FS Engine Startups vs Real Life

Mad Mike wrote:
> I suspect that at least for the WW2 Warbirds, engine startups took a
> bit longer and most likely more cantankerous IRL than in the Sim.
>
> Example:
>
> In the sim, the P-47 Wings of Power (great model!) takes about 20
> seconds to start and you are good to go.
>
> http://www.mbm30.org/Mike/Startup.wmv
>
>
> IRL, takes about 3 minutes before any wheels start rolling
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=auuqfAht02A
>
> MM
There is a problem duplicating in FS the extremely slow prop rotation at
starter engagement through prop reduction gearing that defines the exact
behavior of a large radial like an R2800, 3350, or 4360.
Most of the WW2 prop fighters including the inlines like the Spit and
the Mustang, are started on the primer then crossed over to normal
mixture as the engine starts. The result in the real airplane is that
you turn the blades with the starter through several turns before
hitting the mags and bringing up the mixture.
I'm not all that savvy on the sim's actual programming, but I've
discussed this exact issue with some of the top flight model folks in
the business and their collective opinion is that the "fast" starting we
see in FS is almost a given as to duplicate the fidelity to more
realistic levels is extremely hard to accomplish.

--
Dudley Henriques
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

On May 10, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> Mad Mike wrote:
> > I suspect that at least for the WW2 Warbirds, engine startups took a
> > bit longer and most likely more cantankerous IRL than in the Sim.
>
> > Example:
>
> > In the sim, the P-47 Wings of Power (great model!) takes about 20
> > seconds to start and you are good to go.
>
> >http://www.mbm30.org/Mike/Startup.wmv
>
> > IRL, takes about 3 minutes before any wheels start rolling
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=auuqfAht02A
>
> > MM
>
> There is a problem duplicating in FS the extremely slow prop rotation at
> starter engagement through prop reduction gearing that defines the exact
> behavior of a large radial like an R2800, 3350, or 4360.
> Most of the WW2 prop fighters including the inlines like the Spit and
> the Mustang, are started on the primer then crossed over to normal
> mixture as the engine starts. The result in the real airplane is that
> you turn the blades with the starter through several turns before
> hitting the mags and bringing up the mixture.
> I'm not all that savvy on the sim's actual programming, but I've
> discussed this exact issue with some of the top flight model folks in
> the business and their collective opinion is that the "fast" starting we
> see in FS is almost a given as to duplicate the fidelity to more
> realistic levels is extremely hard to accomplish.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Thanks for the info, Dudley. You know I have decent F-6F and they
simulate a "Bang" at the start and I if I remeber, my dad mentioned
that some of those radial engines were actually started with a shotgun
shell (minus the shot..heh heh) inserted into a chamber on one of the
cylinders. Does that make any sense?
MM
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

On May 10, 11:05 am, SnakeEyes <agalspec....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 9:19 am, Mad Mike <mcon....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I suspect that at least for the WW2 Warbirds, engine startups took a
> > bit longer and most likely more cantankerous IRL than in the Sim.
>
> Dudley's reply is 'spot on' as usual and my reply is something I run
> over and over in my senile old bean, but I think FS has to make the
> engines behave as smooth as a baby's bottom because if they made the
> Cessna 172 or the Dehavilland Beaver sound sputtery and recalcitrant
> as they might be in real life, the manufacturers would be steaming.
> Geez, when I start the Cessna 172 in FSX, it's more like starting my
> little Honda and I know from flight I have taken in a Cessna, that
> although they do start nicely, they don't sound like a Honda Fit.
>
> Frankly, I'm happy the way it is. I don't think the auto club will
> show up to help me start my Cessna if it's balky.....just sayin' : )
>
> Arthur
> (Toronto)

Makes sense, Arthur and I might add many simmers would probably lose
patience going thru the hoops of struggling to start a completely
realistic scenario.
MM
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

