-
Posts
172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Bond 42
-
[Official] SimShaker for Aviators
Bond 42 replied to f4l0's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Congrats on getting out of Beta. Love the product! I think I read somewhere, but not sure... are there plans to add Xplane 11 at some point? Thanks -
I haven't followed this in awhile... are they unable to use Garmin for legal reasons right now? You are you saying you would like a 530W vs 430?
-
[Official] SimShaker for Aviators
Bond 42 replied to f4l0's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Deleting that Export.lua worked for me [emoji106]. Thanks Andre! -
[Official] SimShaker for Aviators
Bond 42 replied to f4l0's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
I actually tried in the Huey fast, I'll have to try others and report back. -
[Official] SimShaker for Aviators
Bond 42 replied to f4l0's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Same here -
[Official] SimShaker for Aviators
Bond 42 replied to f4l0's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Just got it today.. great product to go with your awesome software! Highly recommended!! Thanks brother -
[Video] Taking a business jet to .97 Mach!
Bond 42 replied to Pocket Sized's topic in Military and Aviation
It really was great training seeing what the plane can really do. Sounds like a Dutch roll.. yaw damps are important lol With a failed yaw damp in the G550, we are limited to 260 CAS/.80 Mach and must be below 450. -
[Video] Taking a business jet to .97 Mach!
Bond 42 replied to Pocket Sized's topic in Military and Aviation
Cool video. I recently did Upset Training and Recovery in the Gulfstream G550 for work.. it was in the sim of course lol. But we did about the same.. Climb FL450, pitch 20 degrees down, full power. Accel to Mach .99, transition to 420 knots. Feeling the aileron buzz, snatch, reverse controls. Was a great experience. -
[Official] SimShaker for Aviators
Bond 42 replied to f4l0's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Just ordered it, excited to get it! Thanks for the help, Andre. -
[Official] SimShaker for Aviators
Bond 42 replied to f4l0's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Sporg, thanks for the info as well! Going to try and order one today. -
[Official] SimShaker for Aviators
Bond 42 replied to f4l0's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Thanks for the info, I'm convinced! Ha. I'm in the US.. would I buy the Jetseat Pack or Jeatseat Air? It mentions something about customs? Also joined the testers group [emoji106] -
[Official] SimShaker for Aviators
Bond 42 replied to f4l0's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Looks like a great product/software! I was looking to grab a buttkicker for my rig, but this seat pad seems like it may be a better option.. thoughts? How comfortable is it on the seat? I would imagine it's fine.. I see no complaints. Also, I see you are looking for pilots to help testing. I wasn't a fighter jet pilot but I do fly jets professionally. If I can help in any way, let me know! -
2nd keyboard with custom key mappings?
Bond 42 replied to steve2112's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Thanks! And great work! -
What your friend is describing doesn't make much sense.. you can feel the difference when flying IRL around areas like that... But you will feel it as rough turbulent air. He may be trying to tell you the mountainous area there give a lot of turbulence and downdrafts that can affect a lighter aircraft more then a heavy. What area of the US is it? Maybe I've flown around there. As stated above, turbulence/drafts/weather aren't very will simulated in DCS, or anything for that matter. In real life it can be random too.. For example, last night I was landing at an airport. Super smooth the whole way down the ILS until 1/2 mile final and we got rocked. +/- 10 knots on the airspeed. Hard to simulate stuff that that.
-
2nd keyboard with custom key mappings?
Bond 42 replied to steve2112's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Would this program work with a USB button box instead of a keyboard? Thanks -
I get where you are coming from... but I do fly professionally myself. No landing is ever the same.. sometimes its smooth as glass but rarely you do get a slammer lol it is what it is. The human factors part is real, even during an emergency/overweight landing. And yes, the heavier the more stable, but its not a night and day difference.. you don't just plow through the rough air being heavy and not feel a thing.
-
Well, you always are looking for a smooth touchdown, but it doesn't always happen :doh: Weather factors, fatigue, etc, affect that in real-life. True, some overweight landings can be quickly done, while others, depending on manufacture specs and rate of decent, take a lot longer/cost $$$$. RTO's are critical due to possible controllability issues/departing runway. I think thats kinda where you were going with the RTO thing also.
-
Most aircraft require an overweight landing inspection if you land heavy... So worst case is you break something. Its a structural limitation. Nothing to do with an (RTO) rejected take-off. Rate of decent as low as possible is what you will shoot for if you really had to land immediately.
-
[emoji23][emoji23] agreed! It's not by choice! Haha
-
Here's an example from an approach plate on the flight I flew today. Look in the notes section, you'll see a pilot controlled lighting freq.
-
No prob!
-
The frequency is published on your approach plates... Either the same as the Tower/CTAF or can be different.
-
In real life, towered airports or always lighted in the US, and most of the world for that matter. Uncontrolled field lighting does time out and shut off... you must activate it by the pilot controlled lighting frequency. (3 clicks - low intensity, 5 clicks medium, 7 click high intensity)