@Shug, fair enough but it was this comment that made me say that...”

I've quit my job in order to put more time into MFS usage. Some things are more important than work 🙂 “. That does seem rather extreme. 

Clearly your devoted to your project so I take my hat off to you. That is dedication. 👍

12 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I've quit my job in order to put more time into MFS usage. Some things are more important than work 🙂 “. That does seem rather extreme. 

 

I'm 61 now Ray, so official retirement was coming soon. I'd just had enough of work, really, and am now looking forward to indulging my hobbies and having a lot of fun with flight simulation. I've been retired for one month now and am loving it 😃

12 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

For the reasons I gave earlier I couldn’t face doing it with P3D v3. Too many compromises not least the lack of AIG Ai, compromised screen resolution and with so many legs over populated areas being limited to Mach 0.95.

I’d love to fly Concorde in a world tour but it would be a very different one to this with maybe only a third the number of legs. I have to hope we’ll have a 64-bit Concorde before I get much older.

See for me, Concorde was built and operated on compromise and I never have trouble going back into v3 to fly her, just like many of us would like to go back to 2003 to fly her for real. 

Does this mean you have hung up your supersonic wings for the time being?  No knowing how long before she's 64 bit so you might have to go through the conversion course again....

For some reason one click of the post button put my last one up twice...?

34 minutes ago, Shug said:

I'm 61 now Ray, so official retirement was coming soon. I'd just had enough of work, really, and am now looking forward to indulging my hobbies and having a lot of fun with flight simulation. I've been retired for one month now and am loving it 😃

Ah retirement. That makes sense. I retired back in 2013 and am loving all the time I can devote to this great hobby. I'm sure you'll love the extra time you now have.

7 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

For some reason one click of the post button put my last one up twice...?

I deleted it for you. 😉

10 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

See for me, Concorde was built and operated on compromise and I never have trouble going back into v3 to fly her, just like many of us would like to go back to 2003 to fly her for real. 

Does this mean you have hung up your supersonic wings for the time being?  No knowing how long before she's 64 bit so you might have to go through the conversion course again....

Don't worry I still love her. In fact now I have some free time I've been planning a LFPG-KJFK flight. I want to fly that 2000 route. Looking at my Concorde paper charts most of the waypoints in France and up to 15W have changed names. I'm having to enter lat/lon in PFPX to get a usable plan.

Departing T2, LFPG for a short taxi to 26R. I won't even try to load the same fuel used on that fateful flight. I'm not trying to replicate the events that caused the crash. Far from it. I want to fly those souls to their destination.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Don't worry I still love her. In fact now I have some free time I've been planning a LFPG-KJFK flight. I want to fly that 2000 route. Looking at my Concorde paper charts most of the waypoints in France and up to 15W have changed names. I'm having to enter lat/lon in PFPX to get a usable plan.

Departing T2, LFPG for a short taxi to 26R. I won't even try to load the same fuel used on that fateful flight. I'm not trying to replicate the events that caused the crash. Far from it. I want to fly those souls to their destination.

I think considering she flew from 26R many, many times nobody would have presumed you were doing any kind of recreation.  It would be distasteful at best and impossible anyway, unless there is a fancy addon that can remove the top layer of runway surface from the first hundred meters and have a lip at the change to normal surface, never mind the metal strip etc, etc, etc.

Come to think of it - Concorde X comes with French plans Ray.

In all the years I've had Concorde in my sim, I've never flown out of LFPG - can't think why.........

Edited June 21, 20205 yr by trumpetfrazz1

5 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

I think considering she flew from 26R many, many times nobody would have presumed you were doing any kind of recreation.  It would be distasteful at best and impossible anyway, unless there is a fancy addon that can remove the top layer of runway surface from the first hundred meters and have a lip at the change to normal surface, never mind the metal strip etc, etc, etc.

Come to think of it - Concorde X comes with French plans Ray.

In all the years I've had Concorde in my sim, I've never flown out of LFPG - can't think why.........

I never checked if FSL provided a plan but given I have the Concorde chart with routings I enjoyed creating the route. Loaded 95T and taxied from K95 (from memory) to 26R. With a  CG of 53.5 for takeoff the rotation has to be very gentle. Climb up to 280 was shallow due to the weight. Reheats on at the coast and all went well to 15W when I saved the flight.