On May 10, 1:42 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> Mad Mike wrote:
> > On May 10, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> >> Mad Mike wrote:
> >>> I suspect that at least for the WW2 Warbirds, engine startups took a
> >>> bit longer and most likely more cantankerous IRL than in the Sim.
> >>> Example:
> >>> In the sim, the P-47 Wings of Power (great model!) takes about 20
> >>> seconds to start and you are good to go.
> >>>http://www.mbm30.org/Mike/Startup.wmv
> >>> IRL, takes about 3 minutes before any wheels start rolling
> >>>http://youtube.com/watch?v=auuqfAht02A
> >>> MM
> >> There is a problem duplicating in FS the extremely slow prop rotation at
> >> starter engagement through prop reduction gearing that defines the exact
> >> behavior of a large radial like an R2800, 3350, or 4360.
> >> Most of the WW2 prop fighters including the inlines like the Spit and
> >> the Mustang, are started on the primer then crossed over to normal
> >> mixture as the engine starts. The result in the real airplane is that
> >> you turn the blades with the starter through several turns before
> >> hitting the mags and bringing up the mixture.
> >> I'm not all that savvy on the sim's actual programming, but I've
> >> discussed this exact issue with some of the top flight model folks in
> >> the business and their collective opinion is that the "fast" starting we
> >> see in FS is almost a given as to duplicate the fidelity to more
> >> realistic levels is extremely hard to accomplish.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Thanks for the info, Dudley. You know I have decent F-6F and they
> > simulate a "Bang" at the start and I if I remeber, my dad mentioned
> > that some of those radial engines were actually started with a shotgun
> > shell (minus the shot..heh heh) inserted into a chamber on one of the
> > cylinders. Does that make any sense?
> > MM
>
> He was right. Some of the earlier engines, both radial and inline used
> what was called a Coffman starter. It fired a shotgun shell that sent
> high pressure gas pressure through an impeller that initiated a start.
> Later on most went to electric starters.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

If I remember correctly, that is the method they used in the original
"Flight of the Phoenix" movie to get their contraption started.

MM
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

Mad Mike wrote:
> On May 10, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq....DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Mad Mike wrote:
>>> I suspect that at least for the WW2 Warbirds, engine startups took a
>>> bit longer and most likely more cantankerous IRL than in the Sim.
>>> Example:
>>> In the sim, the P-47 Wings of Power (great model!) takes about 20
>>> seconds to start and you are good to go.
>>> http://www.mbm30.org/Mike/Startup.wmv
>>> IRL, takes about 3 minutes before any wheels start rolling
>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=auuqfAht02A
>>> MM
>> There is a problem duplicating in FS the extremely slow prop rotation at
>> starter engagement through prop reduction gearing that defines the exact
>> behavior of a large radial like an R2800, 3350, or 4360.
>> Most of the WW2 prop fighters including the inlines like the Spit and
>> the Mustang, are started on the primer then crossed over to normal
>> mixture as the engine starts. The result in the real airplane is that
>> you turn the blades with the starter through several turns before
>> hitting the mags and bringing up the mixture.
>> I'm not all that savvy on the sim's actual programming, but I've
>> discussed this exact issue with some of the top flight model folks in
>> the business and their collective opinion is that the "fast" starting we
>> see in FS is almost a given as to duplicate the fidelity to more
>> realistic levels is extremely hard to accomplish.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Thanks for the info, Dudley. You know I have decent F-6F and they
> simulate a "Bang" at the start and I if I remeber, my dad mentioned
> that some of those radial engines were actually started with a shotgun
> shell (minus the shot..heh heh) inserted into a chamber on one of the
> cylinders. Does that make any sense?
> MM
He was right. Some of the earlier engines, both radial and inline used
what was called a Coffman starter. It fired a shotgun shell that sent
high pressure gas pressure through an impeller that initiated a start.
Later on most went to electric starters.

