Ship Simulator
English forum => Small talk => The Chat Lounge => Topic started by: oceandream on September 15, 2011, 00:14:05
-
Sorry this topic
I need some serios help with aviation parts etc
I been looking for help sinse last year...No one from curacao wanted to help...not even FB friends
So i ask maybe nicely if anyone who was flying experience on the forum if they can help me :)
PS
no google is NOT my friend this time
Kind Regards
Ocean Dream
-
I was half way through training for a PPL before circumstances stopped me continuing.
So I can take off and fly half way and then I'm stuck ;)
What are you trying to find out?
-
3 things
1. The aircraft Magnetos
I was know they are like the sparkplugs of the plane
But i needed a proper awnser (wich no one here on curacao had)
2. Traffic Patterns
(down wind legs, upwind leg, crosswind leg)
There purposes are what i'm looking for
3. How a piston Engine exactly works (forgive me i never really knew how it worked :-[ )
If you can help ill be awaiting your awnsers soon stuart ;)
-
3 things
1. The aircraft Magnetos
I was know they are like the sparkplugs of the plane
But i needed a proper awnser (wich no one here on curacao had)
2. Traffic Patterns
(down wind legs, upwind leg, crosswind leg)
There purposes are what i'm looking for
3. How a piston Engine exactly works (forgive me i never really knew how it worked :-[ )
If you can help ill be awaiting your awnsers soon stuart ;)
maybe this helps Oceandream
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/piston_engines/Tech23.htm
-
I just found answers to your questions by using Google... so it should also be possible for you to find them right?
I suggest that you put some efford in finding things yourself. Be curious. It will help you with the rest of your carreer.
-
Ofcours i can find them
But sometimes mostly i look for awnsers too by asking the actual flyers too ;)
-
Ofcours i can find them
Well, if you can find them why didn't you? :doh:
Anyway, the answer to the third question is "suck squeeze bang blow", So the engine sucks fuel into the cylinder, then squeezes it, then lights the fuel mix causing it to go bang, then blows the exhaust gases out. then the whole process starts again.
-
The engine you mention is a 4 stroke engine, there are also 2 stroke engines. There is also difference between a petrol engine and a dieselengine. With a petrol engine you need a sparkplug to ignite. With a dieselengine the ignition is done by the high temperature due to the compression. :)
-
Ocean,
1. A magneto is historically a basic "generator" that creates power for a spark on an engine. Older cars had a rotating mechanical distributor which used battery voltage to power each of the spark plug leads in turn- a magneto is very similar in principle, but uses a basic generator that is un-connected to the rest of the electrics, to power the spark plug.
2. Rule: Take off and land into wind. Why? Good question. Imagine your aircraft takes off at say 70 kts- this means that when the wind is passing over your wings at 70kts, you will have positive lift and you can climb out. If you have wind coming towards you at say 30kts, you need only achieve a ground speed of 40kts to achieve the same- likewise, if you have wind coming from behind you at 30kts you will need to achieve 100kts to take off. Now this isn't so bad on take off, but the same rule applies on landing- and if you are in a light aircraft at 100kts then you are in for a bumpy time. So you try and land and take off into wind; seldom is the wind dead ahead or dead behind, but you must choose the direction that is best to give the closest to flight into wind.
Downwind: You are travelling WITH the direction of the wind. This is NOT the direction you want to land.
Upwind: You are travelling AGAINST the wind. This IS the direction that is best for landing.
Crosswind: you are at right angles to the wind, so that it is coming in from starboard or port side.
Entry into airports is seldom straight into the runway and you will enter a trafic pattern; this will vary very much between airfield and airport around the world but typically, you will enter the pattern at DOWNwind- you will see the runway to your left or right as you pass along the runway. You will then turn left or right on the CROSSwind leg before again turning onto the runway heading for your landing. This is the common approach for small airfields- large airports with commercial jets will often have far more complicated patterns. In fact, my training airfield DID have a straight in approach as it was very quiet (except when we were being taught the pattern system)
The purpose is to bring aircraft into the airfield "pattern" that might be coming from any direction and bring them into a safe queue ready for landing- think of a roundabout on a busy road where everyone enters that and goes around it until they are lined up with the exit (in this case final approach)
3. As earlier answers have shown, there are several type of engines. The suck, squeaze, bang, blow, is a quite good description of how a 4 stroke works.
1. Piston goes down, valve opens sucking in air (and fuel if mixed in manifold by carb, or by injection)
2. Piston goes back up, compressing fuel and then ignites at TDC (by compression in a diesel or spark in petrol)
3. Piston goes back down
4. Piston goes back up, exhaust valve opens forcing out waste gas
You will notice that on each cycle of a piston, it travels up and down twice per time it ignites- the reason is that its neighbour is timed opposite- so that when say cylinder 1 is on stage 1, cylinder 2 is on stage 3.
A two stroke is a much simpler version which as its name implies has only one up and one down stroke per ignition of the cylinder (I haven't come across any in aircraft but that's not to say they aren't in use).
Modern engines are laid out in the same way as a car- that is each cylinder is in a line one after the other. Large engines or older engines will employ the radial system whereby the cylinders are built in a circle around one common crankshaft- these are MUCH larger in diameter but are far shorter and thus lighter and stronger.
So that is the propellor driven aircraft.
Now there is the turbo prop, turbojet and turbofan
Turboprop is (very basically) a simple gas turbine where air is compressed, fuel is squirted in, it ignites, drives a small turbine which powers the intitial fan to compress the air. However very little of the exhaust or intake of air moves the aircraft, but a normal propeller blade is used- it appears very similar to a conventional piston engine.
Turbojets employ a similar principle to the turboprop, but use a large fan in place of the prop to draw air in (sucking the plane forward) whilst the exhaust gases race out of the back at such a pressure it forces the aircraft forward.
The turbofan is a modern advancement on the turbojet and is the system in use today. I would have to direct you to someone more knowledgeable to explain the mathematical difference, but the principle is that a turbofan is quieter and more fuel efficient.
The wikipedia link is worth looking at for more of an explanation between turbojet and turbofan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan
-
Incidentally, this is the same type of aircraft that I was learning to fly in- the legendary Slingsby Firefly, although mine had a different canopy on her which was more streamlined- so perhaps this is an older model.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=slingsby+firefly&um=1&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADFA_enGB448&tbm=isch&tbnid=QpH6BMcpXoYgOM:&imgrefurl=http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%2520performance/firefly.htm&docid=uS_X1M_b7UJNYM&w=748&h=472&ei=LGVyTsDjNpG18QOy-fCzAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=374&vpy=161&dur=4751&hovh=178&hovw=283&tx=115&ty=87&page=1&tbnh=123&tbnw=195&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&biw=1600&bih=649
She was rated at 4.5g turns (actually built as a trainer/acrobatic) and our tightest turn did exceed this (slap on the wrist for me). A VERY stable and forgiving aircraft that even an idiot can take off, fly and land safely- just as well, as my instructor would have said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_Firefly
I am trying to find a picture of our aircraft. Sadly, two people who were inexperienced with this class managed to get her into a low altitude stall (how?????) and she crashed, killing both.
-
I'm sorry for those 2 who had died :(
The Slingsby T67 looks quite excellent for flight practive :2thumbs:
I'm starting my PPL next year june
I just wanted to be warmed up so when i go i know most of the stuff already :)
-
I’m surprised that the FSX fans have not mentioned that some editions had very good manuals that covered most of those subjects.
It is also a good introduction to the basics, if you put some serious time into the 172 rather than the cooler, but less realistic, aircraft.
-
Her your have FSX forum sits
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/forumdisplay.php?25-FSX-Forum
http://fs-freeware.net/
-
Hi Ocean,
Good luck with your training. I wish I could have completed mine but A) lack of time B) more urgent things to spend money on and C) eyesight means that I can't continue it at the moment although I still have the occasional flight with an instructor it doesn't count towards my hours.
Remember that a lot of your time will be spent in classrooms learning the basics; unfortunately (here in Britain at least) learning at home doesn't count towards your course although it will help you greatly.
Marty makes a good point about msfs (I don't have fsx so can't comment)- you will find quite a bit of technical knowhow- in fact I looked up flight patterns to see if it had any pictures. There is also a detailed explanation of instrument navigation, but I'd steer well clear of that for the minute as you have to pass basic before you even think about instrument (although even as non-instrument rated you would still likely make use of navigation aids).
Just one thing- aircraft do NOT handle anything like portrayed in msfs; I can take off and land a Firefly nice and easy- but can I land in msfs? No, not very often.
