The Pacific Rim Nifty 50s Jet Challenge, an overview

smilo said:
I've just added the ALPHA A-3 to my short list.
she's not as fast as the B-47,
but being a carrier AC,
the short field potential is greatly enhanced.
we shall see.
Click to expand...

In my years with and later following VQ-1 and VQ-2, I don't remember the A-3 as a short field aircraft. A drag chute was necessary for runway landings since arresting gear on runway are only for emergencies. The real A-3 didn't have great brakes.

I have a Greg Pepper A-3 which was never released which has better brakes and is more stable for landing than the Alpha Sim model. But I find the AlphaSim aircraft quite acceptable.

I'm a bit concerned about the A-3 range on a Japan to Shemya leg. I don't think it can make Misawa to Shemya.

When we brought VQ-2 A-3's from Rota to Atsugi and Guam to use in Danang, they made the trip across the Pacific on a carrier deck.

Now if I could arrange a Navy C-130 with refueling capability between Misawa and Shemya.....
 
We're nailing down a few small issues with the rules and hope to have them out before Friday the 16th and start the race on the next Friday, the 23rd.
 
thanks for the HU, Reg.
I don't know what I was thinkin',
most likely, nothin', as usual.
 
MaddogK said:
I've actually prepped a Vulcan for this run, but fuel usage is UNGODLY high, she's still on my short list but there a couple others that are about as fast, have similiar range, but use much less fuel.
Click to expand...

C'mon.. belly up to the bar! :jump:

ShellVirtualAero needs your credit card! There's an endless supply of petroleum!
 
I downloaded the old Alphasim Tu-16 Badger , the Badger-A flyed first time in 1954.
When I unzipped the file I discovered Alphasim Badger is the -C version and it flyed first time in 1961. Question: could I use this Badger or it's out the limit for time? Second question: could I remove from the panel the GPS icon?
 
Question to the Judges: If an A/C is considered subsonic for the RTW race, may I use it for this event although it capable of supersonic speed in a dive ? I wanna be fair as wikipedia says it's slower than the A-7.
 
I'm leaning toward the
--Vulcan
--b57
--hawker hunter

depending on leg lengths...did I miss a memo about the route?
[EDIT] I did miss the memo. race rules post found!
 
SIAI S81 said:
I downloaded the old Alphasim Tu-16 Badger , the Badger-A flyed first time in 1954.
When I unzipped the file I discovered Alphasim Badger is the -C version and it flyed first time in 1961. Question: could I use this Badger or it's out the limit for time? Second question: could I remove from the panel the GPS icon?
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's out of the time frame. My first choice was an RAF Comet 4 by David Maltby, but those didn't enter service until 1960. As for the GPS icon, we rely on pilot honor to not use the GPS. Removing the icon while a nice gesture, is not necessary.

MaddogK said:
Question to the Judges: If an A/C is considered subsonic for the RTW race, may I use it for this event although it capable of supersonic speed in a dive ? I wanna be fair as wikipedia says it's slower than the A-7.​
Click to expand...

The main criteria is in use by 31 December 1959 and a Mach Max in the aircraft.cfg file of less than 1.0. If it fits those criteria, it should be legal.
 
Mach Number

Rules committee, can we clarify this once and for all:
First, is there an answer to Daves' thread here? http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=34826&p=394155&viewfull=1#post394155

I chose the A-4B after extensive testing at all altitudes and cannot exceed M1.0; much less reach the M1.2 in .cfg
I picked the -B model based on these tests and the in-service date. I see in this thread also that in-service is revised to first flight; so the -C would fit now too.
It seems it's simply these max mach numbers typed in the .cfg file are ruling out otherwise non-mach capable (in the sim) excellent models.

I'll choose another aircraft if need be.
Please advise.
 
"If the plane cannot achieve Mach 1.0 speed in level flight, it is eligible."

I would not worry about the 1.00 cfg entry. If testing proves it cannot exceed Mach 1 in level flight it can be eligible.
 
mach question

Moses03 said:
I would not worry about the 1.00 cfg entry. If testing proves it cannot exceed Mach 1 in level flight it can be eligible.
Click to expand...

I think this is different from what the rules state. They seem pretty specific that if the max Mach in the config file is greater than or equal to 1, the aircraft is not eligible.

Vicious
 
Vicious said:
I think this is different from what the rules state. They seem pretty specific that if the max Mach in the config file is greater than or equal to 1, the aircraft is not eligible.

Vicious
Click to expand...

Rgr. We are updating that line in the rules.
 
In service date clarification

Is an aircraft eligible if the first example flew before the end of 1959, but wasn't declared in service until the early 60's? If so, we'd have a few more aircraft to choose from.

Vicious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top