Joris Van den Berghe’s Blog

April 1, 2008

Back to…bushflying ?

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 8:09 pm

As some of you may know, I’m not a regular pilot of (jet) airliners in flight simulator. I flew them a lot until I got tired of doing always the same things…ILS approaches, asking for pushback and engine start clearance, etc. I still wonder how people never get bored while always doing the same things…bush flying is more a challenge. You may land somewhere where nobody has landed before you, like somewhere in Canada or Alaska.

Already during the first days my favorite aircraft was the Cessna 208B; the only thing I regret about it is that Microsoft didn’t made a new amphibian version for it like it was in FS2004.
But I wanted something else, with better STOL performance, higher cruise speeds, and maybe some other things…maybe even a floatplane this time ? At least something rugged, not too slow, and powerful, with useful short T/O and landing performance. So I started looking for a STOL.

The first thing I saw was the Dornier Do-27 I wrote about a while ago. Not really good for your framerates which aren’t too good anyway (FSX is still a tough ‘game’ to ‘play’, even with a 3.40 Ghz Pentium D – dual core -, two GB of RAM and a Nvidia 7600 GS with 512 mb dedicated memory). That’s one of my main reasons I don’t like to fly over Europe; too less water, seaplane bases, short runways, lakes and other nice stuff like that. Another reason is the always boring weather here in Western Europe. Around the Bahama’s (my homebases are Cape Santa Maria and Hog Cay Exuma, from the latter I regularly  fly with the  Beaver or the  Twotter or another plane to Duncan Town. The default scenery of FSX is quite boring, it’s just a small 2500 ft strip without many trees or buildings around there. On Avsim I recently found a nice piece of scenery for Duncan Town. I just made a short flight around it and noticed a nice hotel, a cruise ship if I’m not wrong, several ports with some boats and a larger airfield compared to the original. Though completely fictional, it’s still a great place to do some island hopping around the Bahamas. Something else I got already some time in my scenery library in FSX is IPBB: Ian Pearson’s (one of the reviewers of www.screenshotartist.co.uk) Bigger Base, in British Columbia, Canada. You can get it on Avsim, it’s a great place to start with the Beaver amphibian and make a flight to one the seaplane bases which are located less than 100 nm from I believe…that’s something for tomorrow…and  flight from Cape Santa Maria or Hog Cay Exuma to Duncan Town is something else I’m going to do…

 Last Saturday I bought two great deHavillandCanada’s: the BeaverX and the Twin Otter, both from Aerosoft. Two great planes. I both checked the planes and with full fuel and the default load I got airborne from Fowl Cay – an airfield with a coral runway, 1300 ft) easily. Especially the Twin Otter has stunning STOL performance, you actually have to see it take off to believe it…and the landing was even easier, I used maybe only half the runway available. The only thing I wonder about is why Aerosoft didn’t put a NAV/GPS switch in the Twotter with floats…But they both fly wonderful and flying them manually is a joy itself. The Twin Otter is even so manoeuvrable you can roll it without problems….perfect for these short TFFG-TFFJ (Grandcase – St.Barthélémy) flights. The Beaver amphibian is a great one too, it flies through all weather and lands almost anywhere you want it to. And of course it makes the transition from water to land and vice versa without a single problem…it’s the most versatile and useful plane in my virtual hangar…
Someone asked me why I bought a Beaver , since there’s a default one in FSX. I replied immediately: because of the so much better soundpack, more accurate flight model, and amphibian and wheeled variants of it.








The screenshot above may be unrealistic (I haven’t seen snow on the Bahamas ever), but the landing and approach to this wet, 1800 ft long runway on a small island (Hog Cay) was very simple, since you can land at very slow speeds with the Twotter…and I like the angle of this one…


My DHC-2 Beaver of Air BC moored at IPBB…note the Piper Cub on floats in the background…it’s on a small lake this base with some hills surrounding it, which makes it a fine and very exciting approach to watch with instant replay in FSX…


The comfortable office of my Beaver…

Today I also downloaded (with a bit of help of FDM  :) ) the great scenery of Raimondo Taburet from Simviation. More than 2 GB to download…it was all downed within one hour, thanks to a fast internet connection and FDM…otherwise I’d still be downloading now. Looks great from high altitude, but it’s not really interesting when you want to fly ‘low ‘n slow’ with a Beaver or Twotter. It’s fine if you like high-altitude flights with jetliners however.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 18, 2008

I’m baaaaaaack ;-) !

Filed under: Blogroll — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 9:42 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

No, I was just kidding. Haven’t been away, actually. A few minutes ago I was looking at the Aerosoft Dornier Do-27. I just had read the review on Avsim and though David Wilson-Okamura finds it a great aircraft (something I agree with) he mentions that he has “average framerates” with the aircraft. I really love this aircraft (first it looked ugly to me but afterwards I fell in love with it…). The problem is that I hate to have my FPS going lower than 25 (the framerate you need in a combat flight sim). And I’m sure this plane wil let it go down.

I have got several payware packages, but not even one gives complete satisfaction. The Captain Sim C-130 for FSX which I recently reviewed (thanks to David, the FlightSimX.be site admin) is a terrific aircraft. But the frames dropped. The Columbia 400 of Eaglesoft has something strange that causes FSX to crash when switching quickly from exterior view to VC or the 2D panel. And my frames dropped too much…The SkyUnlimited P-38 Lightning is a very, very nice and well-made airplane, but I don’t like the fact they used the stock DC-3 gauges instead of making new ones. 

You know what I’m really satisfied with ? Good freeware. On Sim-Outhouse.com (a site I found when I was still a full-CFS3 user) there are some people who are great at developing small, fine, framerate-friendly aircraft. One of the best examples is the Bristol F.2b Fighter of the Australian Robert Bruce, a.k.a. Robby88. A splendid, easy to install package. Payware quality, IMHO. Just look at the Virtual Cockpit! I love (yeah, I really love a lot of aircraft…) it since I flew the original version on CFS3…

Another nice a/c is the Piasecki/Vertol H-21C/V-44, made by Mick Posch. With a nice 2D panel and a even nicer 3D cockpit. There are two things who have to be changed with this helo:

  • you have to put the model file from the ‘beach party color’ version in the New York Airways model, because there’s a window that remains there if you open the front door (he accidently forgot to fix it when he released it).
  • you need to adjust the .CFG file so the turbocharger will work ( 9450 ft is the service ceiling of the chopper). With this modification you can get to 15 000 ft without problems.

[piston_engine]

power_scalar = 1                              //Piston power scalar

cylinder_displacement= 90.0                     //Cubic inches per cylinder
compression_ratio= 8.5                          //Compression ratio
number_of_cylinders=4                           //Number of cylinders
max_rated_rpm= 2700                             //Max rated RPM
max_rated_hp= 180                               //Max rated HP
fuel_metering_type= 1                           //0=Fuel Injected, 1=Gravity Carburetor, 2=Aerobatic Carburetor
cooling_type= 0                                 //0=Cooling type Air, 1=Cooling type Liquid
normalized_starter_torque= 0.3                  //Starter torque factor
turbocharged= 1                                 //Is it turbocharged? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUE
max_design_mp= 29                                //Max design manifold pressure, (inHg)
min_design_mp= 12.0                                //Min design manifold pressure, (inHg)
critical_altitude= 9450                            //Altitude to which the turbocharger will provide max design manifold pressure (feet)
emergency_boost_type= 0                         //0=None, 1=Water Injection, 2=Methanol/Water injection, 3=War Emergency Power
emergency_boost_mp_offset= 0                    //Additional manifold pressure supplied by emergency boost
emergency_boost_gain_offset= 0                  //Multiplier on manifold pressure due to emergency boost
fuel_air_auto_mixture= 0                        //Automixture available? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUE
auto_ignition= 0                                //Auto-Ignition available? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUE
max_rpm_mechanical_efficiency_scalar= 0.94       //Scalar on maximum RPM mechanical efficiency
idle_rpm_mechanical_efficiency_scalar= 0.7      //Scalar on idle RPM mechanical efficiency
max_rpm_friction_scalar= 1.0                   //Scalar on maximum RPM friction
idle_rpm_friction_scalar= 1.0                   //Scalar on idle RPM friction
magneto_order_left_right_both = 1  //sets the order of the magneto switch direction

By the way, is there someone who can explain me why the text I’ve typed under Nick’s comment regarding the Cat is smaller and how to get it back to a normal size ?

Going back to payware now, at the moment I’m looking forward to the Catalina Aerosoft is making. On their forum they showed some beta images of it, made by Nick Churchill. I asked him on the Screenshotartist.co.uk forum or Aerosoft is making some progress with it and he replied:

 ”As for the Catalina, with all honesty I think it’s on the backburner for the moment. It’s an external developer and I presume they are busy with other projects. If I hear anything else I’ll be singing to the world as it’s a project that I too am eager to see completed.

Well, I can’t add much to what he said. It’s clear, the great Catalina, one of the rare WWII classics we would be able to use in FSX, is not really under development. ^sigh^. Now, I’ve got some other things to look at. The Flight1 PC-12 is a great plane too, Nick told us. Somebody else on the forum bought it too and remarked:

I gave up…I bought it. Awesome airplane!”

My current wishlist (all FSX)
Aerosoft Catalina (which hasn’t been released yet…they have been working on it since March 2007 or so…)
Aerosoft Twin Otter
Aerosoft Beaver X
Aerosoft Dornier Do-27
Real Air Scout package 2007

March 11, 2008

Returned from school with pain in my back…

Filed under: Home Office — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 5:05 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

This morning I drove to school with a headwind of +/- 43 kts. Simply horrible. I had a bit of pain in my back and I thought it would go away after a while, but it didn’t. The second class (religion, the most boring class of the whole week…) it became worse and worse. In the end I asked or I could just go to the secretary, where they told me I was looking very pale (very unusual for me) and didn’t looked really healthy. I was asked or I wanted to phone my parents and so I did. The school day (read: morning) ended at past to twelve A.M…

I’m 17 now (my anniversary is the 14th of February by the way) and I can tell you one thing: it’s horrible to have pain in your back! I feel like somebody who’s ninety years old or so, in a wheelchair….frustrating ? You bet!

Now I’ve kept myself calm and layed a bit on the sofa, and it’s a bit better. I hope to go back to school tomorrow, but if it isn’t better tomorrow morning the doctor advised me to go the eh…(good grief, I’ve got to take the dictionary to look up the word…don’t know it in English…)…’fysiotherapist’.

Now, wait and see the ‘Rosbifs’ (French nickname for English and or British people) say, so…

While I’m writing this I still wonder which screenshot I’m going to enter for the April FlightSimX.be screenshot contest. In case you want to help choosing one (the theme is military, so it’s either a Tornado or a Bristol Fighter screenshot)…you may always post a comment and give me the name of the file (just copy the link, that’s the easiest way…) you like the most ;-) .

You can watch two slideshows of my best shots of both a/c, it’s more handy instead of watching page per page (my album there contains 400 + screenshots…).
My Photobucket album

One of my favorite YouTube videos!

There’s one user I check regularly, and that’s Lotus/Ramasurinen: www.youtube.com/user/Ramasurinen.
He makes great videos with Flight Simulator X and has some pritty planes in his hangar…

March 8, 2008

Back…finally. Working on my Captain Sim C-130 X-perience Pro Pack for FSX review.