That was a test run to check VAS. Even with T2G Paris and UT Live traffic I still had around 950Mb free at departure. You should try it sometime. I stuck to BA as all the voice announcements are in French with the AF liveries and my French is non existent. 😄

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I never checked if FSL provided a plan but given I have the Concorde chart with routings I enjoyed creating the route. Loaded 95T and taxied from K95 (from memory) to 26R. With a  CG of 53.5 for takeoff the rotation has to be very gentle. Climb up to 280 was shallow due to the weight. Reheats on at the coast and all went well to 15W when I saved the flight.

That was a test run to check VAS. Even with T2G Paris and UT Live traffic I still had around 950Mb free at departure. You should try it sometime. I stuck to BA as all the voice announcements are in French with the AF liveries and my French is non existent. 😄

You must have had a low zero fuel weight to be departing at 53.5% with 95T of fuel on board... Normally you would need a 54% departure with that much fuel.  The CG/weight has no bearing on rate of rotation, always to theta 2 in 5 seconds otherwise it messes up acceleration and hence noise abatement timings - unless you have an engine failure in which case you decrease rate of rotation to arrive at theta 2 on the V2 call.  The only thing that is different with the CG is on arrival at theta 2 with a CG of 53% (and trim set correctly at 2.5 dn before departure) you will be in trim and with a gentle forward nudge, she should sit on theta 2 in good conditions.  With CG 54% she won't be in trim and you will need to keep forward pressure to hold theta 2.  It isn't trimmed out until after the noise call usually. 

I don't have much interest in flying an AF route to be honest.  BA did charters to CDG occasionally but I've not even done that. 

ZFW is 89,500Kg with 94 pax. CPS-X calculates TO CG. I’m using BA rules. Maybe I should use AF.  In the sim I notice with a very rearward CG the nose comes up quicker than when it’s 53. Maybe my cheapo Saitek is not as accurate as the real yoke. Also, because of limited clarity in the VC it’s not that easy to read the Attitude Indicator.

11 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

ZFW is 89,500Kg with 94 pax. CPS-X calculates TO CG. I’m using BA rules. Maybe I should use AF.  In the sim I notice with a very rearward CG the nose comes up quicker than when it’s 53. Maybe my cheapo Saitek is not as accurate as the real yoke. Also, because of limited clarity in the VC it’s not that easy to read the Attitude Indicator.

With that ZFCG and (as an example) a ZFCG of 52.5 any fuel at load at or above 93.4T requires 54% takeoff.  You would need a ZFCG of 51% before you could do a 53.5% takeoff with those weights and that isn't possible.  

If the nose does come up quicker, don't let it!  Takeoff dynamics aren't accurate in the sim as the autostab should give you help when it comes to fixed rates. 

ZFWCG was 52.11. I moved baggage from front to rear to get it as close to the forward limit as possible. Does that change your calculation? Pierre was a Concorde expert so we have two experts providing conflicting info.

I'll say again, why don't you install CPS-X and see how it differs from your calculations / source data? I'm just doing what the program advises.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

ZFWCG was 52.11. I moved baggage from front to rear to get it as close to the forward limit as possible. Does that change your calculation? Pierre was a Concorde expert so we have two experts providing conflicting info.

I'll say again, why don't you install CPS-X and see how it differs from your calculations / source data? I'm just doing what the program advises.

and I'll say again that all my information comes directly from the BA manuals, in this case the Load & Balance manual, I can't account for how Pierre calculates the data.  Experts are people who were trained to operate the aircraft professionally which I definitely wasn't and therefore am not, and I believe this applies to Pierre too. 

Maximum fuel at that ZFW and ZFCG for a 53.5% takeoff is 92.5T so any fuel load above this requires 54%.   There is a very clear table in the manual that sets this out along with the range in which ballast fuel is required. 

I don't install it because I don't need it, and the last part of your sentence shows why everything in aviation must be cross-checked manually... 

Frazz, we’ve been here before so I see no need to repeat the discussion. I’m happy with what CPS-X provides. Unlike you I don’t have access to BA manuals.