-
A2A Simulators do say they have the most realistic flight with their planes. They have the Accusim ;) and proof it works
-
I think most pc flightsims are pretty much of a muchness.
Unless you want to pay £*** per hour to use a commercial simulator- many airlines do now allow their full cockpit mockup simulators to be used, but it isn't cheap- much more expensive than a real light aircraft.
-
I think most pc flightsims are pretty much of a muchness.
Unless you want to pay £*** per hour to use a commercial simulator- many airlines do now allow their full cockpit mockup simulators to be used, but it isn't cheap- much more expensive than a real light aircraft.
It's better than nothing, I think FSX dose get close to the real thing if you have payware stuff from the right companies that make them. If you know the right people, you can get a cheap seat :-X
-
msfs- including fsx which I have played but do not own- look impressive but like shipsim they can never really give you any 'feel' for what it is really like. For example, I pulled a tight turn in a 777 possibly in excess of several g- in reality the aircraft would not have achieved that, but I would have felt the effects long before and reduced the manouever to reduce the g effect.
Another example is that on a real aircraft you can see, by a quick twist of your head maybe a spread of 270 degrees (with the bubble canopy of the Firefly anyway); in a flight sim you can sometimes be turning off crosswind ready for your final and still not be able to see even the airport (although there is a simulator that allows you to use 3 or more pc screens to give you good side views at the same time).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking simulators- they do the best they can with a flat single screen, all I am saying is that you just can't bring the 3d onto the 2d and make it 'feel' right.
-
let me get strait to the hand
Stuart i thank you for your help ;)
Once i have my PPL i will start flying around...and maybe even pass in each country where is SS
forum member lives...to say HI offcourse
have a nice night ;)
-
Just make sure you don't go for a restricted PPL (most Countries have a restricted licence that allows you to only fly in your own airspace)- it costs nearly as much but it isn't accepted abroad.
Also before you start flying to other Countries, you will need to seriously consider instrument rating and if going over open water, I'd think about upgrading to a multi engine aircraft.
Best of luck with your training- you will need it. It is very hard work, but well worth it (and if you ever get stuck on a 747 going to Salt Lake City, you can give 'Nancy' a hand!!!)
Glad to help. I'm sure soon I will be asking YOU for advice.
-
Roger that :doh:
the 747 past is funny thou :lol:
-
Roger that :doh:
the 747 past is funny thou :lol:
So you've seen airport 75 then? I was wondering if the film was a little old for you.
I love that film; so ridiculous. Beechcraft (?) hits 747-100- lots of debris thrown from impact- two very large turbofans on the starboard wing and.... no damage to them (extremely unrealistic). Avgas leaking from the wing, yet no sign of this on landing... Aircraft evacuated by slides- except Murdoch and Nancy, who romantically walk down the steps of the aircraft leaking fuel...
And the best bit- having that hut so close to a taxi way- again it should have killed the engine on impact.
But it's the best of them. Airport 1977- do NOT get me started on the chances of same 747-100 managing to land on water intact, survive plunging to that depth, being lifted back up again.
Also the aircraft was lost to radad- hang on, didn't the gas/oil platform report being hit by a large jet? Surely that would have indicated the location.
And as for Capt Gallagher climbing out the aircraft to the surface- he'd have died from the bends.
Now we could start on Airport 80...
-
i seen all 4 airports
Airport 79 made my cheeks fall till they hit the ground
How on eart could captain jpe patroni open the window of the cockpit at mach 2 and point out his flare gun to distract the missle of the F-4 fantom
winds of mach 2 would rip your arm off
Very unrealistic i say...but still never gets old
Ooooh yes i'm in for the next airport movie that might appear on screen ;D
-
79? The Concord??? Ah yes, some Countries called it 79, we had it as 80 here.
He probably wasn't going mach 2 at that point having not long been in flight. The technicalities are obbviously a little off (my favourite one is how when landing in the mountains, they have snow and glass showering them at say 180MPH and yet no cuts, bruises etc- no ripped shirt sleeves (it would take more than putting their hands over their eyes like that!)
But the storyline:
Woman has top secret documents about a missile building company
Missile fired at aircraft- no one, even Maggie, sees the connection
Explosion off the starboard wing- aircraft damaged, yet carries on in flight
Woman gets back on plane. You'd expect her to take a bus!