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 11:32 am

I had a busy week so I didn’t really had time to make some progress with my review (FlightSimX.be) of the already mentioned Herky Bird made by Captain Sim. It’s a great plane, with a stunning model and animations. The only thing I regret about it is the FPS which goes down. And perhaps some labels on certain 2D pop-up panels where the text is a bit too small to read. However, it flies like no other! It’s a lot better then the Wilco A400M I reviewed recently.

The model of that one – the A400M – was quite good, but my framerate dropped from 30 to about 9 to 15. It’s very tricky to fly with 15 frames per second, cause you can’t make these fine corrections you’ve got to make while doing the flare. And the panel and Virtual Cockpit were both horrible…

With the C-130 the frames are reasonably better, but I seem to experience some sort of ‘lag’ while flying the plane. I guess we’ll have to wait for an update which may fix these issues a bit.

Yesterday I really didn’t have any inspiration about where and what to fly, and eventually I found myself flying around the Caribbean with a bare-metal Douglas DC-3. It also gave me the opportunity to take some screenshots, which you can view by clicking on the thumbnails here under.

Though the Virtual/3D cockpit isn’t really what I should be, the 2D panel is a lot better and nice to look at.

And the plane lands on short runways, I landed without head or tailwind at MYZ1 (the runway length is 2800 ft) and I still had a lot of runway to go when I came to a stop. Flies well, this Douglas Commercial.






Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 17, 2008

Week-end discount at the FSPilotShop.

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 2:11 pm

“This weekend only, we’re offering an extra 10% discount off of our already reduced prices on all products in the Bargain Bin. Choose from dozens of products including software, hardware and more, already at or even below cost! Use promotional code “spring10″ to take a bonus 10% off before these items are gone for good. Visit the FS Pilot Shop here.”

Well, that sounds good. All I need to do is convincing my parents (they didn’t knew what to give me for my 17th birthday, last Thursday) of using their credit card to buy the  and the Real Air Simulations SF.260 and their Scout Package (a friend of me, a Dutchman, has both and highly recommends it, so…and it looks terrific!). I really love to see these two aircraft and can’t wait to fly them!

I’ve checked it and though the Twotter X is slightly more expensive at the FSPilotShop, the Real Air plane is a bit cheaper. It was about 0,50 euro difference between buying them separately via the publisher’s website and the FSPS (the latter being the cheapest option).

Yesterday afternoon I was reading Robert Bruce’s blog (of which I am a regular visitor by the way), and found this:

What is a true FSX aircraft?

Now that FSX Acceleration and SP2 have been released, along with their respective SDK’s, there appears to be some confusion in the FS communities as to exactly what constitutes a FSX aircraft. A quick look around various payware vendors’ sites sees such terminology as FSX ready, FSX compatible, FSX compliant, FSX model, true FSX aircraft, FSX/FS2004 etc.

Firstly before looking at this terminology, it might be useful to have a bit of a look at the background of all this. Also, before continuing, I would like to mention that it is not the intention of this article to criticise MS Aces or any third party developers, or indeed to debate the wisdom of backward compatibility within MS Flight Simulator. These can be addressed in future blog posts if need be.

Microsoft Flight Simulator X (FSX) was a significant upgrade over previous versions of the simulation, and in many ways quite ambitious. I think even the Aces team themselves, were surprised at the amount of work involved in developing FSX compared to previous versions of the simulation. Much of the 3d engine was re-written. New shader technology was introduced along with a new GPU based animation system. Much of the world/terrain engine was re-written. FSX now has a round earth and we can zoom out into space if we want to. (No space physics though …… yet) I am currently not a scenery designer, but I would imagine all these changes and advances would impact scenery designers too.

From what I have read in various forums and blogs, FSX was designed primarily to work on DirectX 9.0 and Windows XP. I am not sure if Windows Vista was around or in early beta stages when FSX was specced & designed. There were certainly no DirectX 10 video cards around when FSX was developed. (DirectX 10 requires Windows Vista and a DX10 video card to function). Prior to the release of FSX RTM, MS/Aces stated their intention to add DirectX 10 compatibility to Flight Simulator X after its release, via a downloadable patch. Though what this would actually involve was not known at the time. Amidst all this change Aces attempted to maintain backward compatibilty with earlier versions of the simulation.

When FSX RTM was released, the sim looked great (at least on my PC) but performance was a significant issue on many peoples’ machines. To address this MS/Aces undertook to develop a patch to address performance and other issues . This arrived in the form of SP1 accompanied by a SP1a SDK release. The necessity of SP1 pushed the development and release of the DX10 patch back by several months. Add to the mix FSX/Acceleration, complete with new aircraft and additional functionality. The DX10 upgrade arrived in the form of service pack 2 (SP2), which also included further performance enhancements. However the DX10 upgrade was not a full DX10 upgrade and was called a DX10 preview. I have read various accounts as to why this occurred. The main reason I understand to be, was that a significant code re-write would have been required, which would have further broken backward compatibility and additionally there was not enough time within the life cycle of FSX to fully develop this. FS11 is under development and Aces have other products being developed too. They have to move ahead. Both SP2 and Acceleration have respective SDKs also.

For aircraft designers the most significant DX10 preview feature is self shadowing in aircraft virtual cockpits.

The FSX SDK is now part of the Deluxe version of the product and is included on the DVD. This version of the SDK is required to be installed before installing the SDK service packs. Previous SDKs were available as free downloads. I would assume making the FSX SDK part of the Deluxe version product would enable MS/Aces to fund the development of the SDK. The FSX SDK has its own development team and all this costs money. The SDK is considerably improved over earlier versions of the SDK (IMHO at least ) ) .

As one can guess all this means considerable change in the way aircraft are created and much variability in functionality and features of aircraft created with different versions of the FS SDK.

Returning to the topic of what exactly is a True FSX aircraft, I will quote from one of my own posts at Sim-Outhouse.

“1. FSX Hybrid/Ports = usually compiled with FS2004 SDK tools, materials textures & gauges adjusted to work in FSX. These aircraft usually have issues with prop/rotor disk alpha transparency interacting with autogen and clouds. These aircraft otherwise function correctly in all versions of FSX. However the fps of FS2004 SDK compiled are not as good as native FSX aircraft.

2. FSX RTM SDK Aircraft = Aircraft compiled with the original FSX RTM SDK. These aircraft work in all versions of FSX. However significant changes were made to the SDK tools between RTM & SP1 SDK which reduce mdl size and increase fps performance. Perf is the only real difference bewteen RTM & SP1 sdks, and these are true FSX aircraft.

3. FSX SDK SP1 Aircraft = FSX compliant, but with significant perf increase over RTM.

4. FSX SDK SP2 Aircraft = FSX compliant. Further perf gains over SP1, if the aircraft’s 3D modeling gives consideration to draw calls. (My own aircraft compiled with Accel/SP2 SDK appear to work in FSX SP1 but this might not happen for all aircraft.)

5. FSX SDK SP2 Aircraft/DX10 Cockpit Shadows enabled = As per 4. SP2 and Xpack SDKs also provide the modeler with an option to enable a shadow map in the virtual cockpit. Cockpit shadows on enabled aircraft will only work in DX10 preview mode. Designers also have to apply special design considerations in constructing their cockpit models otherwise unpredictable results will occur.

6. FSX SDK Acceleration Aircraft = as per 4 & 5 above, but with support for extra features in Acceleration as in the F/A-18, EH-101 and P-51 e.g. Winches, carrier functionality, P-51 ADS etc.

The bottom line is yes, there are two main categories – those compiled with FS9 SDK tools and made to work in FSX & those compiled with the various FSX SDKs. The various FSX SDKs mainly differ in terms of perf & added functionality.”

As I mention in my Sim-Outhouse post now that the SP2 SDK has been released (and most likely no future SPs), it is important, from now on, for developers, payware & freeware to state which SDK has been used to compile the aircraft.

[Edit: I should have perhaps added that much additional broken aircraft functionality in DX10 preview mode is caused by aircraft, perhaps originally developed using tools earlier than FS9 SDKs (eg FS2002 to FS9 conversions). Though some aircraft have texture problems that I believe can be fixed. I have yet to move to a Vista/DX10 system myself.]

As we move forward I would think that SDK SP2, would be the advisable development standard. If DX10 preview cockpit shadow mapping has been enabled, this should be stated. (I use the term cockpit ‘shadow map enabled’, rather than DX10 compliant as any FSX SDK compiled aircraft should otherwise be DX10 compliant, save for this feature). Likewise if an aircraft or helicopter uses additional functionality found only in Acceleration, this should be stated also, as any purchaser or downloader would require Acceleration to run the aircraft add-on. I should also have suggested that developers should also state what versions of FSX the aircraft has been tested in. I am not a scenery developer but as a purchaser I would like to know similar information, i.e. what SDK was used to develop the scenery and configurations it has been tested on.

This article is much longer than intended. I hope it clarifies rather than confuses.”

As Rob mentions, there are several ‘classes’ in FSX aircraft. Especially the oldest class, the FS9-to-FSX patched aircraft, would have decreased performance when compared to the newest aircraft which are made with an up-to-date Self Development Kit or SDK. I think the best thing you can do is see or there are older versions of the aircraft (e.g. the Pilatus PC-12 of Flight1) and look or there are similar liveries and try to read as much reviews about the payware plane you’re planning to buy.

Another interesting blog is Aerosoft’s blog which I found accidently yesterday evening. It’s interesting to know what’s going on in the FS add-on developers world. Especially the newest post is interesting since it’s about the framerates of add-ons.

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

February 13, 2008

Some edits this wednesday afternoon…

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 5:52 pm
Tags:

These were recently taken around TFFG and TNCM while in a thunderstorm. I got over the hills with a tailwind of 18 kts (as I checked the GPS, I saw my Ground Speed (GS) was 18 kts, quite funny to see actually)…

Tomorrow: school report. Let’s hope it’s better then I expect…








greetings

Joris.

Blogged with Flock

February 12, 2008

A few edits after a boring school day…

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 6:38 pm
Tags:

Got home today a bit annoyed, cause my economy teacher refused to give us the test (we all presumed he’d give us one today) we expected…to cheer up myself a bit, I edited a bit and I felt already a bit better after the result lol. They’re in my top 10 of best edits.

The airplane is Robert Bruce’s fantastic freeware Bristol F.2b Fighter and the shots are taken around and above respectively Saint-Barthelemy, St.-Martin (TFFG if I remember well). Feel free to comment. If you notice a mistake in the text’s here on my blog I’d appreciate it a lot that you make me aware of the mistake. Thanks in advance.






Blogged with Flock

This week’s prospects…and a small report of today. And a small lesson in economics…

Filed under: Aviation — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 12:23 am

Back to school today. Got up this morning at 5 A.M., I suppose that beer of yesterday evening had a strange effect on me. I was completely awake.
Quite exhausting, such a day with not less then eight classes (of which four are in the morning, with a 20 minute break at five past ten – and the remaining classes non stop from half past one to half past four).

Now I’ve got to learn for Economy. Elasticity of prices. A manufacturer lowers his price from 105 euro per unit to 95 euro per unit. When selling his goods for 105 euro per unit, he sold 900 units and estimates his demand to be at 1,100 units. Is this a good decision ?

Before the decrease in price we had this situation:

105 EUR x 900 units = 94500 EUR.

After the decrease in price we had this situation:

95 EUR x 1,100 units = 10,4500 EUR.

Seems like it was a good decision.

Why did the demand increased ?

