New Classic jetliner

[ashaman]

The early Caravelles had another problem far more serious!!   Their wings!!  They had no provision for air brakes or spoilers and the only way to slow the a/c down was to deploy the flaps resulting in intense vibration and buffeting which in some cases took the wings off!!!

This I didn't know. They had to have pretty darned robust flaps then, to double for airbrakes with no immediate damage to either surfaces or actuators, no matter how inefficient and dangerous it was. The only plane I knew was built with no airbrakes is the DC8, but then in the 8 the reversers of the inboard engines (2 and 3) can and are opened in flight to double for airbrakes with no excessive problems (as the number of DC8 still flying is nothing to sneeze at).

Actually, if I remember correctly, some earlier DC8 had airbrakes mounted on the fuselage (and not the wings), but it was found they were highly ineffective in reducing the flight speed and so removed in favor of the in-flight reversers (I guess the Douglas engineers didn't want to or couldn't redesign the wings).

[vololiberista]

The early Caravelles had another problem far more serious!!   Their wings!!  They had no provision for air brakes or spoilers and the only way to slow the a/c down was to deploy the flaps resulting in intense vibration and buffeting which in some cases took the wings off!!!

This I didn't know. They had to have pretty darned robust flaps then, to double for airbrakes with no immediate damage to either surfaces or actuators, no matter how inefficient and dangerous it was. The only plane I knew was built with no airbrakes is the DC8, but then in the 8 the reversers of the inboard engines (2 and 3) can and are opened in flight to double for airbrakes with no excessive problems (as the number of DC8 still flying is nothing to sneeze at).

Actually, if I remember correctly, some earlier DC8 had airbrakes mounted on the fuselage (and not the wings), but it was found they were highly ineffective in reducing the flight speed and so removed in favor of the in-flight reversers (I guess the Douglas engineers didn't want to or couldn't redesign the wings).

The VC10 actually uses the spoilers as aelerons!!! When the real aelerons are deflected up the spoilers on that wing also raise automatically. This produces a very agile a/c in fact! however, it makes the a/c "very" sensitive and difficult to control in strong crosswinds!!!
Vololiberista

[Ivan]

Cool pics, already downed that classic. So the difference tu a Tu-104 are the engines, right? And the Tu-124 was the first with Turbofans?

A cool looking design, love your russian scenery Ivan,

Greetings,
Fabian

This one is 25% smaller in size, and has a LOT less range (Tu-104 is basically an intercontinental bomber with a pax cabin)

What are 'liftdumpers'

Looks like airbrakes, but doesnt function like it (they distort the airflow over the upper wing so it won't  create as much lift as it usually does)

A classic Jet no doubt the Indian Air Force Had some and living near the bases in 1970's, just used to love the tail chute come on just after landing a great Jet   Could not get over it the only passenger Jet at thet time to have one

Tu-104 had a brake chute too (but it's basically the same plane only bigger)

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

So no-one is going to tell me where this little gem can be found?

EDIT: Nevermind...just found it...

[ashaman]

The VC10 actually uses the spoilers as aelerons!!! When the real aelerons are deflected up the spoilers on that wing also raise automatically. This produces a very agile a/c in fact! however, it makes the a/c "very" sensitive and difficult to control in strong crosswinds!!!
Vololiberista

Volo, this statement leaves me like this :-? as it's easier nowadays to list the planes on which this system is not used that the other way around.

Maybe you meant the VC10 was the first? Then again the VC10 is younger than the DC9, on which I'm pretty sure said system was already used.

[vololiberista]

The VC10 actually uses the spoilers as aelerons!!! When the real aelerons are deflected up the spoilers on that wing also raise automatically. This produces a very agile a/c in fact! however, it makes the a/c "very" sensitive and difficult to control in strong crosswinds!!!
Vololiberista

Volo, this statement leaves me like this :-? as it's easier nowadays to list the planes on which this system is not used that the other way around.

Maybe you meant the VC10 was the first? Then again the VC10 is younger than the DC9, on which I'm pretty sure said system was already used.

When did the DC9 enter service? The VC10 entered service with BOAC in 1964.
Vololiberista

[ashaman]

When did the DC9 enter service? The VC10 entered service with BOAC in 1964.
Vololiberista

Airliners.net says the developing of the DC9 begun in 1963 and entered effective service 8 December 1965. So I guess the VC10 did come first, seen the prototype made (by what I've been able to ascertain on Wikipedia, seen that on Airliners.net dates about the VC10 are absent) its maiden flight in 1962.

[cheesegrater]

I think I might give this Tupolev a shot, due to the simplified avionics. The major thing keeping me away from Russian jets are the insane avionics and navigation systems.

A very unique jet too.

The VC10 actually uses the spoilers as aelerons!!! When the real aelerons are deflected up the spoilers on that wing also raise automatically. This produces a very agile a/c in fact! however, it makes the a/c "very" sensitive and difficult to control in strong crosswinds!!!

BAC 1-11 also uses spoilers as ailerons. Probably other jets too.

