Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Anybody any problem with adding single engine aircraft to the more demanding 'historical' class? I mean it is a lot more demanding to fly a Cirrus SR20  around the globe then it is to do that in a B747. We'll need to rename the class, but that's easy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would rather have a seperate class.  Putting a glass cockpit single engine like the Cirrus or Kodiak Quest against a beaver is not really fair or even an early electra or dc3. Different challenges.

Single engine class though as a third option would be good though.

This however deserves a seperate class. 60 knots and no autopilot.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Yes but we would need a lot of classes.... 

 

That’s true but let’s tries maintaining things simple yet fair and just to all of us…
Instead of pre 1970 and after 1970 aircraft,
Why not using something like this:

With Autopilot

Without Autopilot

Propeller engine

Jet engine

More than 100Kn

Less than100Kn

       

For us pilots behind a PC what matters and differentiate us will be the ones that will take this challenge the hardcore way and fly aircraft by hand all the way, managing navigation and controlling radios etc..
or the ones using a modern tubeliner with a FMS computer.

By the way because I’m lazy I probably will fly the A320 and the 777 and let my copilot ,Mr. Auto Pilot, fly most of the time.

Regards
Nuno.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to choose my beloved A320 for medium and long legs. But for short distances and "low-alt-vfr" a Cessna 172. I know that the first ones were build in the 50's but built until the eighties. So for me it is no problem to class it to modern too. Espacially with its Auto-Pilot and other modern equipment of the default 172 in FSX.

And it would fit into the above shown classification of Bragametro.

 

Can u give a full clear for my choice Matthijs? 

Share this post


Link to post

By now, seeing that so many pilots chosen old aircraft, I think we should drop the whole idea of single engine as  a special class.  

 

I think there is a distinct difference between the pilots who will fly B747 and A320 and those that chosen DC3, Catalina's etc. But a Pilatus with a single turbine engine is a far more capable aircraft the a Catalina for a trip like this. So let's forget about the classes all together.

 

Besides, all pilots will agree that the DC-4 is one of the most reliable three engine aircraft ever build.

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Besides, all pilots will agree that the DC-4 is one of the most reliable three engine aircraft ever build.

3 enigines?

Reliable? Hmmm, 368 loses with 3398 people dying....

Share this post


Link to post

There was a period when 50% of flights ended with three of the four engines working.

Share this post


Link to post
On 27-9-2017 at 7:13 PM, mopperle said:

3 enigines?

Reliable? Hmmm, 368 loses with 3398 people dying....

 

Tells something about how reliable its competitors were...

Share this post


Link to post
On 27-9-2017 at 6:31 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

Besides, all pilots will agree that the DC-4 is one of the most reliable three engine aircraft ever build.

Well actually that would be the later versions of the Lockheed Constellation. The later wright R3350 duplex cyclone, when equipped with power recovery turbines were very unreliable as the increased heat made the engine eat it's own exhaust valves. Mechanics called the prt's (3 per engine, 1 per 6 cylinder group) Part Recovery Turbines.

 

the dc4 had p&w r2000 twin wasps, derived from the highly reliable r1820 twin wasp.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/28/2017 at 3:49 PM, Tobus said:

Well actually that would be the later versions of the Lockheed Constellation. The later wright R3350 duplex cyclone, when equipped with power recovery turbines were very unreliable as the increased heat made the engine eat it's own exhaust valves. Mechanics called the prt's (3 per engine, 1 per 6 cylinder group) Part Recovery Turbines.

 

the dc4 had p&w r2000 twin wasps, derived from the highly reliable r1820 twin wasp.

 

Yea, and the 3350s also had a terrible oiling system. 

Share this post


Link to post

yes, noticing it now in my flight in The Stratocruiser to Mumbai. Down to 52% oil...

Share this post


Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...