We see it this way in Economy:

p0 (the original price) : 105
p1 (the current price): 95
Average of these two: 100.
Difference: -10 (105-95 = 10 and it’s minus 10 because it decreased – at least I think it was this way our teacher explained it…:D)
The price declined with -10/100 = -0.10 or 10 %.

q0 (the original quantity): 900
q1 (the current quantity): 1100
Average of these two: 1000.
Difference: + 200 (1100-900 = 200 and plus because it increased).
The quantity increased with 200/1000 = +0.20 or 20 %.

The change of the demanded quantity has risen stronger than the change of price, so we can say the change was worth it.

Thursday: school report. Forecast (lol): good for languages, normal for maths, but less good for economics and accountancy (I’m not really brilliant at it, unfortunelaty)…hope I can gain some points tomorrow for economics…

see you, chaps and have a nice flight !

Joris

P.S.: check out my new FS screenshots at my Photobucket album! And Robert Bruce, the fantastic artist that made that Bristol F.2b Fighter, is working on a Sopwith Snipe! I can’t wait to fly that beauty (I haven’t seen it, but I’m sure it will be a splendid package as well as his Bristol Fighter with it’s marvellous Virtual/3D Cockpit)…

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

November 10, 2007

Flight over the Hebrides.

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 5:50 pm
Tags:

Yesterday, I did a flight from Stornoway to Barra, over the Hebrides. I once had read some things about it in a book of W.E. Johns. It was somewhat described (and drawn, it was in fact a comic, based on the book) as a group of small islands, lots of cold, dark water, and few people. Since I decided to fly around a bit and didn’t wanted to go far away from my homebase RAF Leuchars (most of my flights in FS are carried out with Leuchars as home base, when I’m flyin’ around the UK. Dublin is one of my personal favorites too, because of it’s nice location. Perfect for autumn screenshots! I flew, flew and flew…and then I decided to let the engines do what their best at: pushing the Tornado to mach 1.35 at low altitude, screaming over the dark seas. I took quite some screenshots and edited some them. And, some loops, rolls, barrel rolls, zoom climbing to 32000 ft,…almost everything I would do if I had my good old CFS 3 P-38L Lightning.

Let me show you the screenshots, I guess you’re glad to see some after this piece of boring advertising for the Hebrides ;-) .











In case you’d like a full-size screenshot of one in my ‘collection’, you can mail me of course, and you’ll get a high-resolution copy in .PNG format, so you don’t have quality loss (by the way, I always set quality at 100 % in Paint.NET). I had to decrease the size of the shots so they’d fit in the blog, you can always view them at 800×600 pixels on my Photobucket album.

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

September 23, 2007

Short review: the Eaglesoft Development Group Columbia 400 (payware add-on for FS2004/FS X).

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 5:20 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Introduction

About a week ago it was the first time I heard of the Columbia 400. It immediately attracted my attention. And now I love it…

Read the story of a Flight Simulator X pilot with no G1000 experience at all who is going to become a glass cockpit fan in the end…

Sunday, 9th of september.

This afternoon, I downloaded the Eaglesoft DG Columbia 400 from their website. The download was quick and easy. It looks like the EDG guys have paid for a fast download server. Good for those of us who prefer downloading instead of ordering a CD-ROM online.

After download, I unzipped the compressed folder and started the installation. Entered my user data, my creditcard number,…and went on. No problems with the installation.

Once it was installed, I started FS X. I was curious to find out how my first downloaded payware aircraft for FS X would look like. Yes, I want to trust those gauges. No, normally they don’t damage your operating system. Damned Windows Vista. It may look good and has some very handy features, but the security is really overkill…

Wow! Now that’s one goodlookin’ GA (General Aviation) aircraft!

Flight report

Now, I loaded the aircraft into the simulator. Location: MYZ1, Hog Cay Exuma, The Bahamas.

First look in one word: terrific! I haven’t seen much aircraft with such a nice, sharp, paint. The FS X version gives you 8 different paints. Now, this pilot was used to an ‘old’ cockpit in the 172 and 208B…what a difference, even compared to the CRJ-700 and 738!

Screenshot edited with Paint.NET.

When you’re at the airport and are starting up everything, you’ll have to wait so the avionics can do their AHRS start-up and alignment. Dont’ worry, after about thirty seconds, you can taxi already, but don’t have the full functionality of the aircraft and it’s systems. And one more thing: RTFM. Read The Fucking Manual!

You’ll have a steep learning curve when you aren’t used to such systems in such an aircraft. The best thing you can do is first reading all the manuals (and when I say all the manuals, I mean ALL of them – there are about seven or eight manuals, one for the PFD, one for the MFD, one for the A/P, for the two Garmins, for the aircraft itself,…), and then take-off for a flight into the unknown…

The first couple of times the simulator crashed (it’s a very detailed airplane, and it’s possible you lose quite some FPS if you have a weak computer), but after an e-mail to the support staff of Eaglesoft that issue was solved.

Thanks to the superchargers, the Columbia 400 can get out of the bad weather where other aircraft would have to stay on the ramp and sit there…

Don’t try to fly it in a snow storm over large water areas; you’ll experience exactly the same when flying the Goose with carb heat off in the same weather circumstances. You’ll lose manifold pressure, and will go down due to ice in the carburetor. Bad weather, okay, but don’t fly i in a snow storm…with the Goose you might try it since it’s an amphibian, but with this one…nah.

Feel free to explore with the Columbia 400…but don’t go into a snowstorm…As well as in simulation as in real-life, the anti-icing is an option. Though, it has some anti-icing equipment…

The aircraft works fine, and it has some nice features: oxygen, the animated pilot, the pilot’s sunglasses, the traffic alerter, very handy avionics,…

Thanks to the superchargers on the engine you can take-off and get out of the turbulence and weather. At 70 % throttle (and 2405 rpm for the prop) it gives an true airspeed of 199 kts (at an altitude of 18,000 ft).

Highly recommended for every very serious General Aviation pilot.

Though, I’d like to state two things.

First, the sheer data that is processed through the Avidyne units causes the Simulator to crash when you’re doing to much things at the same time. So, do not open any other application during the use of the ’400′.

Second, it’s ok to put the overall quality of the aircraft to “medium high” or maybe even medium low, since this doesn’t has any noticeable effect on the outside and inside on the aircraft. Thus, it will render a bit faster.

Third, don’t give up too soon. First read the manuals, and read it again and again until you completely got how the system works.

Note: the screenshots are only intended for comparison between different products. If you consider buying this aircraft and want to see a full-size screenshot, without quality loss, please feel free to contact me; joris@warbirds.be.

August 28, 2007

Boeing levert drieduizendste toestel uit fabriek in Everett (WA)

Filed under: Aviation — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 1:35 pm

 Boeing Everett Facilities Photo (Neg#: K63553-05)

EVERETT, 27 augustus. Boeing heeft vandaag zijn drieduizendste toestel geleverd uit zijn fabriek in Everett – een kleine 50 kilometer van Seattle -  in de staat Washington, zo meld het Amerikaanse bedrijf op zijn website en via e-mail.

Boeing Everett Facilities Photo

Het bewuste toestel is een zogenaamde ‘Triple Seven’, een bijnaam die verwijst naar de 777 (hier een 777-200ER voor Korea Air), een tweemotorig lange-afstandstoestel dat als een stevige concurrent wordt beschouwd voor de Airbus A330 en A340 van Europese concurrent Airbus, een dochterbedrijf van EADS, met hoofdkwartier in Toulouse. “We zijn vereerd dat wij de eer mogen hebben om het drieduizendste toestel dat gemaakt werd in Everett te mogen gebruiken,” zei J.H. Lee, president en COO van Korean Air. “De werknemers hebben toestellen gemaakt die betrouwbaar en van hoge kwaliteit zijn, en die hebben een belangrijke rol gespeeld in het succes dat onze maatschappij nu heeft.”

Het toestel zal worden toegevoegd aan de vloot van Korean Air die momenteel uit 123 toestellen bestaat en 13 777-200ER’s, 4 777-300′s, 24 747-400′s en 21 747-400F’s. Het plan van Korean Air is om het toestel te gebruiken voor lange-afstands zakenroutes naar Noord-en Zuid-Amerika, Europa en het Midden-Oosten.
Ook heeft Korean Air nog 35 bijkomende toestellen besteld van Boeing die uit dezelfde fabriek komen: 777-300ER’s, 777 Freighters, 747-8 Freighters – beide laatste zijn dus voor vrachtvervoer – en het nieuwste toestel van Boeing, de 787 Dreamliner.  Korean Air heeft tevens nog vier 737′s besteld die uit de fabriek in Renton, in dezelfde staat, zullen rollen.

De fabriek werd gebouwd eind van de jaren zestig en is nog steeds het enige gebouw dat de ruimte heeft om de 747 te bouwen.

De mijlpaal van 3000 leveringen komt net negen jaar nadat de fabriek z’n tweeduizendste levering vierde – een 747-400 die werd geleverd aan British Airways op 15 mei, 1998. De mijlpaal van 1000 toestellen werd overschreden op 14 augustus 1989 toen een 767-300ER werd in dienst genomen door Scandinavian Airlines.

Boeing 747 production line photoOok de tweemotorige 767 en de viermotorige 747-400 worden er gebouwd. Later zal de nieuwste versie van de 747, de 747-8 Intercontinental in deze zelfde fabriek worden gebouwd waar de oorspronkelijke 747-100 werd gebouwd. De 777 Freighter, een vracht versie, zal eveneens hier vanaf 2008 worden gebouwd. Alhoewel de echte productieaantallen variëren met de markt, zijn er tijden geweest dat er zeven 747′s en evenveel 777′s werden gebouwd, en vijf 767′s. Nu, bijna zes jaar na de aanslagen van 11 september 2001, lijkt de markt zich terug te stabiliseren en krijgt men overal ter wereld terug wat ademruimte.

Het gebouw neemt meer oppervlakte in dan het hele voor het publiek beschikbare gebied in Disneyland in Californië en bevat onder andere verschillende cafés, een winkel met fanmateriaal en een theater.

Wat facts & figures:

Het hoofdgebouw wordt als het grootste gebouw ter wereld beschouwd, zo staat in Guinness World Records.  Het neemt 13,3 miljoen kubieke meter in qua volume en 39,8 hectare oppervlakte.Het werd oorspronkelijk in 1968 gebouwd als fabriek voor de 747 en werd later uitgebreid. Het werd met 45 % vergroot in 1980 om de 767-lijn te kunnen openen en later nog eens met 50% in 1993 om de 777 te kunnen bouwen.

De fabriek is zo groot dat het zijn eigen brandweerkorps, een compleet uitgerust ziekenhuis en veiligheidsdienst heeft.

Het terrein waar de toestellen worden getankt heeft plaats voor vijf toestellen, terwijl de terreinen waar de toestellen staan voor hun vlucht er nog een bijkomende 26 kan plaats bieden.

De vloot van 747, 767 en 777 toestellen heeft in de voorbije veertig jaar:

  • meer dan 34,5 miljoen vluchten volbracht,
  • meer dan 148 miljoen vlieguren gelogged,
  • 71 miljard nautische mijlen (1 NM = ±1,852 km) gevlogen.

Vele topleiders zijn er al geweest, de huidige president, voormalig vice president Al Gore, voormalig president Bill Clinton, voormalige Russisch president Boris Yeltsin, de Chinese president Jiang Zmin, Australisch premier Paul Keating, premier Mahatmhir bin Mohamad van Maleisië, Ion Iliescu, de president van Roemenië, prins Philippe van Spanje, koning Hoessein van Jordanië, prins Andrew, Hertog van York, president Michal Kova van Estland, Indonesisch president Megawati Sukarnoputri en een lid van het Amerikaanse huis van afgevaardigden, namelijk Dennis Hastert.

