[jhb] Re: Farm Strip Atmosphere
- From: "Fossil" <fossil@xxxxxxx>
- To: <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:26:06 -0000
All very true.
The standard width for a paved runway is 150' (45m). At some earlier date
they often made longer runways wider but after a few accidents they found
that length and width changes created optical illusions which fooled pilots
into thinking they were closer to the runway than they actually were- so it
was standardised to 150'.
Private strips can be as wide as the owner wishes and this is one reason why
strip flying carries a warning. Some decent strips may be 100' (30m) wide
but some are as narrow as 12m - barely the wing span of a light aircraft -
with standing crops to trap those who wander off the chosen path.
I have an aerial photo I took of a Cherokee landing at Mount Rule and the
crops are no more than five feet from either wingtip. If you could replicate
this in FS it would make strip flying an enormous challenge - especially in
a crosswind!
bones
bones@xxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 27 January 2011 12:38
To: JHB Restricted
Subject: [jhb] Farm Strip Atmosphere
What started out as a definite chore is turning into a voyage of discovery.
With the Treescapes autogen trees in use I decided to work my way through
the farmstrips, to see if any woody changes were indicated. In many cases
they are. Sometimes I've chopped down a few of Darrens, sometimes added my
own. It would be tedious but for the effect the trees have. Very ordinary
looking strips become stunning, when the real world trees are in place. The
trees also divert the eye from the crappy buildings etc.
One tool that has made the job easier is Google Earth. In many cases the
camera views are available, so the real life tree types and sizes can be
reproduced. The other point that emerges from GE is the nature of the
strips. No club houses, often no hangars and almost certainly none of the
tyres and markers that I've used, to define runway and parking areas. With
my recent change of graphics card there are many cases where the strip is so
readily identifiable, in FSX, that the markers are not really needed.
From the attached GE photograph of Dowland, in Devon, the other point that
jumps out is the narrowness of the landing strip. Not much wider than a
light aircraft's wingspan, it's bordered by standing crops. With the
surrounding trees there are bound to be all sorts of odd wind effects, with
no room for error. FSX, by comparison, is an absolute doddle. However, I
read recently of a design prog which can provide tall grass etc. Off to do a
search, to see if I can't make life more difficult!
Gerry Winskill
Other related posts:
