New Boeing B-797 Giant Flying Wing is Released!

[DaveWG]

Doh, well spotted!

I don't think sections 2 & 4 are actually used (no gauges) so it may not matter. I'll upload an updated cfg anyway.

EDIT: new cfg uploaded. Same link as above.

[Roger]

Not normally my kind of aeroplane but just had to see the 797 out of MIA. Great job Bill!:ernae:
and thanks Dave for the panel fix!

[jimjones]

Thanks for the beautful plane and simulation. The real plane profile leaves a bit to be desired but must be benefical to its profitability. Will the real plane ever be commercial ?

[Snave]

Thanks for the beautful plane and simulation. The real plane profile leaves a bit to be desired but must be benefical to its profitability. Will the real plane ever be commercial ?

Mebbe. The BWB (Blended Wing Body) has a number of advantages in internal volume, drag, high altitude performance and `masking` of engine noise perceived from the ground. Remember the original reason for a fuselage was simply to keep the tail a distance from the wing! Close-coupled flying wing always had pitch problems until the advent of FBW, and now fly-by-wire is the de facto standard for current and next-gen airliners.

On that basis I would say that it is a commercial possibility.
But there remain issues with having passengers so far off the centreline - the accelerations are amplified not just in the vertical plane as Bill had alluded to in the tricky `ruddering` flight model, reducing banking for a given turn rate, but also in the horizontal plane as the aircraft changes heading - the `outside` passengers on the turn will detect a noticeable increase in acceleration compared to the `inside` as the craft changes direction - and if you combine that with even a limited angle of bank then the combined movement of fore/aft and up/down can lead to unpleasant results - as any seafarer will tell you!


Not only that, not every passenger wants a window seat facing forward - that runway centreline could look an awfully long way off on approach with pax overhanging the grass, leading to panic, trouser-spoiling and yet more

[jmig]

Mebbe. ...On that basis I would say that it is a commercial possibility.
But there remain issues with having passengers so far off the centreline - the accelerations are amplified not just in the vertical plane as Bill had alluded to in the tricky `ruddering` flight model, reducing banking for a given turn rate, but also in the horizontal plane as the aircraft changes heading - the `outside` passengers on the turn will detect a noticeable increase in acceleration compared to the `inside` as the craft changes direction - and if you combine that with even a limited angle of bank then the combined movement of fore/aft and up/down can lead to unpleasant results - as any seafarer will tell you!


Not only that, not every passenger wants a window seat facing forward - that runway centreline could look an awfully long way off on approach with pax overhanging the grass, leading to panic, trouser-spoiling and yet more

Something tells me that I know where the cheap seats will located.

[Bjoern]

Something tells me that I know where the cheap seats will located.

The sections will be titled "Mom in-laws only". :d

[Lionheart]

Doh, well spotted!

I don't think sections 2 & 4 are actually used (no gauges) so it may not matter. I'll upload an updated cfg anyway.

EDIT: new cfg uploaded. Same link as above.

I had originally mapped those areas with hovering polygons, total of 4, front, top, center, and sides, but later narrowed it down to front and center, with center being the two clear zones for gauges placement. I didnt think we needed any more then that. The rest became non-functioning bits and pieces knobs.



Im sure glad you found that mysterious fix DaveWG. Good going man!



Bill

[Stickshaker]

Fantastic plane Lionheart! Thanks so much for this gift.

[Roger]

797 over PNW

[b52bob]

As expected from your previous work, OUTSTANDING!

BTW, I wonder if anyone from Boeing has seen this or sent you any comments?

Thanks again for giving the community, both FS9 and FSX, something wonderful.

Bob

[Lionheart]

Just to let you all know, I am about to release a 'Build 1.1' pack, updates in it, including upgraded FSX panels for main panel and center console and a fix for the lights issue (chrome panel). Updates like Tom's input for the Mini Panel and radios standby freq's are also in the updates.

Should be up in a day or two.

Still havent had a chance to make 'Refueler' hoses.


Bill
LHC

[Lionheart]

BTW, I wonder if anyone from Boeing has seen this or sent you any comments?

Bob

Nothing yet. I do now intend to ask them for a Boeing Partnership license soon. Hopefully that will be secured.