Copyright for all images of The Boeing Company.

August 20, 2007

Camsell Portage-Margaret Lake

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 8:09 pm

CJP6, 6.55 PM.

Om tien voor zes starten de motoren van de Grumman. Even later stijgen we op van runway 06. Een goede minuut later stijgen we op. Weer is er die stomme wind! God…ik haat die wind. Alhoewel, het is soms wel eens iets anders, een krachtige crosswind geeft eens een moeilijkere landing, een beetje afwisseling kan nooit kwaad.

We stijgen naar 10 000 voet, met 127 KTAS (ik heb fsx.cfg een beetje bijgewerkt met behulp van een artikel op fsinsider.com, zodat ik beide snelheden zie bovenaan). Nu zitten we al op 9800 voet (voor de verandering heeft Jan blijkbaar de V/S Hold eens op 600 fpm gezet). Toen ik de vlucht plande, heb ik voor de optie “GPS” gekozen en om netjes in die vallei te kunnen vliegen, waypoints ingesteld die tussen de pieken lopen. In Zuid-Amerika is er een maatschappij die dit systeem toepast via de GPS, om een veilige daling te kunnen doen. We vliegen met een vlotte 143 kts (27 inHg, 88% vermogen,1935 rpm) richting ons eerste waypoint, dat nog een kleine 110 Nautical Miles van ons afligt, wat plus minus 45 minuten vliegen betekent.

Ik ben benieuwd of die GPS methode met die waypoints van mij gaat werken. Het is alleen een kwestie van de juiste hoogte aan te houden, zodat je boven de grond blijft, en de GPS en de NAV hold van de A/P doen de rest.Straks sla ik de vlucht op voor de approach door de bergen, en dan doe ik die later nog eens opnieuw als je geen twintig meter ziet in mist.

Even checken. Pitot heat, aan. Prop de-ice: aan. Co-piloot: z’n dessertje van het diner aan het binnenspelen. Autopilot master: aan. NAV hold: aan. Altitude hold: aan, 10 000. NAV/GPS Mode switch: GPS. Flaps: up.

Ondertussen heeft de co-piloot het toestel overgenomen en kan ik even van het uitzicht genieten. Af en toe schudt het toestel wel wat van de wind van 16 knopen. Ik hoop maar dat het daarbeneden wat rustiger is, want boven de 13 knopen kan ik alleen maar proberen op het land te landen, maar dan moeten we wel op onze tellen passen, aangezien de crosswind capaciteit voor land 13 knopen is. Op het water 23 knopen, en er is een meer in de buurt, dus in geval van nood wijken we daar naar uit.

De prachtige zon van FS X. Af en toe konden we een glimp opvangen van de grond. Meestal werd ons het zicht naar beneden toe ontnomen door een laag wolken. Zie ook de volgende screenshot.

Ik heb net wat op de kaarten gekeken, en in de GPS twee extra waypoints toegevoegd, die ons perfect in het verlengde moeten brengen van runway 10. De eerste is de meest radicale, de tweede is omze route wat preciezer te maken zodat we in noodgevallen (zicht nul komma nul en dat soort dingen) daar op kunnen terugvallen. Kwestie van een back-up te hebben en het niet tijdens de approach te moeten doen. Als er één ding is dat je tijdens approaches niet moet doen is nog snel even gaan snuffelen in de kaarten en dan proberen alles nog recht te trekken. Waar je toestel nu naartoe vliegt, moesten je hersenen al 5 minuten geleden mee bezig geweest zijn (gehoord in Air Crash Investigation).

Een dik wolkendek belet ons de grond onder ons aan een nauwkeurige inspectie te onderwerpen.

Elke motor verbruikt nu 18.7 gph, en de wind is gedaald naar 13 knopen, maar komt nu vanop eleven o’clock. Onze GS is dan ook gedaald naar 134/133 knopen. Nu gaan we tenminste zo niet meer op en neer.

En daar is Edmonton weer…

“Grumman Three Bravo Hotel, contact Edmonton Center on 124.2.”
-”124.2, Grumman Three Bravo Hotel.”
En nadat we op 124.2 hadden afgestemd:

-”Edmonton Center, Grumman November Eight Seven Three Bravo Hotel with you.”
“Grumman November Eight Seven Three Bravo Hotel, Edmonton Center, roger. Altimeter 2953.”

Opmerkelijk is de prachtige glans op de huid van de G-21.

We zijn nu nog maar 50 NM van ons eerste waypoint vandaan. We hebben de throttle naar 89 % gezet, wat ons een hogere snelheid geeft, en slechts een klein beetje meer verbruik (19.2 in plaats van 18.2 gph per motor). Nog 44 NM te gaan. In totaal hadden we nog hoeveel te vliegen? Ah, 61 NM! Da’s niet ver meer, vermits we op zowat vol gas tussen de bergen kunnen vliegen (full throttle voor ons betekent ongeveer 159/160 knopen denk ik (althans binnen de groene zone), wat voor een jet niet mogelijk is. Onze full throttle binnen de groene zone betekent wat een jet op z’n approach zou vliegen! Nog een kwartiertje te gaan. Nu zitten we net aan de rand van de bergen/heuvels/…(vraag me af hoe de juiste benaming luidt).

Even een kort berekeningetje:
Hoogte op altimeter: 10 000 ft.
Hoogte op radio altimeter: 8898 ft.

Bijgevolg hoogte boven het zeeniveau van het gebied waar we nu boven vliegen: 1102 voet.

Dus gaan we beginnen dalen naar 3000 ft , VSI (Vertical Speed Indicator): 800 fpm. Die heuvels/bergen, laten we ze voor het gemak bergen noemen, zijn toch zo hoog niet. De cockpit lichten had ik al aangestoken, nu zet ik ze allemaal aan.

Checklist voor de daling: power: zoals gewenst. Mixture: automixture. Fuel selector valve: BOTH. Tail wheel lock: locked. Ik wed dat je daarbeneden onder het wolkendek geen steek ziet.

In de ‘soep ‘.

Nu duiken we de ‘soep’ in.Voor de verandering eens snel: 192 KTAS, GS 186 kts. Na raadpleging van het dichtsbijzijnde weerstation blijkt de zichtbaarheid van 1/8 van een mijl naar 1/2 van een mijl gedaald te zijn. Lang leve de GPS! Had ik dit geweten had ik geen uncontrolled airport ingesteld als destination…
Probleem is dat de meeste vliegveldjes hier, uncontrolled zijn…

Je kan met moeite de ruwe contouren van de bomen onderscheiden. Gelukkig leidt de GPS van Garmin ons veilig naar ons doel.

Shit! De altimeter geeft 3438 ft aan, de radio altimeter maar 823 ft! Optrekken, snel! Jan heeft mijn gedachten al geraden en snel de Altitude Hold naar 4000 voet gezet, zodat we terug omhoog gaan. Nog 3 NM te gaan naar het eerste waypoint.De wind bedraagt 5 kts. Zometeen begint ons huzarenstukje in de bergen…Nu weer een kort stukje naar WP 5…

Nog 1 NM te gaan. We zitten hier op 1100 voet boven de grond. Je kan nauwelijks de bomen zien staan op de grond, alleen ruwe contouren.

Het zicht op 4250 voet is allesbehalve optimaal te noemen…

Verdikke! Ik ben vergeten de hele mik-mak op te slaan voor de approach. Nou ja, dan doe ik die hele vlucht wel eens opnieuw. De lucht begint vrij snel uit te klaren. Tss, updated real weather in FS…soms doet het raar…OK, de laatste twee tracks voor de approach, starting right now…let’s go for it!

Uiteindelijk blijken het heuvels te zijn, met valleien ertussen. De ‘elevation’ van het vliegveld is 2750 voet. Nu zitten we op 4010 voet. Prop RPM staat op maximum, manifold pressure ook, binnen de groene zone. Tail wheel locked, gear down.De Goose volgt perfect de GPS, alsof het haar tweede natuur is. Flaps naar 30°..ready for landing. We zitten vrij nauwkeurig voor de baan, en de Goose doet de laatste correcties. Op een goede twee NM van de baan zetten we de A/P af en nemen wij het over. Ik raad wel aan om de laatste track niet zo krap te maken als wij deden, dan moet het toestel nogal gaan bijsturen en dat duurt even. Ik beveel minstens 4 à 5 NM aan voor de lengte van de laatste track, en de snelheid niet te hoog, maximum 100 kts, als je toestel snel kan afremmen, zoals de Goose met full flaps kan.

Onze Goose ‘on final’.

Héhé, we staan aan de grond. We taxiën naar het uiteinde van baan 10, tevens begin van runway 28. Ik zet alles af en kijk nog even naar hoeveel gallons er in elke tank zitten.

‘Landing roll ‘.

In elk zit nog 140 gallons. Dus uit elke tank is er 30 verbruikt, 60 in totaal. Het Nav Log – met al die WP’s is het veel te uitgebreid voor een screenshot – gaf als estimated fuel burn 102.1 gallons. Niet slecht, weer een dikke 60 gallons bespaard. Misschien zullen sommigen zich afvragen: “Hoe doet die kerel dat?”.

Het antwoord is simpel: vanaf dat ik in de lucht ben, geef ik in plaats van de aanbevolen 33 InHg, maar 30 voor de klim naar kruishoogte, en zet een trage klim in van 500 fpm. Dit doet je al een stuk minder verbruiken. Eenmaal op kruishoogte zet ik de RPM van de propellers op optimale stand, m.a.w. rond de 1900 RPM, bij mij meestal ietsje meer (+/- 1920 RPM), en de manifold pressure naar de 27 InHg.Dit geeft ook een economisch verbruik gepaard met een redelijke kruissnelheid. Als ik daal, zet ik een trage daling in, ook 500 fpm, en ik zet de throttle back to the minimum, within the green zone. Zo rek je de daling al een groot stuk. Als ik de approach doe, geef ik maar tot het maximum binnen de groene zone. Op het laatste moment zet ik de flaps van 30° naar 60, en doe een gewone landing…

Voor de geïnteresseerden is hier een stukje kaart te zien van onze route. Onderaan is het meer gedetailleerd.

Klik hier om alle screenshots te bekijken.

De Goose op de parking.

‘Fly-by’. Performed by The Goose Guys ;-) .

August 19, 2007

#6: CYHY-CPJ6

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 3:40 pm

12.27 PM, CYHY

Onze Goose staat klaar voor het volgende deel van onze trip:

CYHY-CJP6. Het vliegveld, Camsell Portage, dat we nu als doel hebben ligt een uithoek van een meer. Op de kaart leek het slechts een klein eindje vliegen, misschien 120 NM ofzo, maar uiteindelijk bleek het 207 NM vliegen te zijn!

Toch makkelijk, zo’n amfibietoestel! Je laat het landingsgestel uit als je tegen de grond zit, en je kan het land oprijden. En als je op het land zit, rijd je het water in en klap je het landingsgestel weer in.

Bye bye, CYHY…

“Edmonton Center, Grumman November Eight Seven Three Bravo Hotel is type Grumman Goose, 12 miles east of CYHY. Request flight following.”

-”Grumman N873BH, Edmonton Center. Squawk 2225.”