[vololiberista]

the BAC 111 was a mini VC10 desgned by Vickers before they became British Aircraft Corporation.
I don't think many a/c used or have used spoilers as aelerons
Vololiberista

[ashaman]

I think I might give this Tupolev a shot, due to the simplified avionics. The major thing keeping me away from Russian jets are the insane avionics and navigation systems.

What really gets me is that the makers of SIMULATED russian planes don't really seem to get that a lot of people that doesn't speak nor read cyrillic would like to be able to use their planes but can't (myself one of them). IMO asking people to learn a new alphabet and tongue only to make a piece of software virtually fly on a simulated sky is distilled madness.

I mean, were us all real pilots who were paid for making fly a real russian plane for a real airline and the serigraphs on the panel were cyrillic... well, in that case the request to learn the alphabet and the little russian necessary to fly the plane around would have been far from be an excessive request. You could not ask an airline to remake the panels of a real plane and all the related documents only because of you.

But to apply that mindset to simulated planes will ensure that very few among non-russian speaking and reading people will use that plane. And it's a shame, really. There are some very nice simulated russian planes out there, all of them very realistic and well done. And impossible to be used.

[murjax]

When did the DC9 enter service? The VC10 entered service with BOAC in 1964.
Vololiberista

Airliners.net says the developing of the DC9 begun in 1963 and entered effective service 8 December 1965. So I guess the VC10 did come first, seen the prototype made (by what I've been able to ascertain on Wikipedia, seen that on Airliners.net dates about the VC10 are absent) its maiden flight in 1962.

If I am correct, that looks like the plane from the BOAC disaster in Italy. I forgot everything else about it though.

[Hagar]

the BAC 111 was a mini VC10 desgned by Vickers before they became British Aircraft Corporation.

Sorry but I don't think that's correct. http://www.ampneycrucis.f9.co.uk/PARK/BAC_ONE_ELEVEN.htm
Intended as a jet replacement for the Viscount, the BAC One-Eleven twinjet airliner owes its origins to the Hunting H107 project that the Vickers team at Weybridge eventually developed into the definitive BAC One-Eleven.  This followed the shelving of the VC11, a short-haul derivative of the VC10.

I don't think many a/c used or have used spoilers as aelerons

Ever heard of Spoilerons?

cheesegrater said:

What really gets me is that the makers of SIMULATED russian planes don't really seem to get that a lot of people that doesn't speak nor read cyrillic would like to be able to use their planes but can't (myself one of them). IMO asking people to learn a new alphabet and tongue only to make a piece of software virtually fly on a simulated sky is distilled madness.

Not everyone speaks English. I assume these models are freeware & mostly posted on Russian/Eastern European websites. It's quite possible they were never intended for wider use.

[swordfish1227]

Ivan are you having trouble with the engines shutting down when you are in cockpit view? i downloaded this plane and every time i am in the cockpitview the engines shutdown and can't be restarted.

[Ivan]

Ivan are you having trouble with the engines shutting down when you are in cockpit view? i downloaded this plane and every time i am in the cockpitview the engines shutdown and can't be restarted.

Manual tells the startup sequence... you need 4 subpanels and about 10 switches to get the basic systems started.  ;D

I mean, were us all real pilots who were paid for making fly a real russian plane for a real airline and the serigraphs on the panel were cyrillic... well, in that case the request to learn the alphabet and the little russian necessary to fly the plane around would have been far from be an excessive request. You could not ask an airline to remake the panels of a real plane and all the related documents only because of you.

90% of the Russin planes have panels in Cyrillic... Only exceptions to these rules are:
- Anything with a glass cockpit (analog gauges still in Cyrillic, but the FMC and displays can be changed). Project Tupolev is doing a Tu-204, ETA unknown.
- Export An-32 usually have English panels (99% of these go to India)
- A few Tu-154Ms did have english panels either from factory or modified later (repainting the labels and fitting different warning lights). Slovak Airlines OM-AAB had one, might have been changed back to Russian as it is now flying for Pulkovo.

Remember that before 1989, everyone in Eastern Europe had to learn Russian as the primary foreign language. English was only done at the army for spy school. Anyone with the necessary education level needed to get into pilot school had enough knowledge of Russian to be able to use these planes (Same rules as with FAA English... mimmum required vocabulary, and all equipment having the same name for equivalent functions regardless of the factory / year of manufacture).

Only real difficulty is in the starting procedures (the more fuel tanks / engines, the more difficult it gets), as these sometimes vary with the year the plane was built or the installed extra equipment.

[ashaman]

To both Hagar and Ivan:

I'm not demeaning russian language nor alphabet. Far from me. Remember that I'm italian myself and pretty much find my own tongue in the same position russian is. I'm simply bemoaning the shortsightedness of the plane's coders.

I get your point of view perfectly. Real life planes were like that for a choice. Are we talking about real planes here?

Nope. In this instance that we're talking simulated planes. There's no return of any kind to the investment of learning russian in this field.

Alright, they code their planes and have the right to close all the doors they want. Still is a real pity they chose to close the doors in the face of the great majority of the users of FS.

Don't get me wrong. Had I both a reason and a cheap way to learn russian, I probably would. As it is though I should PAY someone to teach me the language and sacrifice some of my time to learn a tongue that only will be useful to me to pilot a virtual plane?



Pity.