It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Flight simulator Vs. Jet Man

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:47 AM
Man Builds Flight Simulator In His Garage

Take a 1969 737-100 shell,
gut it and put in new components, add some simulation software, sound effects and display
and you have a pretty realistic flight simulator. (A.K.A. Big Boy Toy)


The Jet Man - Special HD Release

Fall from a perfectly good helicopter with a quad jet powered wing strapped to you, and you hope there is ignition as you pummel towards earth.

Once engines fire, you are king of the sky...until it's time to land. Hope the chute works...

The Simulator is easily accessable just by entering the garage but must have taken quite awhile to complete.

Jet Man is surely more of a rush, but seems to be unable to launch or land.
Also, setup is time consuming and requires a launch copter.

Years ago, I'd take the Jet Man, but I would enjoy the simulator now.
It's a tough choice...

edit on 22-4-2012 by imd12c4funn because: fix error

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:53 AM
Jet-Man, on a sober day.

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:59 AM
if you stop and think about it, it's quite amazing what man can achieve really.

i am typing this out while watching the London marathon (26 mile run).

just shows really what we can achieve if were not blinded by fear, aggression and war mongering.

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:22 AM

Originally posted by diddy1234
if you stop and think about it, it's quite amazing what man can achieve really.

i am typing this out while watching the London marathon (26 mile run).

just shows really what we can achieve if were not blinded by fear, aggression and war mongering.

I live with 6 girls.
I know all about fear, aggression and war mongering///
edit on 22-4-2012 by imd12c4funn because: typo

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:26 AM
Jet man.

The flight sim is uber-cool but I think I would get bored of it pretty quickly.

I wonder if a pick-up/ute would be able to launch the Jet-man? Seems possible, even though it would be illegal on a public road.

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:27 AM
ha ha. glutton for punishment. lol

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by imd12c4funn

Take a 1969 737-100 shell....

Did you link the correct video?

What I saw had nothing to do with an old B-737....

.....maybe a giant WING (much like some R/C models I've seen) and a man who attached himself to it.....note, he did NOT take-off from the surface.....he had to drop off from a helicopter.

edit on Sun 22 April 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by ProudBird

Click on the link at the very top that says "Man Builds Flight Simulator In His Garage"

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:29 PM
reply to post by jra

Oh, OK.......what I saw in the OP was a video of a guy who designed a sort of "parasail" thing......the "TOP" link shows, well....what MANY people have achieved.

Those who are "wannabe" pilots (bless their hearts).......I see, from a few brief searches online, quite a few avid enthusiasts who wish to build the "ultimate" simulator......without spending the roughly 10 to 20 milllion Dollars it might cost, for a full0motion hydraulically controlled and computer-controlled alternative.

There was a "category" of "simulators" that I recall from about twenty-five years ago.....that, (ironically), were called "desktop simulators".....(this is BEFORE the advent of the 'desktop" computer, and the common usage of that phrase "desktop").


The implication (then) of the "desktop simulator"....and a slight scoffing at it, that was present, back then....was that it wasn't as "realistic" as modern full-motion simulators...which already existed, even 25 years ago (and previously).

But, to tell the truth???? Flying a "desktop"-type simulator is MUCH harder than the real thing...whether a real airplane, or a $20Million Dollar sim. It requires a degree of focus that is different from an "immersion" experience.....just as the "immersion" in a full-motion, modern simulator is a bit "different", and a bit more demanding, than "immersion" in the real thing........

I recall, back in the day......when I interviewed at United.... (this was 1980)......we actually used a DC-10 full-motion simulator.

Oh, it was very basic.....hold altitude, intercept the Localizer, start down on the Glidesope....have a Fire Warning in the center engine, at about 500 feet.....simple stuff......Later, after I was hired somewhere else.......(Oh, well...United would have hired me then, but they started to LAY off a lot and in 1980 ....they stopped hiring right when I was in the middle of the interview process.....)...anyway, YEARS later, I heard that, instead of a DC-10 simulator to test applicants, they used a .....yeah, you guessed it!!!

A "desktop simulator" was good in the sense that it could cull those who were poor at instrument flying......those who could NOT multi-task.....and, thus, not perceive the visual cues, that might have contradicted their 'physical'.cues.

Anyone who has ever flown an airplane to an extent understands what that means........

