747-200

[asboyd]

All run from one controller and pressure regulator... would have to say when one goes all go....

[thecrazedlog]

C-152 sim? Only if the following bits are simulated or supported:

- A hardware, usb connected, tube that you suck on to test the stall warning. Deluxe edition lets you clean it afterwards.
- Random selection of instruments inop, with a random chance of a label indicating such.
- Com/Nav radios older than the dinosaurs. Subject to above random selection.
- Bent fuselage that just doesn't quite fly right.
- Landing gear that has a little bit too much bounce in it
- Stickiness in the control column because you and the flight instructor jammed in beside you are reasonably sized blokes and you're far too close for comfort.
- Anything over ISA temperature and the thing climbs like an old grandma going up stairs.
- Random dings and bends in the wings. Each time you take off these may or may not be present, and may or may not substantially affect stability, control inputs and overall flight safety.
- Every time a mosquito farts within 20 feet of the aircraft, you exceed max crosswind component and have control issues.
- An engine that sounds like it has been liberated from a lawn mower. Actually, on second thought, an engine that sounds like it *hasn't* been liberated from the lawn mower and still has the blades attached.
- Interior trim that randomly falls off. This will likewise cause control issues.

(I just recently had a fly of a 152 after only flying Archers and now a -182. It is a fun little aircraft but a little... old)

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

All run from one controller and pressure regulator... would have to say when one goes all go....

Musk: "The launch will be spectacular, one way or the other."     :-P

Wikipedia says one processing unit per engine, and each unit has three computers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)

[Phil Bunch]

I continue to believe that either the SR-71 Blackbird or (as a distant second choice) the Concorde, should be the only options considered.  I have to admit that Jeroen's proposal is also attractive and interesting...

The SR-71 is especially interesting since it flies so fast, at such an extreme altitude, and because it may suddenly lose its ramjet engine if its supersonic airflow into the engine is disrupted - see this excerpt from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Air_inlets



I have to admit that the SpaceX "heavy" posted by Jeroen is also very interesting...it can land on its tail and thus provide a reusable rocket.  See the photo and text here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program

Getting a rocket to land on its tail after launch would be challenging to program in real life or in a simulator!

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Getting a rocket to land on its tail after launch would be challenging to program in real life or in a simulator!

Three rockets...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

[frumpy]

I know this has been discussed before, no one cares anyway, but still I'd like
to give you my mustard (that's approx. $.02) here:
I wonder why there is no good simulation of a 787 out there? Soon there will be
more 787 build than 744. And some of them will probably still fly in 40 years. :->

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Docs missing. One of the reasons a 747-400 was modelable is that there is a slew of docs out there that are somewhat complete, somewhat correct, and somewhat consistent.

[Britjet]

I know this has been discussed before, no one cares anyway, but still I'd like
to give you my mustard (that's approx. $.02) here:
I wonder why there is no good simulation of a 787 out there? Soon there will be
more 787 build than 744. And some of them will probably still fly in 40 years. :->

QualityWings have developed a version for PSX, and eventually P3D, but like all Flight-sim add-ons it could never achieve PSX quality.
My money is on an A350 or the 787.
Hardy has a few good years left ....
Peter.

[Phil Bunch]

Getting a rocket to land on its tail after launch would be challenging to program in real life or in a simulator!

Three rockets...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

Quote from SpaceX, shown at bottom of the video:

---------------

"When Falcon Heavy lifts off it will be the most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor of two. Thrust at liftoff is equal to approximately eighteen 747 aircraft operating simultaneously."

---------------

Also, they're proposing a single-rocket flight to Mars.  Hardy would have to write navigation software and obtain route charts to and from Mars!  Synchronization with closest approach to and from Mars would be essential.  Also, it would need to warn and help the crew cope with solar radiation storms, probably the hardest technical issue to solve.  Shielding against such storms must be very heavy and bulky due to the physics of this radiation interacting with matter.

Speaking for myself, I would find it to be impossibly hard to be stuck inside a small cabin with other crewmembers for several years.  The Russians tried simulating this in an earth-based mockup of such a cabin and some of their hand-selected crew couldn't cope.

[frumpy]

Docs missing. One of the reasons a 747-400 was modelable is that there is a slew of docs out there that are somewhat complete, somewhat correct, and somewhat consistent.

Hm, thanks. I always wondered where you guys get the data from.
I did not think of the manufacturer keeping its secrets.