dark light

cypherus

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 316 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RAF Vulcan & WWII Carrier Operations Flight Sim Addons #224130
    cypherus
    Participant

    XH558 Add-on

    A great addition too the FS scene which apart from the aggravating visual/sound effect it installs across the board works well with good flight dynamics, worth the money I think.

    in reply to: Paphos shackletons #1256182
    cypherus
    Participant

    Not seen any Progress.

    Not heard a thing to date since they were moved though rumblings on various forums about them still goes on….:confused:

    in reply to: Vulcan Sponsorship #1256298
    cypherus
    Participant

    Further funds required.

    In answer too the question on how much money will be required, TVOC has always said that ongoing the amounts of money required would depend on a number of factors not least of which was obtaining a commercial sponsorship deal which I believe this and subsequent articles are refering too, currently from the sites published information there is sufficient money to complete the overhaul, flight testing and crew training programs which will prepare 558 for the proposed flight down the Mall though obviously this is not the only goal. The operation of 558 from that point will be an expensive one that will need a constant flow of money to maintain and it is this figure that members have for many months now been trying to establish without much success as I believe that no one really knows in detail how much per hour this Vulcan will cost too operate even for the limited number of hours per year they envisage. Lets just wish them well in their efforts too achieve this and maybe by a calender for 2007. Happy New Year to all.

    in reply to: A bit of google earthing…. #1260711
    cypherus
    Participant

    Mistaken sentiments

    It’s folks that own collections like this one, far too many in my opinion, who on the face of things give the appearance of being financially and technically capable of accepting the responsiblity of such unique airframes on charge that give the historic restoration scene such a bad press and in the end make it far more difficult than it ever need be too own, restore, display and in some cases operate historic former military and civil aircraft, it is way beyond time that something was done in area of personal research into those applying for the right too purchase retired airframes to ensure that in depth they have what it takes too own them.

    in reply to: RAF St Mawgan closure delayed. #1261116
    cypherus
    Participant

    Like a boot sale.

    Wake up and smell the Roses folks, or something along those lines, UK gov inc has been quietly selling off the family silver for years now and conveniently ignoring the warning signs flagged by almost every nation that inhabits this globe, we make all the right noises about world security while we ready yet another section of our armed forces for disbandment, close bases nationwide for sale too the highest bidder under the disguise of cost saving measures and in the end find ourselves hard pressed to find enough available troops to display for the tourists once a year all at the behest of nameless, faceless and non accountable bodies hidden away in the recesses of Whitehall, no one should be the slightest bit surprised at the closure/sale of yet another airbase but if anyone looks back a little into recent history one rather chubby politician warned loud and long about the short sightedness of such measures, I often wonder how many soldiers, sailors and airmen actually died as a result of this attitude or are currently being put at risk while we sit idly by and hope the yanks will bail us out yet again. I guess we will finally wake up one day to find squads of Securicor employees trooping the colours.
    😡

    in reply to: What next for TVOC #1274816
    cypherus
    Participant

    Remaining Airframes.

    Hmmm, so was 558 I believe, or did I miss something along the way, seriously though, such a venture is not beyond those that have the determination to achieve the results….. :diablo:

    in reply to: What next for TVOC #1274832
    cypherus
    Participant

    Future commitments.

    Dunno about the amount of their current staff they will require too maintain to keep XH558 in the air, but considering that a lot of them are from the marshalls stables and others donating their time, there will not be a lot of staff required for that task apart from general maintainance, but it is the other side of the goups technical expertise that could be of great interest too people that might wish to follow their lead and put old warbrids ect back into flying trim, they have by their own admission a wealth of experience in dealing with the various bodies involved to work up a scheme the CAA will accept, they also have working contacts with the various OEM’s that are left in the UK, the list goes on and on, all of this might be packaged for sale as an assistant income provider for XH558’s future operations,The Victor mentioned above should it ever come forward as a candidate would require a similar scenario as the Vulcan I believe, and the experience gained in returning one large Airframe to the air would prove invaluable in such a venture. Anyone fancy drumming up support for such an idea??? 😀

    in reply to: Spitfires in Space! #1275775
    cypherus
    Participant

    Could go on!

    Please do.

    in reply to: The XB-70 #1275781
    cypherus
    Participant

    BAC Compression Lift on Concorde Mk 2 designs.

    An old chum of mine form the build days of Concorde who worked in the design office at the time recalled that BAC had considered using the Compression lift idea on the early layout drawings for the Mk 2 Concorde and serveral months of testing with models was undertaken, The Idea was eventually shelved due to the extrodinary amount of wieght that would be required for the machinery too actually make this idea work in a commercial airliner, however he did say that they all agreed the idea was sound, had considreable potential in a possible future SST design as long as the weight penalty could be negated, such a pity that even with out this idea the MK2 was never progressed further than the drawing board. 🙁

    in reply to: Concorde at Heathrow #1278761
    cypherus
    Participant

    Noise Pollution Indeed.

    For those of you that may have been around for the evening take off at EGLL, the noise factor associated with Concorde could not really have been described, only felt, One of the few time I saw her leave Heathrow was from the confines of a display stand when a mid day departure, probably one of those tour bus flights passed over head, at the time I took a look around at various stands in sight and too a man every single person there was looking up as she passed low overhead direct Ockham, but the sound was the striking thing about it, building through the background noise from the city to announce her departure, Concorde could be heard long before she was ever in sight, something to savour everytime you heard it, and when you finally did, the only thought you could ever have was British Aviation Engineering at it’s very best.

    in reply to: Concorde at Heathrow #1279143
    cypherus
    Participant

    Concorde at Brunty

    The way that lot work at raising the dead it would not surpise me one bit, imagine one tooling up and down the runway…… :dev2:

    in reply to: Concorde at Heathrow #1283115
    cypherus
    Participant

    Read recently that the Barbados government bodies responsible for the upkeep of AE had finalised their dispute with the US company “Everlast”, they built the enclosure for the airframe that suffered damage to it’s roof and walls by employing a local company to refurbish the structure using materials that would withstand a CAT 3 storm after which the airframe was to be moved indoors and prepared for public display, Friends were there two weeks ago and work was well underway but reported that untill completed it is to remain out side and only exterior walk rounds are permitted.

    in reply to: iFDG Airbus panel #224223
    cypherus
    Participant

    It is the ‘ sign that brings up ATC, if it fails to do so then it is more than probable that your keyboard settings have been changed, I suggest you open up the settings panel and return them to DEFAULT for the keyboard only and the ATC key should then work correctly.

    in reply to: Do I need a better graphics card? #224224
    cypherus
    Participant

    How to ID your computer components.

    A simple download of a computer profiler will cover all you need to first ID the components and then using that information find out exactly what they are capable of. One such i have always found useful is BERLAC ADVISOR available from http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html

    Just follow the lilnk and click on the download box for a free copy.

    After it has installed allow it to run and it will present you with a a page of details describing every component both hardware and software that make up your machine.

    The problem you are having sounds more like a driver issue which a simple update should cure but before that I suggest setting the graphics to there lowest settings a gradually work them up till you get acceptable levels.

    in reply to: How Low Can You Go?? #1284105
    cypherus
    Participant

    😮

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 316 total)