Oh and that ludicrous bit where they stop the Concord with sheets of paper over the runway.
PS. Did you know the Concord used in 80/79 is the one that crashed in Paris.
-
scuse the double post- it won't let me edit.
One other point the Olympus turboJETS (please no one insiste they are turboFANS!) If they messed around with the throttles so violently (think when they shut them down) they'd likely cause a surge in the engine resulting in compressor stall- remember that Concord despite being technically more advanced than anything else in its day (or even now perhaps) didn't have sophisticated computers preventing engine damage- and this would probably have caused serious damage to the engines, possibly even catastrophic failure.
It annoys me, whilst I'm on my soapbox, that they portrayed Concord as a French invention. It was well into the design phase before our French friends became involved; their own aims at a supersonic aircraft were somewhat different and were aimed at a much smaller aircraft. Indeed both Countries put a lot of effort and money into Concord (or ConcordE as our French friends incorrectly call it)., but the film does not acknowledge that at all.
Still, British, French... It certainly wasn't American. Shame America used its financial and political muscle to destroy the Concord project. Shame on them for not coming up with their own design either. Still, they could always be congratulated on coming up with the U2...Or can they? They can't? Oh. Then well done for coming up with the Harrier... No? Oh well at least they came up with the jet engine.... ;)
(No offence intended to our American cousins but Americas sabotage of the Concord project is a real bugbear with me)
-
msfs- including fsx which I have played but do not own- look impressive but like shipsim they can never really give you any 'feel' for what it is really like. For example, I pulled a tight turn in a 777 possibly in excess of several g- in reality the aircraft would not have achieved that, but I would have felt the effects long before and reduced the manouever to reduce the g effect.
Another example is that on a real aircraft you can see, by a quick twist of your head maybe a spread of 270 degrees (with the bubble canopy of the Firefly anyway); in a flight sim you can sometimes be turning off crosswind ready for your final and still not be able to see even the airport (although there is a simulator that allows you to use 3 or more pc screens to give you good side views at the same time).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking simulators- they do the best they can with a flat single screen, all I am saying is that you just can't bring the 3d onto the 2d and make it 'feel' right.
Hang on a min stu, I belive fsx dose give you the feel but sse is not the one that dose not give you the feel. Fsx is morelikey to give you the feel if you have payware photorealistic textures, upgraded sounds, payware planes with the realism factor and if you have a good machine
-
TM, I'm not saying that it doesn't LOOK nice. But you still get very little feedback from a flat screen. Unless you can afford millions to build a full simulator complete with hydraulic rams and full 3d movement it never can.
But we're drifting off the point and clearly since most of us don't have £X million spare for a simulator, this is the best we can do.
-
What is PPL?
-
I think it is Private Pilot License.
Google for the win! :doh:
-
Ocean,
1. A magneto is historically a basic "generator" that creates power for a spark on an engine. Older cars had a rotating mechanical distributor which used battery voltage to power each of the spark plug leads in turn- a magneto is very similar in principle, but uses a basic generator that is un-connected to the rest of the electrics, to power the spark plug.
2. Rule: Take off and land into wind. Why? Good question. Imagine your aircraft takes off at say 70 kts- this means that when the wind is passing over your wings at 70kts, you will have positive lift and you can climb out. If you have wind coming towards you at say 30kts, you need only achieve a ground speed of 40kts to achieve the same- likewise, if you have wind coming from behind you at 30kts you will need to achieve 100kts to take off. Now this isn't so bad on take off, but the same rule applies on landing- and if you are in a light aircraft at 100kts then you are in for a bumpy time. So you try and land and take off into wind; seldom is the wind dead ahead or dead behind, but you must choose the direction that is best to give the closest to flight into wind.
Downwind: You are travelling WITH the direction of the wind. This is NOT the direction you want to land.
Upwind: You are travelling AGAINST the wind. This IS the direction that is best for landing.
Crosswind: you are at right angles to the wind, so that it is coming in from starboard or port side.
