Warbirds VS Jets

[IanP]

The demonstator video I watched (I think it was on The Register, but their search engine is useless and I loathe Lewis Page, their "military" guy) was of a drone programmed to engage anything within a certain radius of a fixed point. A remote vehicle was driven in, a missile was launched and hit the target. No-one pressed the button, it was entirely autonomous (according to the guy commentating the video).

So the future is already here - it's just that we don't use it right now.

dominique: Dunno. Can I try both and see? :d

You'd be able to run further in the B747 than the B17...?

 

[Brett_Henderson]

Let me sum up the issue in a less intellectual way :

1- The zombies are overwelming your town and you flee to the airport to escape.

2- You have 30 years of simming experience but no time in the cockpit of a real plane, ever.

3- There're only two (fueled) planes on the tarmac : a 747 and a B17.

4- The zombies are howlin' near but they're slow (zombies usually are). You've 30 minutes.

5- What aircraft would you (say most of us) be able to start up and help you to fly away ?

The B-17 of course...

I rest my case.

Wow.. that would make quite a FSX mission.. lol

But there is no case to rest .. that is a bizarre scenario, no real mission.. aimed at simply getting an airplane up into the air .. and using REAL airplanes

We could add that the only zombie-free zone is across an ocean.. and rest a case on THAT scenario..

 

[dominique]

the only zombie-free zone is across an ocean.. and rest a case on THAT scenario..

It depends on which body of water we are talking. Finding your way across the Pacific with a sextant might be tricky for a simmer. On the other hand crossing the Channel or the Mediterranean shouldn't be a problem.

dominique: Dunno. Can I try both and see? :d

Really, it's your call, Ian. Just remember that zombies are slow but very determined. How long to program a FMS ?

 

[IanP]

I'll plant a Frozen Pea Shooter and a Wallnut. That'll slow 'em down...

Although you can take off first, then program the FMC later. Or just punch a DIRECT TO into modern 747s with a GPS. Just assume MTOW with Flaps 10 or so and rotate at around 160KIAS or so.

Anyway. Getting off topic. I still maintain my stance that the difficulty or otherwise is highly subjective and exact aircraft specific.

 

[Alan_A]

There was a different version of this discussion earlier this season during a Speed TV (US) Formula 1 telecast. The commentators - I think it was Varsha and Hobbs - were talking about the skills required to drive a 1950's vs. 1960's vs. modern F1 car and concluded there was really no comparison. There's a vast difference between what was required of Fangio (no power sterering, no seatbelts, oil spewing at you from the engine out front), Jim Clark (the car is all power and no grip, it's as likely to go airborne as hold the turn) and Alonso (deep knowledge of aero, ability to manage all the computerized engine settings, work with the engineers on software-mediated balance settings)... One man wouldn't have the skills or experience to compete effectively in the others' eras.

Re: airplanes - my impression (which owes a lot to A2A and Accu-sim, plus a lot of reading) is that in the 1940's, at the end of a long technology race, powerplants and aerodynamics had outrun the pilot's ability to control them, so as a pilot, you were forced to spend a lot of time keeping the engine from blowing up and the aircraft inside its performance envelope. Development after that involved simplifying the mechanics (jets are easier to operate than radial engines), then automating the systems to allow the pilot to spend more time flying, or managing the flight, or in the case of a combat a/c, fighting. But as others have pointed out, the systems require knowledge and management themselves. So basically there's been a change in culture - from wrestling with big unruly mechanical systems to mastering the intricacy of computer-based ones.

For my own personal enjoyment, there's something about big unruly radials. Call me Fangio...

 

[SADT]

As much as 2nd gen. jets are easier to fly than 1st gen. jets, I prefer the latter as in 2nd gen. jets I feel like I am flying a staid computer, not a magnificent flying machine.

 

[maguireted]

Her SADT , I am agree with you on this point of view, is what I told my daughter. Best Regards, Anna

 

[warchild]

I have to agree with Falcon. AI will rule the future. Having a member of family flying Pred's I have been enlightened considerably as to what these air vehicles (I refuse to callem aircraft ) are capable of and what is coming down the pipes in the not too distant future.

Virus's. EMP weps et al? Do you honestly think that the designers of these vehicles haven't already considered and prepared / preparing for these and other possible threats?

The future is not human

I wish the future were simply, not war.. but thats another thread, for another forum somewhere in the future..

 

[warchild]

The more i program these things, the more i find myself abandoning the newer technologies. Its not that they are hard to fly, you dont fly them, you program them, and frankly, i got better things to do than punch in a bunch of crap to and FMC and let it have all the fun.
Personally, i dont think you can compare todays aircraft with yesterdays aircraft. They only thing they have in common, is wings ( and even that isnt always the case any more ).
You can do things with some of the newer aircraft that was unimaginable during world war two or korea or even viet nam. You can literally dance some of these things through the sky. Pirouette like a prima ballerina and play with the eagles. Its as absolutely close to actual flying that man can ever achieve. But thats the technology doing that. 3D vectored thrust with active canard-elevator pairs and a computer keeping you from flipping over like a flap jack.. it all goes into allowing the aircraft to go beyond anything that has existed before, but i dont think its pilotage or human flying.. Is it any easier than in the past?? Hell no.. Just very different. its a difference i stand in awe of, but have no love for.
The B-17, B-24, Lanc, B-25s, these were brute force machines.. the B-17 was the only one designed to be "pretty", because it was designed in the wonderful pre war art deco period where idealisms and innocence were the call of the day By the end of the war, even it wasnt too pretty. The planes were designed for only one thing.. get the mission accomplished at any cost.
I cant say that flying modern jets is any more difficult than flying an old B-17. Ideals and requirements have changed so much that theres little relation between them. I can say one thing though..
The hardest plane to fly, past present or in the future, is the one you havent flown yet.
Pam

 

[warchild]

Let me sum up the issue in a less intellectual way :

1- The zombies are overwelming your town and you flee to the airport to escape.

2- You have 30 years of simming experience but no time in the cockpit of a real plane, ever.

3- There're only two (fueled) planes on the tarmac : a 747 and a B17.

4- The zombies are howlin' near but they're slow (zombies usually are). You've 30 minutes.

5- What aircraft would you (say most of us) be able to start up and help you to fly away ?

The B-17 of course...

I rest my case.

Actually, 'd choose the 747, but then, i know boeing's control flow ( and if i'm being chased, i aint worrying about GPS ). However, you make a point.. Once started, the 17 is far less complex. The 747 has a block diagram on the overhead panel showing what switches turn on the apu.. The 17 has no such luxury.. However, had you said the only two planes were a 17 and a tupolev then yahh.. i'm choosing the 17.. it has machine guns, and ive never been able to start the tupolev..