“Squawk 2225, Grumman Three Bravo Hotel.”

-”Grumman 3BH, radar contact 13 miles east of CYHY, 3,800. Altimeter 2972.”

“Copy, Grumman Three Bravo Hotel.”.

Ondertussen hebben we zoals je al las flight following gevraagd aan Edmonton Center. We gebruiken een trage klim (het is toch een dikke 200 NM vliegen) van 500 fpm. Brandstof is al duur genoeg in deze tijd, en vliegtuigbrandstof zeker…

Voor de take-off hebben we overeenkomstig de gebruikelijke procedures de wing floats omhoog gedaan (we hadden met de stroming en de wind wel een scheef bochtje genomen), en we geraakten gemakkelijk de lucht in. De lucht is klaar helder…En zoals altijd, is er weinig luchtverkeer hier (nogal logisch, als je de gemiddelde lengte van de vliegveldjes hier bekijkt, zet daar maar eens een A321 op neer!). Op de radio is het doodstil. Volgens Jan vervelen de luchtverkeersleiders in Edmonton zich dood en vechten ze om eens een IFR vlucht te mogen begeleiden…

Ondertussen zitten we op 5000 voet en stel ik de A/P in op 10 000 ft.De wind bedraagt 15 knopen, maar we hebben er geen last van. Het ergste wat ik ooit heb meegemaakt van wind was in een 747 op 35 000 ft, FL 350. Niet minder dan 83 knopen! En dat ding schudde helemaal niet…vloog door alsof er niets aan de hand was. En in een A340-600 schudde ik een keer van jewelste dat de A/P moeite had om het toestel te corrigeren, en dat met 25 kts. Van de meteo ken ik zelf niet veel, het enige wat mij intereseert is efficiënt vliegen, en liefst zo weinig mogelijk verbruiken. Er duikt wat bewolking op, maar daar gaan we toch boven vliegen…ondertussen zitten we op 8800 voet. Op de tijd dat ik switch van kladblok naar Flight Simulator zitten we al op 9000. Nog 153 NM te gaan. Met een gemiddelde GS van een dikke 150 kts die ik verwacht zal het een uurtje duren. 9600 voet. Ik heb voor de eerste keer ook een plan ‘B’ in mijn hoofd. Gewoon voor het geval dat er iets misloopt. We komen onderweg een vliegveldje tegen, en rivieren en meren heb je hier toch genoeg.

In the meantime, hebben we de manifold pressure op 27 inHg gezet (89% vermogen), en de prop RPM rond de 1920.Op vol kruisvermogen (net iets voorbij de 30 inHg manifold pressure) gingen we naar de 160 kts GS. Nu is het 149/150.Nog 137 NM en 55 minuten vliegen.Elke motor verbruikt nu 19.5 gph (gallons per hour – gallons per uur).De wind is gedraaid, en komt nu langszij en doet ons wat schudden. Gelukkig heeft onze co-piloot z’n pilletjes genomen voor de zwakke maag.Canada mag een prachtig land zijn, geef mij toch maar de eilandjes van de Bahama’s. Veel water, kleine vliegveldjes, en alleen maar eilanden. De prop RPM is een beetje afwegen. Nu staat hij op maximum en vliegen we wat trager, namelijk 141/142 kts (de schroefbladen nemen nu wat minder lucht), maar verbruiken nu slechts 17.7 gph (vermenigvuldigd dit met twee zal dit een gemiddeld verbruik per uur voor het toestel geven).Nu staat de prop RPM op ongeveer 1950, en gaan we tegen de 150 kts.
Voorlopig zetten we het op 1950 RPM, wat mij de beste verhouding lijkt tussen verbruik en snelheid.We vliegen nu al een tijdje in de wolken…Af en toe kan je nauwelijks de grond zien.

Nog 90 NM, 36 minuten vliegen. Dit is wel een voordeel van VFR vliegen, je hebt geen last met ATC, je gaat waar je zelf wil. Nog 149 gallons in elke tank, wat neerkomt op 87,64% brandstof (elke tank bevat 170 gallons). Nog 26 minuten vliegen, 66 NM te gaan. Pfoe, weer in zo’n donkere wolk. Mij dunkt dat we hier wel binnenkort eens een dikke regenbui zouden kunnen krijgen, en misschien zelfs onweer…

Eindelijk uit die wolken! Geef mij toch maar de Bahama’s…

Nog 58 NM te gaan, 23 minuten vliegen. Zometeen zetten we de daling in naar 500 voet.Nog twintig minuten vliegen. Om niet te snel naar beneden te moeten, stellen we de Vertical Speed Hold op 500 fpm in.

We gaan van 10 000 voet naar beneden, naar 500. Verschil is dus 9500 voet. Bij een daling van 500 fpm duurt de daling dus welgeteld 19 minuten (althans toch in theorie).Manifold pressure op ietsje meer dan 25 inHg gezet, prop op maximum.De snelheid bedraagt ongeveer 149/150 kts GS.

Nu zitten we op 3200 voet.Nog zes minuten vliegen, 17 NM, 161 kts GS.Wel raar, dat vroeg ik me daarstraks al af. Op de GPS is er geen baai te zien waar je vanop het meer naar de veiligheid van de baai kan. Op de kaart daarentegen wél…

Er is dus toch een baai!
Ik vraag me af wat we gaan aantreffen. Mocht het zijn dat het toch niet kan, maken we ergens in de buurt een landing. De wind bedraagt 4 knopen, goed binnen de crosswind capaciteiten van de Goose, maar we zullen toch moeten oppassen met die rukwinden. Kwestie van de heading van de runway te nemen, en dan even in je hoofd te vergelijken van welke richting hij komt en dit wat te kunnen inschatten.

Het is hier nogal heuvelachtig. Het is goed te zien aan de altimeters. De gewone geeft 1986 ft aan, de radio altimeter daarentegen slechts 524!. Voorlopig blijf ik op de 1900…da’s al laag genoeg.

Jan zet de A/P af en doet een rondje rond het veld en annuleert de flight following van Edmonton Center. Ik neem het over en doe de line-up (met de Goose kan je korte bochten nemen), terwijl hij de checklist doet. Tailwheel, locked. Flaps: 30°. Landing lights: On.


De landing gaat over een paar heuvels, wat een vrij hoge approach en final approach oplevert. Gelukkig heeft de Goose maar een dikke 1000 voet nodig, en dit veldje is 2870 voet.

Touchdown!OK, we zijn er.

We taxiën naar het dispersal (de parking) en duwen het toestel samen naar achter voor het geval er hier een ander toestel nog zou moeten landen (je weet nooit).

Ik zet de motoren af, de batterij, de avionics, pitot heat, prop de-ice, lichten,generator,…
Ik kijk wel nog even op het overhead panel, en in elke tank zit nog 139 gallons. Ongeveer 81,7%. Niet slecht. Uiteindelijk hebben we in plaats van 100 kts gemiddeld als GS hebben we er 134 gedaan, en in plaats van 108.4 gallons te verbruiken, hebben we er 61.3 verbruikt; een aanzienlijke besparing. Wij vlogen natuurlijk wel op 10 000 ft i.p.v. op 7500 zoals het navlog aangaf als aangewezen hoogte. Normaal hadden we dan 2 uur en drie minuten moeten vliegen, nu hebben we 1 uur en 32 minuten gevlogen. Al bij al had ik iets beter verwacht, maar met 15 knopen wind daarboven en toch nog zoveel besparen, dat had ik niet gedacht (zie het nav log hieronder) Good job, Goosie! She did what she can do the best: fly over harsh terrain, transporting people & goods in bad weather, and still deliver everything safely, on the land, or on water…

Klik hier om alle screenshots van mij te bekijken.

August 17, 2007

Flight #5: CET4-CYHY

Filed under: Flight Simulator — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 1:15 pm

Canada, 4.17h (lokale tijd). Onze Goose staat al klaar op de runway, runway 31.”Charlie Echo Tango Four Traffic, Grumman November Eight Seven Three Bravo Hotel, departing straight out.”


Before takeoff checklist: Parking brake: set. Flight controls: free & correct. Flight instruments: checked and set. Fuel quantity: checked. Fuel Selector Valve: checked, naar “both” gezet. Trim: OK.NAV/GPS switch: naar GPS gezet. Tailwheel: locked. Pitot heat & carburetor heat: OK.

Een minuut later komt de Goose los van de grond. We draaien, zetten de A/P aan, (de hoogte hadden we al ingesteld op de grond, maar nog niet aangezet. In de cockpit van de Goose zit een radio hoogte meter (radio altimeter m.a.w.) en die is wel nuttig voor in berggebieden (wat ik zelf in een testvlucht kon ontdekken), maar een meter voor de buitentemperatuur zou ook welkom zijn, zoals in de Cessna 208(B). Voor degenen die interesse hebben in misschien later zo’n toestel te kopen (prachtbakje trouwens, zo’n amfibie): Antilles Seaplanes is begonnen met het produceren van nieuwe Goose toestellen, maar met een moderne cockpit. Verkrijgbaar met de gewone motoren van 450 pk, maar ook met turbines van ik dacht 680 pk. Prijs voor de 450 pk versie: $ 1,3 million…geen goedkoop toestelletje, ultralight vliegen is stukken goedkoper.

(het vliegtuigje dat je op de achtergrond ziet is een Cherokee 180 van Piper)

De afstand bedraagt meer dan 70 NM, dus we hebben tijd genoeg en de rate of climb bedraagt niet meer dan 500 fpm. Een kleine twintig minuten later zitten we op 10 000 ft. De grond zie je niet, die is bedekt door een dun wolkenlaagje.Nog 119 NM te gaan. Voor degenen die het nog niet wisten: 1 NM is hetzelfde als een knoop. Logischerwijze kan je dus ongeveer inschatten hoe lang je over een afstand zal doen. Als je bijvoorbeeld een GS gemiddeld kunt aan houden van om en bij de 150 kts, kan je 175 NM overbruggen in een dik uurtje.

Hier hangt geen kat uit, niemand te zien, noch te horen op de radio – die overigens op Edmonton Center,132.250 – staat afgesteld. We staan op optimale kruisvlucht, 10 000 voet (het maximumplafond voor toestellen zonder drukcabine), manifold pressure 28 (de checklist beveelt 27 inHg aan) inHg, 1920 rpm voor elke motor. De wind van 9 knopen doet het toestel af en toe wat schudden.Elke motor (dit vind ik zelf heel handig) verbruikt ongeveer 20.2 US gallons per uur (dit kan je zien op het overhead panel). Ik heb al zuiniger gevlogen met dit kistje…maar met die wind…nog een opmerking: je kan altijd op maximum throttle vliegen, maar dit is slecht voor de motoren. Het beste is de throttle binnen de groene zone te houden van de meter voor manifold pressure. Volle kracht mag slechts voor vijf minuten, en niet langer (www.antillesseaplanes.com ofzo, Google het maar even). Als je een ‘short-field landing’ wilt doen (de Goose heeft slechts 1051 voet nodig), is het aanbevolen om de trim naar boven af te stellen, want als je 60° flaps geeft, duikt hij serieus met z’n neus naar beneden.

