sure to lead (for me) to unintended consequences. I can follow directions when someone knowledgeable is eventually on the other end of the radio (not the controller - a qualified pilot), but that won't happen for a while. The old saw Aviate - Navigate - Communicate might need the second two switched around because navigating would become a matter of receiving vectors and that requires communications. #1 is still #1 - keep it flying, avoid a stall or overspeed, keep the shiny side up. Pressurization controls would worry me and I'd want expert advice on that before starting a descent. If nothing important is broken on the airplane (yet) and the WX is not too bad, I'd give myself a better than 50% chance. If it's the only game in town, I'll play. John
  8. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-5937033/Could-NON-PILOT-land-airliner-Flight-crew-reveal-answer.html Yeah, I know - it's the Daily Mail, so needs to be taken with a grain 50 Kg bag of salt, but... Speaking for myself, with a lot of simulator experience and a low-time Private Pilot ticket, I think I'd stand a fairly good chance in reasonably decent WX, even from altitude. Hard IMC conditions, heavy turbulence, strong crosswinds, etc. at the destination would seriously hamper my chances, I think, probably to the point of being vanishingly small. That aside, and with an intact AC not suffering from any damage, lost engines, etc. I think I might be able to pull it off. My preference would be to disengage the AP and hand fly with vectors from ATC to a big, wide, near-sea level runway with little crosswind component. I'd need advice on approach speeds, without a doubt and some coaching on spoilers and thrust reversers at touchdown. My biggest in-flight worry would be pressurization controls which I'm completely unfamiliar with and I'm reasonably sure they would need to be dealt with on the way down. It's not something I'd ever wish to happen, but if my sorry arse is the best available choice in the cabin when the need arises, giving it a try is better than any alternatives I can think of. A positive attitude about it might help too. If you think you can, maybe you can. If you think you can't, you're probably doomed. Worst case, of course, would be two flight simmers in the cabin, arguing about who should get the left seat. John
  9. Interesting - they put a General Atomics SkyGuardian drone into the North Atlantic Tracks system to get it across to the Fairford show. Yep - it flew itself there rather than being ferried in the belly of a transport. This is a turboprop powered, advanced version of the MQ-9 Reaper/Predator B series. The FlightRadar 24 screenshot shown in the linked article indicates the flight is from Grand Forks, North Dakota to Fairford and shows 153 knots at about FL 270, over Canada, possibly still in the climb phase fairly early in the flight. This thing was apparently merged into the flow of commercial traffic in the east-bound North Atlantic Tracks System lanes. https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/610992-hybrid-traffic-1st-drone-joins-n-atlantic-commercial-traffic-flow.html#post10194194
  10. New release from BEA... https://flightsafety.org/egyptair-804-crash-update/ This is complicated... Egypt has the lead. The investigation by the Egypt air safety organization, with the assistance of others from elsewhere, determined that they found "traces of explosives" on some of the recovered bodies. That resulted in transferring responsibility for the remainder of the investigation to Egyptian criminal authorities. That was done without releasing a "final" report from the Egyptian air safety authorities, which would have included the input from the assisting organizations. Transferring the investigation responsibility to the Egyptian criminal authorities makes it an all-Egypt show now. BEA has been trying to get the Egyptian air safety org to put out a final report what was known up to the point responsibility was transferred to the criminal authorities. Such a report has not been released - may never be released. BEA has released their own report, now saying that they believe the most plausible explanation given the information they now have from ACARS, the flight recorders and crash debris is a cockpit fire which may have spread rapidly to the rest of the AC. BEA professes to believe this information needs to be in the hands of interested parties in the aviation industry. Note that it's characterized as a favored, possible cause, not a smoking gun. The boys at PPRUNE are quick to point out that if it's "explosives" Egypt and Egyptair are more or less victims, though they could conceivably be criticized for ground-side security lapses. If it's a problem with the aircraft, the owner/operator (Egyptair) may be more complicit. That's all speculation of course but it's an interesting new development in a dormant topic. Given the particulars of the event, i.e. timeline, profile, location, carrier, etc., my suspicious mind has to go with the Egyptians on this one. I still suspect human skullduggery, but neither eventuality is proven and neither might ever be. Either side could be right. John
  11. F-35 is the "low" end of a high-low strategy, along with F-22. It's very similar to the F-15/F-16 high/low mix of a few decades ago except that the production of F-22s was stopped early with too few built. The low end, the F-35, though expensive, is considerably cheaper than the F-22 and is anticipated to be built and sold in much larger numbers. $100 million a pop isn't chump change, but if you want to be able to run with the top-dog pack in the world today, it's not going to be cheap. The idea was to build a relatively small number of the very best available and a large number of cheaper but still very capable siblings. It worked out pretty well for the F-15/F-16 mix. One difference between the F-15/F-16 and F-22/F-35 analogy is that F-22 is not being sold to any overseas customers. There is a proposal under consideration to build an advanced F-22 variant for Japan, but not sure where that stands or if it is a real possibility or not. I think the plan calls for them to be built in Japan if it goes forward, but not sure I'm remembering that correctly. Another difference is that there were no naval versions nor VSTOL versions of the F-16 but there are, of course, of the F-35. John
  12. Clicking "Add-ons" and "FSUIPC" isn't supposed to make anything happen. The fact that you have an "Add-ons" meu bar with "FSUIPC" in it means FSUIPC is installed and running. When FSUIPC is installed correctly, it starts when FS starts and is ready to facilitate communications between FS and other related programs such as Flying School. I don't have Flying School and don't know how you start it and kick it off, but clicking on Add-ons -> FSUIPC is most certainly not the way to get Flying School going. I doubt you need the paid version of FSUIPC - it adds some nifty features but most add-on FS programs only need the basic features of FSUIPC to interface with FS and all that happens in the background. The functionality of FSUIPC with respect to add-on programs is mostly invisible, except for the fact that it allows the the add-on programs to actually work. Read further, but read the documentation for Flying School to see how to get the instructor working. I don't think your problem lies with FSUIPC. Apologies if I've mis-read your problem. John EDIT: Re-reading your original post, it sounds like Flying School is working properly. Not sure what you're expecting FSUIPC to do but if Flying School is running properly, FSUIPC is already doing what it's supposed to be doing, which is allowing one program to trade data and commands with the other. Put another way, FSUIPC is not really a "hands-on" program, though some of the additional features that get turned on with the paid version are more hands-on. JDA
  13. I'd say it worked out fairly well on both sides of the Atlantic. Maybe you were just placing us in ready reserve status in case the Germans got too feisty, which they did, twice. Anyway, it looks like that hatchet has long been buried and I count the UK as one the US' two greatest friends in the world. (The other one? I'm not saying but it lies somewhere south of Lebanon and north of Egypt.) John
×