Bill

[heywooood]

well I'll keep my fingers crossed for you Bill

your work goes a long long way in the promotion department - whether these mfg. concerns know it or not

that Kodiak is a tour de force - and where else can an airliner fan come closer to envisioning the future of passenger flight than with this splendid BwB of yours.

[jetstreamsky]

It's an interesting craft to fly, but the union flag is upside down on both sides of the BA livery (presuming the flagpole is upwind). Also maybe it's a design decision, but the main union flag graphic top and bottom is reversed on the left side (ie right lower surface and left upper surface).

[Lionheart]

It's an interesting craft to fly, but the union flag is upside down on both sides of the BA livery (presuming the flagpole is upwind). Also maybe it's a design decision, but the main union flag graphic top and bottom is reversed on the left side (ie right lower surface and left upper surface).

arrrrgh!

<--- rests head on desk...

Such delicate details on that flag. I should have studied it more. Thanks for the heads up.


Thanks Heywooood for the kind words.

[FOO FIGHTER]

Thank you so much for this (and the awesome paint kit too)! Glad to see that there might be a tanker version as well. Is it Ok to upload some skins for it here at SOH?

[Lionheart]

Dude! That is some awesome paint work, lolol... I dont even recognize it, lol... Nice!

Imagine that with 3 B2's flying in formation...

Please upload.

[Jim Brown]

Yesssssss......been wanting one of these for a loooooooooooooooooong time. Thanks Bill! It looks great!

[FOO FIGHTER]

Dude! That is some awesome paint work, lolol... I dont even recognize it, lol... Nice!

Imagine that with 3 B2's flying in formation...

Please upload.

LOL-Thanks but most of it is from your paint kit.:ernae:
It's a cargo transport from the Air Mobility Command based at Travis AFB. It still needs a little more work, have to make it look more "militarized". Thank you again for this great aircraft!

[CG_1976]

Could you imagine the CAF with a Super Transport like this with the 440Sq in the Arctic. Beautiful Air Mobility Command paint Foo fighter.

[Scratch]

Thank you so much for this (and the awesome paint kit too)! Glad to see that there might be a tanker version as well. Is it Ok to upload some skins for it here at SOH?

Outstanding!!!!!!!!!!!:ernae:

[Railrunner130]

@ Foo Fighter-

FYI - It's not a hard rule, but many Air Guard and Air Force Reserve units that receive factory fresh airlifters have their unit number in the tail number. Your tail flash reminded me of it. The tail number you've used indicates that the aircraft was purchased in a Fiscal year ending in 8- 2008, 2018, 1998 who knows. Anyhow, the 926 would often, though not as a hard and fast rule indicate that the airplane belongs to the 926th Group in New Orleans. This would be their third airplane.

This personalization began in 1985, with the Texas Air Guard when they got new C-130H2s. 85-1361 through 85-1368. Thanks to the 2005 BRAC, many airplanes have been reshuffled and tail numbers and unit numbers don't always correspond to their unit any longer.

Just food for thought. Do what you want to with it. :salute:

[Lionheart]

Just wanted to let you all know, the Tutorial project for this 'Unlimited Export' system is updated, 2nd Edition. Now in PDF as well as MOV formats.

More here; http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...099#post467099

[polygoon]

Hey Bill,

sorry for butting in this late, but I just want to express my thanks for this awesome plane!
I'm not sure how true the airfile is, but it is a pleasure to fly, as stable as anything, which makes sense considering the size of that thing.
Even visually the awesome size really comes across well!

I must say though I prefer turning corners the conventional way, but to make sure the passengers won't get sick, I am executing them very slowly and carefully. I think that, even with flat turns, you would still feel lateral G's which will not only affect the passengers in the cheap seats (outside) but all of them.

But, man, what a plane - thanks again!

Norm

[Lionheart]

Hey Norm,

Most welcome.

I think that turns will or could be made to be 'liveable' with by the passengers. A balance of a flat turn and slowly enduced roll-bank would probably be un-noticeable to most passengers if done with finesse, and I am sure that auto-pilot systems could be tuned to do that.

One thing though that we were toying with was slip. In a tight banked turn in FS with 'regular' settings, we got a good deal of slip going and reduced the AP turns to 20 degress from 25 degrees.

Glad you are enjoying it.


Bill