MartinW

No wonder they are falling out of the skies, the computers are dueling and killing one another. My opinion of someone who picks up on minor typos is........

The M-MMS system, that handles stuff like communications management, cargo handling, fuel management, has two dual redundant computers. The A400M also has 4 independent flight control computers. Unlike your car, it wont fail if one of them misbehaves. All fly-by-wire aircraft are designed this way. The A380 for example, has 3 primary flight control computers, plus 3 secondary flight computers, with dissimilar hardware and software. There's no defence against an idiot that wipes critical files though. Clearly this is something Airbus must address by protecting those critical files from ac

It's not so much "bloody computers" Alan. More like bloody human beings. A computer is as good as the human beings that program them, and as good as the human beings that operate them. There's no defence against an incompetent action like deleting important files, and no defence against a lack of necessary software safeguards to prevent important files from being wiped. We can't blame "computers" for that, only people. Computers weren't the issue, human error was. And human error rears it's ugly head in regard to many technologies used in aviation.

It seems the accident was linked to a "data wipe error". Files required to interpret the engines readings had been accidentally deleted. Essentially the engines were stuck in idle. "Torque calibration parameter" files had been accidentally deleted during a software installation process ahead of the plane's first flight. Airbus have confirmed that the pilots had switched the malfunctioning engines into "flight idle" mode in an attempt to fix the problem. Without the vital files in place, the engines were stuck in idle. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33078767

Yeas, happy birthday you mutated old man. He loves it when I'm mean to him. Presents... what were they? We MUST know!!!

Absolutely Brett. There's no way flight sims archaic engine, on it's own, could represent the Osprey's flight dynamics with accuracy. If it were coded with an independent flight dynamics engine it would be possible. In addition you'd need someone in the know to provide all of the technical information required. Probably an experienced Osprey pilot to test it too. Majestic used NASA software to code the flight dynamics for their Dash. PMDG have been using a semblance of that approach for quite a few years now too. In addition, PMDG have a relationship with Boeing and access to Boeings tec

Just to let you know chaps, if you haven't seen the Osprey in action, now's your chance! The latest aircraft confirmed for Fairford this year are, not one, but two CV-22B Osprey's from the 7th Special Operations Squadron.

Unless you have access to a F-22 fighter jet, you probably haven’t been able to fly faster than the speed of sound since the last Concorde flight in 2003. NASA wants to change this. The agency said that it is spending over $6 million to fund research into cheaper and greener supersonic travel. This isn't NASA’s first attempt to bring back supersonic travel. The agency has been (literally) pushing the boundaries of flight for years. NASA’s predecessor was involved in building the first supersonic plane in 1946, and the agency has been working concepts since 2006 with companies like Lockheed-Ma

Very professional. Impressive stuff.

Would be great for mowing the lawn though. You could fly home from work, and then prior to parking your hover bike in the garage, do a few laps of the lawn.

Hang on I'll do it now...

They've just been awarded a patent for their ducted fan technology. Quite a few orders already. $85,000 if you want one. I thought that wasn't bad to be honest. A few days training and anyone can operate one they say. Cheap to operate.

Me too Chris. Technically it's what you call COOL!

As for stability, give em time chaps, as I say, they are only at the prototype phase. The finished product will fly at max 12 feet, for one and a half hours. It uses a three rotor, rotary engine, a Wankel in other words.

That was just an early prototype chaps. What they have in mind is fan's two or three, but they will all be ducted so you won't chop your whatsits off. http://aerofex.com/

Seems to be the way many flight sim forums are going. Avsim is still as strong as ever of course. There'll be just a handful of forums left in time. Lets hope this is one of them.

Guess it does look weird with the big lift engine door sticking up. Guess it was the simplest mechanical solution though. Some kind of sliding door mechanism would have been more complex and thus probably heavier.

I kid you not. Probably Star wars fans! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmiMx7ClcSI

Reminds me of the time my friend and I were on our way home one lunchtime from juniour school. Two EE Lightnings roared over us super low and fast. Heading in the direction of EGBB. My friend and I ducked down they were so low. Awesome! Nearly pooed our pants we did.

Well I'm sure you're not happy with the mere simulation above, so how about the F35B at the Miramar airshow. Amazing control, rock steady, and a nice 100 knot rolling landing.

6 degree glideslope, 60 knots. Nice safe low speed landing, nothing dramatic, no wires, simplicity itself. No wear and tear on the deck. Less fuel, more weight. Far safer than a cats and traps landing, and safer and faster than a vertical landing. Looks good to me. I reckon there will rarely be any vertical landings.

I'd kind of hoped the discussion wouldn't drift in the direction of our governments cock up, given we've debated it and pretty much agreed previously, but no problem, so be it. I wouldn't say it's a "complete" waste of money to be honest, as we do have "a" capability. Yes, cats and traps would have been optimal, but do we really need maximum payload and range for our purposes? We seemed to get on fine with the Harrier, and the F35b will certainly exceed the Harriers capabilities by a long way. I can't really envisage a realistic war scenario where we find ourselves desperate for greater F3

Those were the days. The days when you visited an airshow and the aircraft flew super low and "over your head". Closest I got to that recently was at Fairford. My daughter son and me decided to park our bums at the end of the runway. An A10 turned hard at the end of the runway right over us. Shock horror! What would health and safety say. Many years ago, guess I was about 17 or so, I used to sit on the shed at the bottom of our garden with my pet Siamese cat. During one such occasion, I glanced to my left and there was a Vulcan, banking hard and ultra low. Shocked by what I saw, I ran in t

I agree with you. We are certainly glad of it though when scary people invade our land, or try to steal our archipelagos. Moving swiftly on... 70,600 tonnes the displacement apparently, but the design accommodates growth over it's lifetime. A tailored air group of up to 40 aircraft, but I guess given the political will the full compliment of 50 may transpire eventually. The BAE/Thales S1850M has a fully automatic detection and track initiation that can track up to 1,000 air targets at a range of around 400 kilometres. While BAE's Artisan can track a target the size of a snooker b

I found it almost surreal actually, gazing upon the innards of the Vulcan. Great job the volunteers do.