After experimenting with different landing techniques, including the one described in the PMDG supplied manual, I've come across the perfect combination of power managment and flare procedure for normal weight landings.Watch this video of Air Force One and note how the pilot lets the aircraft literally settle onto the runway, impressive:http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Boe...Video-3694.htmlTo make your own 'Presidental' landings, try this: Approach normally, bleeding off speed additives down to Vref over the threshold, then smoothly flare the aircraft to 6 degrees nose up at 50' radio altitude. At the same time, smoothly retard power at the commencement of your flare, bringing throttles to full idle at about 10' radio alt. Remember to hold the 6 degree landing attitude throughout, utilizing SMOOTH movement of both the yoke and throttle, without jerking either controls. With a little practice you will be rewarded with extremely smooth touchdowns with a minimum of float. It's very satisfying to watch replays afterwards!The 'book' technique of landing the 747 (with incidently is the same used by the autoland system), is to bring power back to idle fairly quickly at 50' radio alt, then flare at 30', holding attitude until touchdown. While this technique undoubtably brings consistant, safe landings, you can modify this procedure a little and really impress your friends and relatives. :) In real-word flying, you'd want to purposely acccomplish firm landings on a wet or icy runway, very much the same way as the autoland system normally would. This would minimize hydro-planing amongst other things. In FS2004 the runway is never 'contaminated', so you can use the 'greaser' technique most of the time except for landings with pretty significant crosswind components.

This reminds me of the old gag:"There's only 3 things you need to know to carry out consistently smooth landings, trouble is, no-one knows what those three things are."Seriously though, your technique is a pretty sound one, though I personally find the one thing that often changes is WHEN and HOW QUICKLY you reduce thrust, this is dependent on your landing weight. If you're close to max landing weight you might try what I do, which - at about 50 feet - is to PARTIALLY reduce the thrust, holding onto about 1/2 to 2/3rds of your stabilised final approach thrust right down to about 10 or 20 feet before chopping it completely. Combine this with 6-8 degrees nose up pitch and everything should settle nicely.I have no idea if this is how it's done in the real world but it seems to work.An hour in the circuit with the 744 is a sure fire way to get some finesse!!!(Edittid fore speling)

Great landing.Be warned!You need a long runway to do this. He only touched down about half way down the strip.AnthonyCape Town

This VC25A is actually floating over the threshold. This is actually a bad landing. It also landed far from the landing zone. In short, an unsafe and bad landing.

>This VC25A is actually floating over the threshold. This is>actually a bad landing. It also landed far from the landing>zone. >>In short, an unsafe and bad landing. Probably the president was flying LOL. Seriously, though, that landing did take up WAY too much runway. His nose gear and spoilers didn't even go out until literally thousands of feet down the runway. I see this as just presidential showing off of hogging the entire runway **shrugs** Not sure what the pilots here were thinking. If they were doing that for the president's comfort, then Mr. President will think comfort when he ends up off a threshold somewhere.So I have to agree with the other posters here that I would actually not want to do that landing.I WILL, however, practice some of that technique you mention above. I might be able to use some of that to get some smoother touchdowns, but I'll only do it if I can get her down at least close to the touchdown zone if not on the white marks. For me - the less runway the better.That VC25 can afford to take their sweet time and do long rollouts and have the runway to play with because all other flights around them are grounded (aaaaah, gotta love delays for national security). So they obviously have no traffic at all coming in behind them. On a PAX or cargo route, though, if you are in a 747 you are more than likely landing at a larger international airport -- and that means get yer butt off the runway pronto.<> I watched the video again a second time. I saw what was said about the halfway down before touching down. That bird was halfway down the runway before her wheels even touched and 2/3 before the nose wheel touched and spoilers were deployed. She was sure playing chicken with the end of the runway there. Also I just noticed what airport they were at -- EGPK? I don't believe they ground flights like we do over here for the President. Makes me wonder if any poor chaps had to go around because she tok so long to get off the runway.

>Great landing.>>Be warned!>>You need a long runway to do this. He only touched down about>half way down the strip.That's what I thought too.The landing looked great and ultra smooth, but it took a lot of runway.Cheers,Pedro Venda.

After looking at the video again, the AF1 pilot really did use on heck of a lot of runway before touching down as you guys mention! I wonder though if this wasn't done on purpose, but who knows. It's hard to imagine two colonels with the level of flight experience required by the USAF to fly this plane would let something like that happen in normal operations, but who knows. The crew obviously manually deployed spoilers, but only at the last minute. The nose gear seemingly was held off the runway in almost same the fashion that fighter pilots use 'aerodynamic braking' on landing roll. I don't float significantly on my landings, but FS2004 probably doesn't model ground effect to the full extent, so that might have some bearing. I might publish some videos of my sim landings to illustrate how the technique of the 50' flare works for me. I'm tickled to have found a system that yields really consistant results. BTW, I believe this video was taken at Prestwick, Scotland, UK, during the 2005 G8 summit.

Hi, I saw this landing about one year ago (in http://www.flightlevel350, too), and it didin

>Hi, I saw this landing about one year ago (in>http://www.flightlevel350, too), and it didin

Looking forward to seeing some of those sim landings :-)

>Look this one, IMO, a good landing and a peculiar ac.>>http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Boe...Video-7077.htmlGreat video! thanks for sharing :)Does anyone know why such a new aircraft is so deeply transformed and so soon it's flying? Is it because it's a transformation and not a new model?Cheers,Pedro Venda.

:-) because It's Boeing :-)

I remember this one - going to stick my foot in the 'it must be deliberate' camp - for whatever reason. Just do not see the veterans that must fly the US president around making such a seemingly novice and potentially dangerous mistake, or deliberately eating up runway for the sake of a little comfort??regards,MarkXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

Well. I think it

>Well. I think its the "BELUGA" from Boeing, maybe i am wrong>but I think its for the new 787.>>Regards.>>Miquel Egea.>>Edited because I found it:>>http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q3/060909a_nr.htmlyes, the 747LCF was built to transport 787 parts by air thus reducing delivery times about 30x (according to boeing marketing).but my question was a little different: how is it that an aircraft is built and so quickly it's flying? shouldn't it pass 200 tests and certifications before? sort of like the a380, except the a380 is a completely new model and the lcf is a transformation.nevertheless, it's a #### ugly but beautifully engineered plane!Cheers,Pedro Venda.