William,

 

Useful, thanks. How do you plan your flights so they go that close to the pole? PFPX won't take me above 73N on UUEE-PANC.

There is a fundamental difficulty even in a round world because that's the way latitude and longitude works..

 

If an aircaft flies over the north pole then it's heading instantly changes from 0^o to 180^o as it changes fron north to south. It's longitude also changes from through 180^o as it changes to the over side of the world.

 

The FSX Flight Dynamics Model for the aircraft doesn't handle that well,  given the limitations of its mathematics. There are real-world techniques which can do that. FSX doesn't use them - it is after a game.

 

 

FSX doesn't use them - it is after a game.

 

I guess this problem shouldn't exist in P3D, inasmuch as it isn't a game.

I only have experience with FSX which is a game. Even Prepar3d has many limitations.

 

EDIT

 

I understand the the Prepar3d Flight Dynamics Engine is still effectively that from ESP/FSX.

 

 

If an aircaft flies over the north pole then it's heading instantly changes from 0o to 180o as it changes fron north to south. It's longitude also changes from through 180o as it changes to the over side of the world.

 

Gerry,

 

I'm not talking about flying directly over the pole. It's likely any polar routing from UUEE-PANC or even EFHK-PANC would not have a waypoint of 90N. More likely it would be 85-88N. So there would be  no instantaneous change of 180 degrees in the heading.

 

As for the debate about whether it's a game or not that is irrelevant to this discussion.

The title of your post is Polar Flights - how close can you go?

 

I suggest my point is still relevant, especially as the mathematics will breakdown before reaching the pole.

 

My point of it being a game is that, there are techniques to avoid this but the developers didn't think were worth employing.  The whole the the Flight Dynamics Engine is simplified.

Gerry, I was able to fly directly over the pole earlier today. That wasn't possible in FS9. Have you actually proved your theory about the mathematics breaking down? If so perhaps you could supply the plan you used.

 

The FDE may be simplified but until definitive proof is established one way or another we're just speculating about what is possible. I'll be working on a plan later today and will post it here should anyone want to try it.

I've flown very close to the North Pole many times, I was advsed years ago, to switch to FSX's Wing Leveller mode when close to the pole, so that the Lat/Long issues and Heading don't become a factor.   Once the pole is crossed, I effected a DTO to the next waypoint past it.    The last time I flew a polar flight was CYYZ - VHHH, in the PMDG MD-11.

Tried it again.

 

I reached the Pole but couldn't fly straight over it in a realistic manner The aircraft started circeling when getting close to the Pole (wings leveller activated) and was chasing its own vapor trail. When reaching 90 deg. 00.00 the aircraft turned into a sort of flat spin rotation as seen in the screenshot below. As a side note, my fps started dropping as I got closer to the pole, so fps counters, you have been warned!

 

Edited December 4, 201411 yr by simmerhead

simmerhead. The screenshot would have been too large and the latitude too small to read. I was certainly north of 89 59N though.

 

But with respect you're missing the point. The question wasn't can I fly right over the north pole. I just wanted to know if I could fly reasonably close and anything north of 85N is fine. I believe I did fly to within a few hundred yards of it which is close enough.

 

Craig. I'll be flying Concorde which has a 4000nm range so my routes are limited.

 

More later...

But with respect you're missing the point. The question wasn't can I fly right over the north pole. I just wanted to know if I could fly reasonably close and anything north of 85N is fine. I believe I did fly to within a few hundred yards of it which is close enough.

 

That you can do without problems!

Here's a potential plan from Helsinki to Anchorage. Furthest north is 88°35'. Distance is 3531nm which is inside Concorde's max range.

 

But I would have to go supersonic whilst over northern Finland and Norway and at the other end still remain supersonic over Alaska. I'll get permission from the Inuit and send them some earplugs! :smile:

 

ROVIL M854 ABOVA T95 UXUKU DCT HMF DCT 7600N02146E 8000N01925E 8400N01350E 87N000E 8835N06000W 87N120W 83N141W DCT SCC J115 CQR J155 ENN J125 TAGER TAGER7

It's not a theory, it's a fact.

 

Overfying changes  the heading  from 0^o to 180^o and the longtitude  by 180^o instantly.

 

i flew the default c172 at the north pole and checked its progress on the map and watched the heading flip in Top Down view.

             BEFORE      AFTER         LATER
Latitude     N89 59.90'  N89 59.69'    N89 54.46' 
Longitude    E0 0.00'    W169 43.84'   W137 51.19'
Heading      0          349 (11N)       317 (43N)

Switching between cockpit views shows that heading heading indicator remained stuck on N. After a short time the heading indicator and turn cordinator began to flicker. Pressing D to reset the heading indicator reset it to about 317.

 

Surely, the heading should be close to S when crossing the north pole?.

I don't know where I found this but I saved it.  They are actual polar routes though.

 

---

Polar route 1

ABERI G489 THN G490 BRT A91W CS A91 SERNA (24 hours a day)

Polar Route 2

DEVID B480 BRT A91W CZ A91 SERNA (24 hours a day)

Polar Route 3

RAMEL G491 ASLAR G491 SULOK (0000-1200 UTC)

Polar Route 4

ORVIT G494 UHBI R211 SOVIK B331 NINON B149 SIMLI (2100-1400 UTC)


Use 3 or 4 to stay under 87N for FS purposees

---

 

It says 87N but not if this was for FS9 or FSX...I haven't used FS9 since 2008 so I can't be sure what you could do with it anymore.

 

 

It's not a theory, it's a fact. Overfying changes the heading from 0o to 180o and the longtitude by 180o instantly.

 

Gerry, I'm not flying directly over the north pole. I'm flying to within a few degrees of it. How my planned flight turns out remains to be seen.

 

James. What airports are those plans for? Or are they suitable for many flights?