--
Dudley Henriques
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

Mad Mike wrote:
> On May 10, 1:42 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
>> Mad Mike wrote:
>>> On May 10, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
>>>> Mad Mike wrote:
>>>>> I suspect that at least for the WW2 Warbirds, engine startups took a
>>>>> bit longer and most likely more cantankerous IRL than in the Sim.
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> In the sim, the P-47 Wings of Power (great model!) takes about 20
>>>>> seconds to start and you are good to go.
>>>>> http://www.mbm30.org/Mike/Startup.wmv
>>>>> IRL, takes about 3 minutes before any wheels start rolling
>>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=auuqfAht02A
>>>>> MM
>>>> There is a problem duplicating in FS the extremely slow prop rotation at
>>>> starter engagement through prop reduction gearing that defines the exact
>>>> behavior of a large radial like an R2800, 3350, or 4360.
>>>> Most of the WW2 prop fighters including the inlines like the Spit and
>>>> the Mustang, are started on the primer then crossed over to normal
>>>> mixture as the engine starts. The result in the real airplane is that
>>>> you turn the blades with the starter through several turns before
>>>> hitting the mags and bringing up the mixture.
>>>> I'm not all that savvy on the sim's actual programming, but I've
>>>> discussed this exact issue with some of the top flight model folks in
>>>> the business and their collective opinion is that the "fast" starting we
>>>> see in FS is almost a given as to duplicate the fidelity to more
>>>> realistic levels is extremely hard to accomplish.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Thanks for the info, Dudley. You know I have decent F-6F and they
>>> simulate a "Bang" at the start and I if I remeber, my dad mentioned
>>> that some of those radial engines were actually started with a shotgun
>>> shell (minus the shot..heh heh) inserted into a chamber on one of the
>>> cylinders. Does that make any sense?
>>> MM
>> He was right. Some of the earlier engines, both radial and inline used
>> what was called a Coffman starter. It fired a shotgun shell that sent
>> high pressure gas pressure through an impeller that initiated a start.
>> Later on most went to electric starters.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> If I remember correctly, that is the method they used in the original
> "Flight of the Phoenix" movie to get their contraption started.
>
> MM

Right again. The movie featured the Coffman and a brilliant dialog
exchange between Hardy Kruger and Jim Stewart on how best to use it


--
Dudley Henriques
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

On May 10, 2:24 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq....DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:
> Mad Mike wrote:
> > On May 10, 1:42 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq....DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:
> >> Mad Mike wrote:
> >>> On May 10, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq....DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mad Mike wrote:
> >>>>> I suspect that at least for the WW2 Warbirds, engine startups took a
> >>>>> bit longer and most likely more cantankerous IRL than in the Sim.
> >>>>> Example:
> >>>>> In the sim, the P-47 Wings of Power (great model!) takes about 20
> >>>>> seconds to start and you are good to go.
> >>>>>http://www.mbm30.org/Mike/Startup.wmv
> >>>>> IRL, takes about 3 minutes before any wheels start rolling
> >>>>>http://youtube.com/watch?v=auuqfAht02A
> >>>>> MM
> >>>> There is a problem duplicating in FS the extremely slow prop rotation at
> >>>> starter engagement through prop reduction gearing that defines the exact
> >>>> behavior of a large radial like an R2800, 3350, or 4360.
> >>>> Most of the WW2 prop fighters including the inlines like the Spit and
> >>>> the Mustang, are started on the primer then crossed over to normal
> >>>> mixture as the engine starts. The result in the real airplane is that
> >>>> you turn the blades with the starter through several turns before
> >>>> hitting the mags and bringing up the mixture.
> >>>> I'm not all that savvy on the sim's actual programming, but I've
> >>>> discussed this exact issue with some of the top flight model folks in
> >>>> the business and their collective opinion is that the "fast" starting we
> >>>> see in FS is almost a given as to duplicate the fidelity to more
> >>>> realistic levels is extremely hard to accomplish.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> Thanks for the info, Dudley. You know I have decent F-6F and they
> >>> simulate a "Bang" at the start and I if I remeber, my dad mentioned
> >>> that some of those radial engines were actually started with a shotgun
> >>> shell (minus the shot..heh heh) inserted into a chamber on one of the
> >>> cylinders. Does that make any sense?
> >>> MM
> >> He was right. Some of the earlier engines, both radial and inline used
> >> what was called a Coffman starter. It fired a shotgun shell that sent
> >> high pressure gas pressure through an impeller that initiated a start.
> >> Later on most went to electric starters.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > If I remember correctly, that is the method they used in the original
> > "Flight of the Phoenix" movie to get their contraption started.
>
> > MM
>
> Right again. The movie featured the Coffman and a brilliant dialog
> exchange between Hardy Kruger and Jim Stewart on how best to use it
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I'm gonna have to rent it again, Dudley.
MM
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