(niet dat ik van roos hou, maar ik vond het wel een mooie shot met die zon en het toestel)

En vooral opletten dat je niet al te hard remt bij de landing als je CG (Center of Gravity) te veel naar voor ligt (dit is standaard zo), of je komt ondersteboven te liggen. Onze GS bedraagt een economische 161 kts, met beide motoren op 20.1 gph (gallons per hour). Het is 6.14 AM, E.T.A. (Estimated Time of Arrival) is 6.35 volgens onze GPS. Nog 58 NM te gaan. Af en toe is er een rukwind, die het toestel een beetje doet schudden. Volgens Antilles Seaplanes heeft de G-21 een crosswind capability van 13 kts op het land, en 23 kts op water. Ik heb al zo’n landingen gedaan, en als je op het water land, zorg er zeker voor dat je de floats naar beneden hebt, want in 23 kts wind zou je wel eens rare toeren kunnen doen bij de landing, geloof me, zelfs op water. Op land kan je volgens mij met zelfs 15 kts landen, je moet alleen genoeg rudder geven en een beetje laten overhellen. En het staartwieltje (tail wheel lock dus) vooral vastzetten, of je zal voor je het weet op gladde landingsbanen onderuit gaan! Ondertussen nog 47 NM, en binnen 17 minuten. Onze GS bedraagt een dikke -springt af en toe naar 159 of 160 afhankelijk van de wind – 158 kts.Onze eerste vlucht verloopt voorspoedig!Nog 13 minuten.

We zetten onze daling in, 900 fpm, en we nemen gas terug.De wind is hier minder sterk, maar 6 knopen, ten opzichte van 9 knopen op 10 000 ft. We zijn vrij snel uit het wolkendek. Dit is de echte habitat van de Goose: water, onherbergzame gebieden,korte runways,…

“Edmonton Center, Grumman 3 Bravo Hotel, cancel flight following.”

“Grumman 3 Bravo Hotel, cancellation received. Squawk 1200. Frequency change approved.”

“Autopilot disengaged, pilot is in control.” zegt Jan.

Al snel landen we op het water van een kleine baai die vlak naast het vliegveld ligt…door de rukwind moeten we serieus tegensturen, en moeten we een hoop scherpe bochten nemen om tegen de stroming in te gaan, die ons doet afdrijven naar het midden van de baai…;-)…

De landing verliep vlot, kijk maar:

Ooit een Goose een scherpe bocht zien nemen? Kijk maar naar deze screenshot:

Proud to fly the Grumman Goose….(click here for full-size image) Proud to be Grumman Goose aviator

July 20, 2007

Russia Expels 4 British Diplomats

Filed under: Home Office — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 12:41 am

MOSCOW, July 19 — Russia expelled four British diplomats today, in response to Britain’s expulsion of the same number of Russian diplomats earlier this week. The British move came over Russia’s refusal to extradite a key suspect in the fatal poisoning of a former K.G.B. agent in London last year.

Russia said today that it would also tighten visa requirements on British government officials traveling to Russia, in response to a similar move announced by Britain on Monday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mikhail Kamynin, said in a statement.

The symmetrical nature of the reply suggested that Russian authorities do not want to escalate the dispute over the poisoning case, which has become a bruising, drawn-out scandal for the Kremlin.

In his first public comments on the tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions, President Vladimir V. Putin said he believed relations with Britain would now “develop normally.”

“It is necessary to measure our actions with common sense, to respect the legitimate rights and interests of partners, and everything will work out in the best way,” Mr. Putin said in remarks carried on state television. “I am sure we will cope with this mini-crisis.”

Mr. Kamynin said the four British Embassy staff members in Moscow had been, in formal diplomatic terms, declared persona non grata, and that they should leave Russia within 10 days, the same conditions the British announced for the Russian diplomats. “From now on, we shall act in a mirror-like fashion in regard to all visa related issues,” he said.

He also said Russia would suspend counterterrorism cooperation between the F.S.B., a successor agency to the K.G.B., and security agencies in Britain.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry suggested on Monday that it was Britain that first articulated a refusal to cooperate with the F.S.B., in response to the murder of Mr. Litvinenko.

Counterterrorism cooperation was stepped up at Russia’s initiative after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when Mr. Putin was the first foreign leader to telephone President Bush to offer assistance. The ties had been seen as a strength in the otherwise somewhat strained relations between Russia and the West. The decision would not affect ties with the United States, however.

Mr. Kamynin also said that Britain’s ambassador to Russia, Tony Brenton, had been summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry and notified of other measures, which were not specified in his public statement.

Finally, he said, Mr. Brenton was told that Russia saw Britain’s expulsion of diplomats as “unfriendly conduct.”

Neither side named the diplomats who were expelled. Britain announced its expulsions on Monday, in response to Russia’s refusal to extradite the accused murderer of Aleksandr V. Litvinenko, who died on Nov. 23 after ingesting the radioactive isotope polonium-210.

Russia’s uncharacteristically subdued response came as the Kremlin is facing a din of criticism from Europe and the United States over the case, and suggested a desire to wind down the dispute, Pavel E. Felgenhauer, a defense columnist at Novaya Gazeta in Moscow, said in a telephone interview.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked for Russia’s “full cooperation” in the extradition request, and the European Union issued a statement supporting Britain.

“A terrible crime was committed on British soil, and Britain has to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice,” Ms. Rice said on the sidelines of a Middle East peace conference in Portugal, Agence France-Presse reported. “It is not in anybody’s interests that you can have a crime committed of this kind and nothing be done about it.”

Mr. Litvinenko had been a vocal critic of Mr. Putin’s leadership, among other things accusing his former employer, the F.S.B., of being behind a series of bombings in Moscow apartment buildings in 1999 that killed more than 300 people all told; the Russian government denies the accusation.

British prosecutors say they have enough evidence to prove that another former K.G.B. agent, Andrei K. Lugovoi, administered the lethal dose of polonium into Mr. Litvinenko’s tea at a meeting last November. But Russian officials say their constitution prohibits extraditing citizens to other countries to stand trial.

Mr. Litvinenko, on his deathbed, accused Mr. Putin of ordering his murder; the Kremlin denies it.

Source: The New York Times

Personal comment: Mr. Putin, stop lying…we all know you ordered the Russian secret service to kill the former spy Litvinenko.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

July 8, 2007

Boeing Honors 7-Series Airplane Family with Special Customer Show

Filed under: Aviation — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 2:05 pm

SEATTLE, July 07, 2007 — As part of its 787 Premiere, Boeing [NYSE: BA] honored its 7-Series
family of airplanes with a special show featuring customers’ Boeing-produced
airplanes today in Seattle.

The airplanes on display at Boeing Field included an Omega Air 707; AirTran
Airways 717; FedEx 727; Alaska Airlines 737-800; Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 Flying
Test Bed 747-200; Continental Airlines 757; Delta Air Lines 767; and Air France
777-300ER (Extended Range). In addition, the Boeing 747-400 Dreamlifter was on
static display.

Each airplane – the 707 through the 777 – took off from Paine Field, adjacent
to Boeing’s Everett, Wash., facility, and landed at Boeing Field in Seattle – in
sequence of airplane model numbers matching to time, beginning with the 707
landing at 7:07 p.m. Pacific time. This special display was part of a
Boeing-sponsored event held at The Museum of Flight as part of the weekend’s
activities for the 787 Premiere. For more information about Boeing’s 787
Premiere, visit www.boeing.com or www.newairplane.com.

Boeing Honors 7-Series Airplane Family with Special Customer Show (Neg#: K64105-04)

Source: Boeing, by e-mail.

Personal comment:I love these things…I would have loved it that Airbus did the same when their 380 superjumbo was released…

It turns out that Boeing has more style for these sort of events…

God bless the 787…

Lovely picture….

technorati tags:, , , , , ,

July 3, 2007

F-35 Navy version undergoes successful design review and readies for production.

Filed under: Aviation — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 2:21 pm

FORT WORTH, Texas, June 26, 2007 —

The U.S. Navy’s F-35C
Lightning II carrier variant has completed its Air System Critical
Design Review (CDR), a significant development milestone that verifies
the design maturity of the aircraft and its associated systems. The
review was conducted June 18-22 at Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] in Fort
Worth, and involved officials from Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR),
the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, the F-35
international-participant nations and the F-35 contractor team.
Completion of the CDR is a prerequisite for the F-35C to move into Low
Rate Initial Production.

F-35 Navy Version Undergoes Successful Design ReviewThe Lockheed Martin F-35C, depicted here in an artist’s
concept, will be the Navy’s first stealth fighter. Designed for
catapult launches and arrested landings aboard aircraft carriers, the
supersonic F-35C features larger wings and a more stout internal
structure than the F-35A and F-35B.

“We’re pleased with the CDR results, which reinforce our confidence
in the F-35C’s design,” said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive
vice president and F-35 program manager. “The review highlighted the
program’s development progress and the 5th generation capabilities that
the carrier variant will bring to the Navy.”

“Completion of this design review is a very significant milestone –
the die is now fully cast for the unique, three-variant Joint Strike
Fighter program envisioned when the planning began in the late 1990s,”
said JSF Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. C.R. Davis. “This is a
momentous day never seen in another acquisition program in history. The
entire team should be proud of the work that got us here today.”

Terry Harrell, Lockheed Martin director of F-35 carrier variant
development, added, “We met our objectives for detailed design and
performance while removing more than 200 pounds from the aircraft in
the past seven months – a major accomplishment. Getting the design
ready for this important milestone required tremendous teamwork among
NAVAIR, the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, Air Force Materiel
Command’s Aeronautical Systems Center and the entire JSF contractor
team.”

The F-35C will be the Navy’s first stealth aircraft. It is designed
to replace the F/A-18 Hornet and complement the newer F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet. While it shares its fundamental design with the F-35A
(conventional takeoff and landing) and F-35B (short takeoff/vertical
landing), the F-35C is specialized for the catapult launches and
arrested recoveries of large aircraft carriers. It features 30 percent
more wing area than the other two variants, larger tails and control
surfaces, and wingtip ailerons – all contributing to the precise
slow-speed handling characteristics required for carrier approaches.
The F-35C’s internal structure is strengthened to withstand the
punishment of repeated catapult launches and arrested recoveries on the
carrier deck.

Funding for the first two production-model Lightning IIs – both
conventional takeoff and landing versions – is approved and fabrication
for those aircraft has begun. The pair of F-35A aircraft are the first
of 1,763 scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force, beginning in
2010. The U.S. Marine Corps and Navy together are planning to operate
680 F-35Bs and F-35Cs, and the United Kingdom plans to place 138 F-35Bs
into service with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. The remaining
F-35 participant countries plan to acquire more than 700 aircraft.

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter
designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B
Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s
and Sea Harriers.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 Lightning II with its
principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two
separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt
& Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about
140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research,
design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of
advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation
reported 2006 sales of $39.6 billion.

Source: Lockheed-Martin, by e-mail.

Comment: I hope the F-35 doesn’t encounters problems anymore (though the weight issues have been solved with the 35B STOVL – Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing – variant). It seems to be a wonderful aircraft, according to pilot reports (e.g. U.S.M.C. Maj. Art “Turbo” Tomassetti, and F-35 chief pilot Jon Beesley). It flies very easily, and enables the pilot to focus on the mission. Very complicated aircraft that deliver excellent performance seem a specialty of Lockheed-Martin.

I hope the F-35 program continues without problems…God bless that airplane…

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 2, 2007

Putin Offers to Expand Plan for Missile Defense

Filed under: Foreign Office — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 11:31 pm

Bush and Putin Meet in Maine

Matthew Cavanaugh/European Pressphoto Agency

President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia headed to
lunch after a news conference in Kennebunkport, Me., on Monday.