OH, and BTW....I might want to contact this guy!!

yeah, he used a 737-100 'carcass' for the cockpit......but, the instrumentation, as shown in the video, is right out of a B-737 'Next Gen'......the 737-700, or 800 or 900 series......but, only as delivered to certain airlines. Meaning, the MFDs (Multi-Function Displays) arranged as he shows.....isn't in every airline customer's configuration.....oh the SCREENS are (the MFDs themselves) a "Next Gen"......but, the depiction on them? MY airline, we had a slew of the "older" 737s.....with conventional instrumentation....AND, in order (per the FAA) for us ALL to be able to fly the fleet, (without making the "newer' ones a different bidding category)....the FAA, in their "infinite wisdom", thought that we could be allowed to see only "two" different "versions" of cockpit instrumentation......the old, "round-dials" (as we called them.....737-300 )....and the 'middle-step" EFIS version, in the 737-500s......and the FAA would not allow more than "two" variations in instrumentation presentations, and allow a "commonality" for currency purposes.

To the FAA< the new "Next Gen" them, it was THREE variations, in one, they required, in order to allow no separation, and thus crew scheduling and bidding complications (things the airline don't want) the FAA allowed it only if the MFD screens showed the same approximate re-creation of the "round dials"....and the -500 EFIS representations.....instead of the true versatility that those MFDs seen in other company's 737-"next Gens", or the B-767-400, or the 777, or the 787........

Or, even (gag) airbuses!)

Sorry, it's now, the 737-300s are LONG gone....retired, and assigned to the "boneyards" ....or sold off to others. But, WE had to endure the MFD screen that simulated "round dials".....instead of the far more prevalent instrumentation presentation seen on most current modern airliners.

Of course, the MFDs can be "switched" over easily......(done down in the E&E compartment, by the avionics guys) was a regulatory, and "operational convenience" issue, at the time......:this "garage simulator" guy has my respect. He set up his "sim" with not only a very modern six-screen MFD arrangement, but also the full dual FMCs, and the associated CDUs.....not originally installed in ANY B-737-100!!!

AND.....he somehow seemed to have added visuals, out the front windshields?!?!


This guy, as I said, is worthy of a meet.........

edit on Tue 24 April 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by ProudBird

Here (for all) found this on Continental's facility, in Houston......(you just drive down JFK Drive, the simulator buildings are THERE....)....but, since the merger with United, the Sims may be moved to Denver, dunno...anyhoo.......this is in one of the 737 "Next Gen" Sims.


(and a REAL airplane, during takeoff and landing, NEVER take your hands off of the throttle(s)!!!!! This applies to ALL pilots, whether students or experienced):

Just so everyone knows....the sounds you hear.....a "swishing" (for want of a better description)....(and I hear an 'altitude alert' sound too....that is set to go off when about 750 feet to your set altitude....whether climbing, or descending....) ...but, the other sound is the elevator trim sound, in the B-737........there is a requirement in ALL big airplanes that the pilots be "alerted" to a possible "runaway trim" condition.....this requirement can be met via many possible scenarios....on the B-707, B-727 and B-737 was a BIG wheel....two, actually, on the center console (this was ALSO the 'manual' trim function....handles pop out, so you can CRANK the trim).

But, when you use the "pickle switches" on the control wheel, for the Elevator Trim.....still, the "big wheels" (hey, I thought that would be funny) you KNOW the elevator trim is moving. Other airplanes have other ways to "alert" pilots....the POINT is.....IF you did NOT command an elevator pitch trim movement, you MUST know immediately, and correct it.

Make sense???? (hope so).....

TO ADD....If you cannot understand what they are saying in the first says "Did we run-through the Receiving?"

The "Receiving Checklist" was part of the Continental Airlines procedures.....(the "Receiving" check-list is done at the gate.....when we got onto the airplane.....WELL before the "Start" checklist......but, in a "simulator environment" sometimes, steps are skipped.....depends on how "realistic" the simulator session is supposed to's complicated to explain, you HAVE to BE there!!!) hear "quickline"......that is the "short" Receiving's reference to...a "quick line" version....OF the checklist.......oh, can figure it out, just WATCH!!!

Next, someone mentions a "quick align...that refers to the the simulator, you can 'quick align" the IRS's a computer, after all !!

edit on Wed 25 April 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in