Entry into airports is seldom straight into the runway and you will enter a trafic pattern; this will vary very much between airfield and airport around the world but typically, you will enter the pattern at DOWNwind- you will see the runway to your left or right as you pass along the runway. You will then turn left or right on the CROSSwind leg before again turning onto the runway heading for your landing. This is the common approach for small airfields- large airports with commercial jets will often have far more complicated patterns. In fact, my training airfield DID have a straight in approach as it was very quiet (except when we were being taught the pattern system)
The purpose is to bring aircraft into the airfield "pattern" that might be coming from any direction and bring them into a safe queue ready for landing- think of a roundabout on a busy road where everyone enters that and goes around it until they are lined up with the exit (in this case final approach)
3. As earlier answers have shown, there are several type of engines. The suck, squeaze, bang, blow, is a quite good description of how a 4 stroke works.
1. Piston goes down, valve opens sucking in air (and fuel if mixed in manifold by carb, or by injection)
2. Piston goes back up, compressing fuel and then ignites at TDC (by compression in a diesel or spark in petrol)
3. Piston goes back down
4. Piston goes back up, exhaust valve opens forcing out waste gas
You will notice that on each cycle of a piston, it travels up and down twice per time it ignites- the reason is that its neighbour is timed opposite- so that when say cylinder 1 is on stage 1, cylinder 2 is on stage 3.
A two stroke is a much simpler version which as its name implies has only one up and one down stroke per ignition of the cylinder (I haven't come across any in aircraft but that's not to say they aren't in use).
Modern engines are laid out in the same way as a car- that is each cylinder is in a line one after the other. Large engines or older engines will employ the radial system whereby the cylinders are built in a circle around one common crankshaft- these are MUCH larger in diameter but are far shorter and thus lighter and stronger.
So that is the propellor driven aircraft.
Now there is the turbo prop, turbojet and turbofan
Turboprop is (very basically) a simple gas turbine where air is compressed, fuel is squirted in, it ignites, drives a small turbine which powers the intitial fan to compress the air. However very little of the exhaust or intake of air moves the aircraft, but a normal propeller blade is used- it appears very similar to a conventional piston engine.
Turbojets employ a similar principle to the turboprop, but use a large fan in place of the prop to draw air in (sucking the plane forward) whilst the exhaust gases race out of the back at such a pressure it forces the aircraft forward.
The turbofan is a modern advancement on the turbojet and is the system in use today. I would have to direct you to someone more knowledgeable to explain the mathematical difference, but the principle is that a turbofan is quieter and more fuel efficient.
The wikipedia link is worth looking at for more of an explanation between turbojet and turbofan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan
my head huts now :doh:
-
Heeaaveeen
Thanks to our friendly pilot stuart :2thumbs:
PS
PPL==> Private Pilot License
ME--> Multi Engine Rating
IN- Instrument Rating
CPL--> Commercial Pilot License
ATPL--> Airline Transport License
-
i have have been in the cabin of an - 2 as a pilot for 1 minute
u jelly ?
-
I already have 1 hour flight experience of a Cessna from last month 172
It's quite an easy plane
-
I think it is Private Pilot License.
Google for the win! :doh:
That was a :doh: for me.
-
TM, I'm not saying that it doesn't LOOK nice. But you still get very little feedback from a flat screen. Unless you can afford millions to build a full simulator complete with hydraulic rams and full 3d movement it never can.
But we're drifting off the point and clearly since most of us don't have £X million spare for a simulator, this is the best we can do.
The feelings what the PPL people get are quite common reason for a fatal crash. They do not follow the instruments when getting the clouds when doing VFR but just rely the feeling of the craft.
And the result is a upside-down vehicle going straight down.
IMHO the feeling the aircraft isn't nothing compared getting used to the instruments and real flight dynamics, and that is what the simulators is all about.
-
thats the reason im done playing fs
-
The feelings what the PPL people get are quite common reason for a fatal crash. They do not follow the instruments when getting the clouds when doing VFR but just rely the feeling of the craft.
And the result is a upside-down vehicle going straight down.
IMHO the feeling the aircraft isn't nothing compared getting used to the instruments and real flight dynamics, and that is what the simulators is all about.
Clouds in VFR? What are your flight qualifications?
-
The sad fact is people can get into the clouds when the weather changes rapidly. Suddendly you can be surrounded by those, and if there's too much elevation around, can't get under either.
-
Like I said, what are your flight qualifications?
One of the requirements of a basic PPL (non-instrument) is that you do NOT go into clouds. That is NOT, under any circumstances.
If the ceiling is below SMA then you don't fly- it is simple as that.