KENNEBUNKPORT, Me., July 2 — Announcing he was “here to play,” President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said today that he was ready to expand his proposal for a shared missile defense system with the United States during meetings with President Bush here, a step that he said would take American-Russian relations to a new level of cooperation.

But the system would be based almost entirely in the former Soviet Union, and Mr. Putin’s proposal represented a continued rejection of an American plan to base it in the Czech Republic and Poland.

And the proposal seemed likely to lead to still more haggling over a joint missile defense plan after a set of meetings at the Bush family compound here that had been portrayed as an attempt to smooth over differences that both sides consider to be the most daunting since the cold war ended.

“We support the idea of consultations on missile defense and believe that the number of participants should be expanded to include the European states,” Mr. Putin said during a brief news conference here today. “This should be done within Russia-NATO council.”

Mr. Putin, who had proposed only weeks ago that the United States place its antimissile system in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan, said he did not believe it was necessary to install it in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Mr. Bush, who smiled through much of the news conference, described in his own words the talk of “a regional approach to missile defense,” then added, “I’m in strong agreement with that concept.”

But Mr. Putin’s proposal seemed to catch the Americans by surprise to some degree, although Mr. Bush made it clear that he still intended to pursue plans for missile radar instillations in the Czech Republic and Poland. “I think the Czech Republic and Poland need to be an integral part of the system,” he said.

The two met in this serene, seaside setting with the intention of smoothing over the deep wrinkles that have developed in their relationship during the past six years. But they approached reporters with an air of grimness that only broke when they discussed their morning fishing trip, during which Mr. Putin caught a fish. (Mr. Bush and his father caught none during three outings this weekend.)

Mr. Putin’s new suggestions for the missile defense system came in spite of Russian officials’ statements — offered as late as 10 p.m. Sunday — that he would offer no new proposals this weekend.

It was unclear where exactly the two leaders’ discussions left the issue. The United States has been negotiating with Poland and the Czech Republic over its plans to place missile defense bases in those countries, but American officials were taken aback by the ferocity of Russian opposition to those plans. That opposition was one the many factors that led to the Kennebunkport meeting.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin today also emphasized their common concerns about the Iranian nuclear program.

“We discussed a variety of ways to continue sending a joint message,” Mr. Bush said.

“When Russia and the United States speak along the same lines, it tends to have an effect, and therefore I appreciate the Russians’ attitude in the United Nations,” he said. “We’re close on recognizing that we got to work together to send a common message.”

Mr. Putin predicted that “we will continue to be successful” as the United Nations Security Council seeks ways to pressure the government in Tehran to halt a uranium enrichment program that Iranian leaders insist is peaceful but which other nations fear could lead to Iran’s developing nuclear weapons.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin left unclear whether they had agreed on any new approach toward Iran — with which Russia has major economic relations — or simply had found a way to imply a more comfortable unity.

Security Council members are weighing an American proposal for sanctions against Iran if it continues to enrich uranium. The United States and Russia, along with the other permanent members of the Security Council, have said they will delay those sanctions if Iran stops its work as they attempt to revive negotiations over the nuclear program.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin made their comments came toward the end of a two-day visit in Kennebunkport. It was the first time the current president had invited a head of state to the family estate here. The meeting was crafted to give Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin the most comfortable and relaxed possible setting to deal with a series of issues dividing the two powers, from Iran to the Middle East and Kosovo.

Earlier today, with former President George H.W. Bush at the wheel, the two leaders took a 90-minute spin in a powerful speedboat near the shoreline around the oceanfront estate.

As they spoke, the current President Bush in particular looked at ease, frequently smiling. He wore a striped long-sleeve blue shirt open at the collar, while Mr. Putin sported a white short-sleeve shirt, also open at the collar.

“We had a good, casual discussion,” Mr. Bush said. “There’ve been times we agreed on issues and times we haven’t agreed.” But he asserted that Mr. Putin had been “consistent, transparent, honest” and open to discussing both opportunities and problems.

Mr. Bush said the men had discussed a wide range of issues in what had been a “very long, strategic dialogue.”

Mr. Putin said he was “pleased to note that we are seeking the points of coincidence in our positions and very frequently we did find them.”

He thanked Mr. Bush for “a very nice fishing party this morning.”

But the smiles and warm words stood in uneasy juxtaposition with months of uncommonly chilly rhetoric from the Russian president and some of his aides — climaxing with Russian warnings that if the United States proceeded to build the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia might “target” those American allies.

Starting early this year, Mr. Putin has assailed American “unilateralism,” said an “ideology of confrontation and extremism” was emerging global threats, and even — though the Kremlin later denied it — seemed to compare the United States to the Third Reich and to some of the darker days of Stalinism.

Diplomatic analysts believe such language is not unconnected to the approach of parliamentary elections in Russia in December and the nation’s presidential elections three months later.

Source: The New York Times.

Comment: I hope for Mr. Bush can complete one of his last negotiations with an agreement between the former enemies (regarding the Cold War, with the MiG-31, MiG-25, F-106, F-101,…), being the U.S.A. and the Russian Federation…

Bush, good luck…

Never give up.

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Held in Scottish Attack as British See Broader Plot

Filed under: Foreign Office — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 2:46 pm

A vehicle burned on Saturday after it hit a section of Glasgow Airport.

LONDON, Sunday, July 1 — British officials raised the country’s terrorism threat alert to its highest level on Saturday after two men slammed an S.U.V. into entrance doors at Glasgow Airport and turned the vehicle into a potentially lethal fireball.

Less than 38 hours earlier the police uncovered two cars in London rigged to explode with gasoline, gas canisters and nails.

Early Sunday, after a day of fast-moving developments, the London police announced that two people had been arrested in Cheshire, in northwest England, “in connection with the events in London and Scotland.”

The arrests were in addition to those of the two occupants of the blazing car at Glasgow Airport. A witness to the attack said on BBC television that one of the car’s occupants had been ablaze from head to foot, and as he struggled with the police, “was throwing punches and shouting ‘Allah, Allah.’ ”Britain’s threat level is now at “critical,” meaning another attack is
considered imminent. The threat has not been as high since last year,
after authorities discovered what they called a plot to attack
trans-Atlantic airliners with liquid explosives.

A British security official, who like many other officials who disclosed information insisted on anonymity, said Saturday that the heightened level reflected an assessment that the London and Glasgow cases were “linked in some ways and, therefore, there are clearly individuals who have the capability and intent to carry out further attacks.”

The links relate to the way the London car bombs and Glasgow airport attack were planned, using vehicles and gasoline, the official said.

In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement from Secretary Michael Chertoff saying there were no plans to raise the national threat level because there was “no specific, credible information” suggesting any threat to the United States.

But the federal government took a number of steps, given the events in Britain and the approaching July 4 holiday, to elevate security.

Homeland Security officials said they included additional bomb detection canine teams at airports and behavior-detection squads.

The New York City police said they were monitoring events in London and Scotland and were maintaining the heightened security that began after the discovery of the car bombs in London.

The measures include sending officers into parking garages with sensors that detect the presence of chemical, biological and radiological agents, and closely monitoring tourist areas, including nightclubs, said the department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne.

Although there were questions throughout the day about whether the Glasgow vehicle crashed intentionally, by Saturday night, Sir William Rae, the chief constable of the Strathclyde area around Glasgow, said it was an act of terrorism.

Mr. Rae said one of the two men was found to be wearing a “suspicious device” at the hospital where he was being treated, and the hospital was evacuated. Mr. Rae declined to comment on reporters’ suggestions that the assailant — said to be in critical condition — had been wearing an explosive belt. A person with knowledge of the investigation, however, said that the device was a suicide belt, and also that the car contained propane canisters.

Mr. Rae said the attack at the airport, Scotland’s largest, was linked to the car bombs in London, but he did not elaborate.

The airport in Liverpool was also closed on Saturday, apparently reflecting a fresh area of concern in an increasingly jittery nation.

In July 2005, four suicide bombers killed 52 people on London’s transit system, and another set of attacks failed two weeks later, bringing home to Britain fears of homegrown terrorist attacks among its disenfranchised South Asian population. Witnesses said the two men in the Glasgow attack were South Asian.

In office only since Wednesday, a somber Prime Minister Gordon Brown appeared briefly on national television from 10 Downing Street late Saturday. “I want all British people to be vigilant and I want them to support the police and all the authorities in the difficult decisions that they have to make,” he said. “I know that the British people will stand together, united, resolute and strong.”

Saturday was the first full day of the school summer vacations; thousands of people were awaiting flights in Glasgow. The sight of the dark green Jeep Cherokee smashing into the building and bursting into flames spread panic and terror in the terminal. A Glasgow police spokeswomen, Elisa Dunn, said that five bystanders were injured, and that one was hospitalized for a leg injury, according to The Associated Press.

Hours after the attack, hundreds of passengers remained on stranded airplanes on the tarmac. The authorities said they could not be allowed into the terminal because of potential further dangers.

The events in London and Scotland deepened foreboding among security experts that Britain was confronting a new threat: the use of relatively unsophisticated, homemade explosive devices to spread mayhem.

The alert began early Friday, when the two cars, Mercedes sedans, were found in the central West End theater and nightclub district.

After the midafternoon crash through doors at Glasgow Airport on Saturday, accounts by witnesses gathered by news agencies were confused, but some spoke of the two occupants of the car smashing bottles of gasoline and struggling with police officers and others who tried to restrain them. The man on fire may have immolated himself.

The attack came as London — already worried by the rigged cars — braced for a weekend of high-profile events, including a concert to honor the memory of Diana, Princess of Wales; a Gay Pride March; and the Wimbledon tennis tournament.

The police in the capital stepped up foot patrols as counterterrorism officers hunted suspects linked to the cars found in London.

But Mr. Rae, the Scottish constable, said there had been no intelligence warning of an attack in Glasgow.

Prime Minister Brown, who is himself a Scot, summoned two emergency meetings of the high-level security committee called Cobra to try to come to grips with the attacks. Likewise, in the United States, Mr. Chertoff held so-called principals meetings, involving other cabinet-level officials. And officials with the Transportation Security Administration held a conference call with airport and airline officials from around the United States.

In London, counterterrorism experts suggested that whoever abandoned the two explosives-laden Mercedes might have been what a senior Western official called “less directed from Al Qaeda and more a matter of a homegrown group,” although their plan seemed to be modeled on terrorist attacks in Iraq.

Several experts and officials said the technology behind the London car bombs seemed amateurish. While the attackers apparently tried to detonate the bombs using cellphones, “they didn’t go off because there were not top-grade people putting them together,” one Western official said.

If the plot turns out to be the work of a small, unknown cell, that could raise alarms that Britain’s terrorism threat is broader than the 2,000 suspected radicals known to the authorities. The Western official said British investigators were pursuing several “good leads.”

The attack in Scotland also seemed marked by improvisation.

BAA, the company that runs the airport, said a vehicle “drove into a front door at the check-in area” and “caught fire on impact.”

One witness, Scott Leeson, said the Jeep had sped up to the building at around 30 miles per hour.

“Then the driver swerved the car around so he could ram straight into the door,” the Press Association news agency quoted Mr. Leeson as saying. “He must have been trying to smash straight through.”

Another witness, Lynsey McBean, 26, told the Press Association: “We saw a green Cherokee drive straight into the front door of the airport but it got jammed. They were obviously trying to get it farther inside the airport as the wheels were spinning and smoke was coming from them. One of the men, I think it was the driver, brought out a plastic petrol canister and poured it under the car. He then set light to it.