On May 10, 9:46 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> Mad Mike wrote:
> > On May 10, 2:24 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> >> Mad Mike wrote:
> >>> On May 10, 1:42 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mad Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On May 10, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Mad Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>> I suspect that at least for the WW2 Warbirds, engine startups took a
> >>>>>>> bit longer and most likely more cantankerous IRL than in the Sim.
> >>>>>>> Example:
> >>>>>>> In the sim, the P-47 Wings of Power (great model!) takes about 20
> >>>>>>> seconds to start and you are good to go.
> >>>>>>>http://www.mbm30.org/Mike/Startup.wmv
> >>>>>>> IRL, takes about 3 minutes before any wheels start rolling
> >>>>>>>http://youtube.com/watch?v=auuqfAht02A
> >>>>>>> MM
> >>>>>> There is a problem duplicating in FS the extremely slow prop rotation at
> >>>>>> starter engagement through prop reduction gearing that defines the exact
> >>>>>> behavior of a large radial like an R2800, 3350, or 4360.
> >>>>>> Most of the WW2 prop fighters including the inlines like the Spit and
> >>>>>> the Mustang, are started on the primer then crossed over to normal
> >>>>>> mixture as the engine starts. The result in the real airplane is that
> >>>>>> you turn the blades with the starter through several turns before
> >>>>>> hitting the mags and bringing up the mixture.
> >>>>>> I'm not all that savvy on the sim's actual programming, but I've
> >>>>>> discussed this exact issue with some of the top flight model folks in
> >>>>>> the business and their collective opinion is that the "fast" starting we
> >>>>>> see in FS is almost a given as to duplicate the fidelity to more
> >>>>>> realistic levels is extremely hard to accomplish.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> Thanks for the info, Dudley. You know I have decent F-6F and they
> >>>>> simulate a "Bang" at the start and I if I remeber, my dad mentioned
> >>>>> that some of those radial engines were actually started with a shotgun
> >>>>> shell (minus the shot..heh heh) inserted into a chamber on one of the
> >>>>> cylinders. Does that make any sense?
> >>>>> MM
> >>>> He was right. Some of the earlier engines, both radial and inline used
> >>>> what was called a Coffman starter. It fired a shotgun shell that sent
> >>>> high pressure gas pressure through an impeller that initiated a start.
> >>>> Later on most went to electric starters.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> If I remember correctly, that is the method they used in the original
> >>> "Flight of the Phoenix" movie to get their contraption started.
> >>> MM
> >> Right again. The movie featured the Coffman and a brilliant dialog
> >> exchange between Hardy Kruger and Jim Stewart on how best to use it
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > I'm gonna have to rent it again, Dudley.
> > MM
>
> It was a great film. I knew both Frank Tallman and Paul Mantz. Their
> company was Tallmanz Aviation. Tallmanz did the stunt work for the film.
> Paul was killed in 65 during the shoot. Frank was killed later on in 78
> scud running out in California. Shame. Both were superior pilots and did
> a lot of work for movies. It was Paul who did the belly landing in the
> B17 during the opening scene of 12 o'clock high. Frank had a pristine
> Grumman Duck amphib that was used in Murphy's War with Peter O'Toole.
> The Tallmanz movie credits are a real laundry list
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

That must have been very interesting knowing these guys! Sorry to
hear they met their demise but it happens for sure.

Just saw a very good program on the History Channel about Alaskan bush
pilots. They encounter many hazards! 3rd most dangerous rated career
supposedly. Those early bush pilots were up against some really
formidable odds with some equipment operating right on the margins.
Not everyone could do that kind of work...not by a long shot.
MM
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

Mad Mike wrote:
> On May 10, 2:24 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... RemoveThis @rcn.com> wrote:
>> Mad Mike wrote:
>>> On May 10, 1:42 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... RemoveThis @rcn.com> wrote:
>>>> Mad Mike wrote:
>>>>> On May 10, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq... RemoveThis @rcn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mad Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> I suspect that at least for the WW2 Warbirds, engine startups took a
>>>>>>> bit longer and most likely more cantankerous IRL than in the Sim.
>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>> In the sim, the P-47 Wings of Power (great model!) takes about 20
>>>>>>> seconds to start and you are good to go.
>>>>>>> http://www.mbm30.org/Mike/Startup.wmv
>>>>>>> IRL, takes about 3 minutes before any wheels start rolling
>>>>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=auuqfAht02A
>>>>>>> MM
>>>>>> There is a problem duplicating in FS the extremely slow prop rotation at
>>>>>> starter engagement through prop reduction gearing that defines the exact
>>>>>> behavior of a large radial like an R2800, 3350, or 4360.
>>>>>> Most of the WW2 prop fighters including the inlines like the Spit and
>>>>>> the Mustang, are started on the primer then crossed over to normal
>>>>>> mixture as the engine starts. The result in the real airplane is that
>>>>>> you turn the blades with the starter through several turns before
>>>>>> hitting the mags and bringing up the mixture.
>>>>>> I'm not all that savvy on the sim's actual programming, but I've
>>>>>> discussed this exact issue with some of the top flight model folks in
>>>>>> the business and their collective opinion is that the "fast" starting we
>>>>>> see in FS is almost a given as to duplicate the fidelity to more
>>>>>> realistic levels is extremely hard to accomplish.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> Thanks for the info, Dudley. You know I have decent F-6F and they
>>>>> simulate a "Bang" at the start and I if I remeber, my dad mentioned
>>>>> that some of those radial engines were actually started with a shotgun
>>>>> shell (minus the shot..heh heh) inserted into a chamber on one of the
>>>>> cylinders. Does that make any sense?
>>>>> MM
>>>> He was right. Some of the earlier engines, both radial and inline used
>>>> what was called a Coffman starter. It fired a shotgun shell that sent
>>>> high pressure gas pressure through an impeller that initiated a start.
>>>> Later on most went to electric starters.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> If I remember correctly, that is the method they used in the original
>>> "Flight of the Phoenix" movie to get their contraption started.
>>> MM
>> Right again. The movie featured the Coffman and a brilliant dialog
>> exchange between Hardy Kruger and Jim Stewart on how best to use it
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I'm gonna have to rent it again, Dudley.
> MM