“At that point a policeman came over, the passenger got out of the car and punched him. At that point I began to run away. But when I looked back several people had run over to try and stop the men.”

There were no public claims of responsibility for the car bombs on Friday, which were uncovered almost by accident when an ambulance crew and traffic wardens separately discovered the sedans.

But a posting on an online forum monitored by the SITE Institute, which tracks jihadist Web sites, asked whether London had been “craving explosions from Al Qaeda” after authorities in June bestowed a knighthood on the author Salman Rushdie, reviled by some radical Muslims for his book “The Satanic Verses.”

No “established link” exists between the knighthood and the car bombs, a British security official said.

The Times of London reported Saturday that the police had warned nightclub operators a few days ago of the threat attack.

The two cars were parked around a corner from each other. The first to be discovered and disarmed was outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub in the Haymarket near Piccadilly Circus. The second had been nearby on Cockspur Street leading to Trafalgar Square but towed for a parking infraction about 90 minutes later, the police said.

Sajjan M. Gohel, a security expert, said the police were pursuing a theory that the two car bombs had been designed to explode one after the other — the first to bring people into the street and the second to cause great loss of life. The fact that Thursday night at Tiger Tiger was ladies’ night, he said, recalled a conspiracy in 2004 in which British-born bombers said they wanted to attack women at a nightclub, whom they viewed as promiscuous, in conversations monitored by British intelligence.

Source: The New York Times (by e-mail)

Comment: now the British threat level has been raised to the highest level, it is proven that the British government is expecting further attacks [from Al Qaeda?]. The question now is of course or the recent events in London and in Glasgow (in good old Scotland!) will be followed by other attacks in other Western cities. It looks like the U.S. isn’t expecting attacks in the homeland, though measures have been taken to protect people and buildings from eventual attacks carried out by terrorists.

“In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security issued a
statement from Secretary Michael Chertoff saying there were no plans to
raise the national threat level because there was “no specific,
credible information” suggesting any threat to the United States.
But the federal government took a number of steps, given the events in
Britain and the approaching July 4 holiday, to elevate security.
Homeland Security officials said they included additional bomb
detection canine teams at airports and behavior-detection squads.
The New York City police said they were monitoring events in London and
Scotland and were maintaining the heightened security that began after
the discovery of the car bombs in London.
The measures include sending officers into parking garages with sensors
that detect the presence of chemical, biological and radiological
agents, and closely monitoring tourist areas, including nightclubs,

said the department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne”


4 Held in Scottish Attack as British See Broader Plot

Filed under: Home Office — Joris Van den Berghe. @ 2:46 pm

A vehicle burned on Saturday after it hit a section of Glasgow Airport.

LONDON, Sunday, July 1 — British officials raised the country’s terrorism threat alert to its highest level on Saturday after two men slammed an S.U.V. into entrance doors at Glasgow Airport and turned the vehicle into a potentially lethal fireball.

Less than 38 hours earlier the police uncovered two cars in London rigged to explode with gasoline, gas canisters and nails.

Early Sunday, after a day of fast-moving developments, the London police announced that two people had been arrested in Cheshire, in northwest England, “in connection with the events in London and Scotland.”

The arrests were in addition to those of the two occupants of the blazing car at Glasgow Airport. A witness to the attack said on BBC television that one of the car’s occupants had been ablaze from head to foot, and as he struggled with the police, “was throwing punches and shouting ‘Allah, Allah.’ ”

Britain’s threat level is now at “critical,” meaning another attack is
considered imminent. The threat has not been as high since last year,
after authorities discovered what they called a plot to attack
trans-Atlantic airliners with liquid explosives.

A British security official, who like many other officials who disclosed information insisted on anonymity, said Saturday that the heightened level reflected an assessment that the London and Glasgow cases were “linked in some ways and, therefore, there are clearly individuals who have the capability and intent to carry out further attacks.”

The links relate to the way the London car bombs and Glasgow airport attack were planned, using vehicles and gasoline, the official said.

In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement from Secretary Michael Chertoff saying there were no plans to raise the national threat level because there was “no specific, credible information” suggesting any threat to the United States.

But the federal government took a number of steps, given the events in Britain and the approaching July 4 holiday, to elevate security.

Homeland Security officials said they included additional bomb detection canine teams at airports and behavior-detection squads.

The New York City police said they were monitoring events in London and Scotland and were maintaining the heightened security that began after the discovery of the car bombs in London.

The measures include sending officers into parking garages with sensors that detect the presence of chemical, biological and radiological agents, and closely monitoring tourist areas, including nightclubs, said the department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne.

Although there were questions throughout the day about whether the Glasgow vehicle crashed intentionally, by Saturday night, Sir William Rae, the chief constable of the Strathclyde area around Glasgow, said it was an act of terrorism.

Mr. Rae said one of the two men was found to be wearing a “suspicious device” at the hospital where he was being treated, and the hospital was evacuated. Mr. Rae declined to comment on reporters’ suggestions that the assailant — said to be in critical condition — had been wearing an explosive belt. A person with knowledge of the investigation, however, said that the device was a suicide belt, and also that the car contained propane canisters.

Mr. Rae said the attack at the airport, Scotland’s largest, was linked to the car bombs in London, but he did not elaborate.

The airport in Liverpool was also closed on Saturday, apparently reflecting a fresh area of concern in an increasingly jittery nation.

In July 2005, four suicide bombers killed 52 people on London’s transit system, and another set of attacks failed two weeks later, bringing home to Britain fears of homegrown terrorist attacks among its disenfranchised South Asian population. Witnesses said the two men in the Glasgow attack were South Asian.

In office only since Wednesday, a somber Prime Minister Gordon Brown appeared briefly on national television from 10 Downing Street late Saturday. “I want all British people to be vigilant and I want them to support the police and all the authorities in the difficult decisions that they have to make,” he said. “I know that the British people will stand together, united, resolute and strong.”

Saturday was the first full day of the school summer vacations; thousands of people were awaiting flights in Glasgow. The sight of the dark green Jeep Cherokee smashing into the building and bursting into flames spread panic and terror in the terminal. A Glasgow police spokeswomen, Elisa Dunn, said that five bystanders were injured, and that one was hospitalized for a leg injury, according to The Associated Press.

Hours after the attack, hundreds of passengers remained on stranded airplanes on the tarmac. The authorities said they could not be allowed into the terminal because of potential further dangers.

The events in London and Scotland deepened foreboding among security experts that Britain was confronting a new threat: the use of relatively unsophisticated, homemade explosive devices to spread mayhem.

The alert began early Friday, when the two cars, Mercedes sedans, were found in the central West End theater and nightclub district.

After the midafternoon crash through doors at Glasgow Airport on Saturday, accounts by witnesses gathered by news agencies were confused, but some spoke of the two occupants of the car smashing bottles of gasoline and struggling with police officers and others who tried to restrain them. The man on fire may have immolated himself.

The attack came as London — already worried by the rigged cars — braced for a weekend of high-profile events, including a concert to honor the memory of Diana, Princess of Wales; a Gay Pride March; and the Wimbledon tennis tournament.

The police in the capital stepped up foot patrols as counterterrorism officers hunted suspects linked to the cars found in London.

But Mr. Rae, the Scottish constable, said there had been no intelligence warning of an attack in Glasgow.

Prime Minister Brown, who is himself a Scot, summoned two emergency meetings of the high-level security committee called Cobra to try to come to grips with the attacks. Likewise, in the United States, Mr. Chertoff held so-called principals meetings, involving other cabinet-level officials. And officials with the Transportation Security Administration held a conference call with airport and airline officials from around the United States.

In London, counterterrorism experts suggested that whoever abandoned the two explosives-laden Mercedes might have been what a senior Western official called “less directed from Al Qaeda and more a matter of a homegrown group,” although their plan seemed to be modeled on terrorist attacks in Iraq.

Several experts and officials said the technology behind the London car bombs seemed amateurish. While the attackers apparently tried to detonate the bombs using cellphones, “they didn’t go off because there were not top-grade people putting them together,” one Western official said.

If the plot turns out to be the work of a small, unknown cell, that could raise alarms that Britain’s terrorism threat is broader than the 2,000 suspected radicals known to the authorities. The Western official said British investigators were pursuing several “good leads.”

The attack in Scotland also seemed marked by improvisation.

BAA, the company that runs the airport, said a vehicle “drove into a front door at the check-in area” and “caught fire on impact.”

One witness, Scott Leeson, said the Jeep had sped up to the building at around 30 miles per hour.

“Then the driver swerved the car around so he could ram straight into the door,” the Press Association news agency quoted Mr. Leeson as saying. “He must have been trying to smash straight through.”

Another witness, Lynsey McBean, 26, told the Press Association: “We saw a green Cherokee drive straight into the front door of the airport but it got jammed. They were obviously trying to get it farther inside the airport as the wheels were spinning and smoke was coming from them. One of the men, I think it was the driver, brought out a plastic petrol canister and poured it under the car. He then set light to it.

“At that point a policeman came over, the passenger got out of the car and punched him. At that point I began to run away. But when I looked back several people had run over to try and stop the men.”

There were no public claims of responsibility for the car bombs on Friday, which were uncovered almost by accident when an ambulance crew and traffic wardens separately discovered the sedans.

But a posting on an online forum monitored by the SITE Institute, which tracks jihadist Web sites, asked whether London had been “craving explosions from Al Qaeda” after authorities in June bestowed a knighthood on the author Salman Rushdie, reviled by some radical Muslims for his book “The Satanic Verses.”

No “established link” exists between the knighthood and the car bombs, a British security official said.

The Times of London reported Saturday that the police had warned nightclub operators a few days ago of the threat attack.

The two cars were parked around a corner from each other. The first to be discovered and disarmed was outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub in the Haymarket near Piccadilly Circus. The second had been nearby on Cockspur Street leading to Trafalgar Square but towed for a parking infraction about 90 minutes later, the police said.

Sajjan M. Gohel, a security expert, said the police were pursuing a theory that the two car bombs had been designed to explode one after the other — the first to bring people into the street and the second to cause great loss of life. The fact that Thursday night at Tiger Tiger was ladies’ night, he said, recalled a conspiracy in 2004 in which British-born bombers said they wanted to attack women at a nightclub, whom they viewed as promiscuous, in conversations monitored by British intelligence.

Source: The New York Times (by e-mail)

Comment: now the British threat level has been raised to the highest level, it is proven that the British government is expecting further attacks [from Al Qaeda?]. The question now is of course or the recent events in London and in Glasgow (in good old Scotland!) will be followed by other attacks in other Western cities. It looks like the U.S. isn’t expecting attacks in the homeland, though measures have been taken to protect people and buildings from eventual attacks carried out by terrorists.

“In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security issued a
statement from Secretary Michael Chertoff saying there were no plans to
raise the national threat level because there was “no specific,
credible information” suggesting any threat to the United States.
But the federal government took a number of steps, given the events in
Britain and the approaching July 4 holiday, to elevate security.
Homeland Security officials said they included additional bomb
detection canine teams at airports and behavior-detection squads.
The New York City police said they were monitoring events in London and
Scotland and were maintaining the heightened security that began after
the discovery of the car bombs in London.
The measures include sending officers into parking garages with sensors
that detect the presence of chemical, biological and radiological
agents, and closely monitoring tourist areas, including nightclubs,

said the department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne”


technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.