It was a great film. I knew both Frank Tallman and Paul Mantz. Their
company was Tallmanz Aviation. Tallmanz did the stunt work for the film.
Paul was killed in 65 during the shoot. Frank was killed later on in 78
scud running out in California. Shame. Both were superior pilots and did
a lot of work for movies. It was Paul who did the belly landing in the
B17 during the opening scene of 12 o'clock high. Frank had a pristine
Grumman Duck amphib that was used in Murphy's War with Peter O'Toole.
The Tallmanz movie credits are a real laundry list


--
Dudley Henriques
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques RemoveThis @rcn.com> wrote in message
news:HpKdnRBhru7ya7jVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@rcn.net...
> Mad Mike wrote:
> Right again. The movie featured the Coffman and a brilliant dialog
> exchange between Hardy Kruger and Jim Stewart on how best to use it
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


The original Flight of the Phoenix - this is the one in which Paul Mantz was
killed flying the re-built aircraft??

--
Bruce (Hey Ewe)
(27°31'39.33"S 151°56'8.88"E) ;-P
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

WayPoint wrote:
> Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques RemoveThis @rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:HpKdnRBhru7ya7jVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@rcn.net...
>> Mad Mike wrote:
>> Right again. The movie featured the Coffman and a brilliant dialog
>> exchange between Hardy Kruger and Jim Stewart on how best to use it
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> The original Flight of the Phoenix - this is the one in which Paul Mantz was
> killed flying the re-built aircraft??
>
Yes. It happened during a low pass during the shoot of the 1965 version.
He clipped a sand dune.

--
Dudley Henriques
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

Mad Mike <mconron RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in news:9e463e50-ca01-40e7-8d8d-
218711044747 RemoveThis @m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

>
> Makes sense, Arthur and I might add many simmers would probably lose
> patience going thru the hoops of struggling to start a completely
> realistic scenario.

Some of those propliners on Cal Classic seem to tke a lot of work
to start.

scott s.
..
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life 

--
Bruce (Hey Ewe)
(27°31'39.33"S 151°56'8.88"E) ;-P
(I have the mind of a Pentium--with only 2 Megs of RAM)

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques.RemoveThis@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:qK6dndAk8fnGfbvVnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@rcn.net...
> WayPoint wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques.RemoveThis@rcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:HpKdnRBhru7ya7jVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@rcn.net...
>>> Mad Mike wrote:
>>> Right again. The movie featured the Coffman and a brilliant dialog
>>> exchange between Hardy Kruger and Jim Stewart on how best to use it
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> The original Flight of the Phoenix - this is the one in which Paul Mantz
>> was killed flying the re-built aircraft??
>>
> Yes. It happened during a low pass during the shoot of the 1965 version.
> He clipped a sand dune.
>

> --
> Dudley Henriques

Thanks Dudley.
I remember reading that somewhere.
Which explains why the final scenes of the '65 version just showed Jimmy
Stewart & the others trudging up a sand dune after escaping from the desert.
No aircraft in the final scenes.
Sad indeed. (

Bruce
 >> Stay informed about: FS Engine Startups vs Real Life