Landing Fenix versus PMDG 737

[crimplene 634]

Actually the Fenix is the first aircraft, maybe except Spitfire and Corsair, that is a bit difficult to land for me. I had some problems with crosswind landings because my rudder input before touchdown was bad. After practicing with Fsipanel everything is fine. It never floats. Airbuses never float in my (purely virtual) experience. I am not sure I follow any rules, when I land. I just pull a bit at maybe 30 or so feet, I retard throttle between 20 and 10 feet and when the main wheels are on the ground I push the nose wheel down not too carefully. Can't say if this is how it is done in real life, but it works.

[bobterri 13]

On 2/11/2023 at 12:17 AM, MDFlier said:

For my stick (Thrustmaster T1600M), -26 for ailerons,  elevator,  and rudder. 

Thanks, MDFlier!  I'll give these settings a go!  I have been flying and landing various payware tubeliners since 2010 in FS9, FSX, P3D and MSFS.  I have consistently been in the 50 to 190 fps range in landing.  Not the Fenix A320.  It's frustrating, and I even bought FSIpanel to practice landing, but still struggle to get my landings below 200 fps. 

[Fiorentoni 4,248]

11 minutes ago, bobterri said:

Thanks, MDFlier!  I'll give these settings a go!  I have been flying and landing various payware tubeliners since 2010 in FS9, FSX, P3D and MSFS.  I have consistently been in the 50 to 190 fps range in landing.  Not the Fenix A320.  It's frustrating, and I even bought FSIpanel to practice landing, but still struggle to get my landings below 200 fps. 

Keep practising. One very important thing is to have a rate of descent prior to flaring that is 600-700 FPM max. This will give you a nice and smooth and very slight flare.
So don't dive down last minute to hit the markers, because from 800 FPM or above n chances are you'll be either floating after pulling the stick like a madman or coming down with 400 FPM after not pulling the stick like a madman.

[MDFlier 2,031]

14 minutes ago, bobterri said:

Thanks, MDFlier!  I'll give these settings a go!  I have been flying and landing various payware tubeliners since 2010 in FS9, FSX, P3D and MSFS.  I have consistently been in the 50 to 190 fps range in landing.  Not the Fenix A320.  It's frustrating, and I even bought FSIpanel to practice landing, but still struggle to get my landings below 200 fps. 

Keep practicing. It's doable. I've been on a roll in the 737, 738, and Fenix. Can hardly hear the tires touching on my last half dozen or so landings in each. After the 4th great one in a row, I actually checked the assistance options and realism settings to make sure I didn't activate something that made them easier. 🙂 

[NismoRR 191]

Just landed the 739 with a -46 landing rate (APLv2) in KATL after a 4.5 hour flight from SFO, gently slowed onto runway turnoff passed the runway lines and stopped. Was glorious and the reason why I (we?) do this. Taxied in, shut down and thought what a great flight that was. The 737 is just a pure joy to fly. 

[Christopher Low 5,354]

Flawless touchdowns on 3500 metre runways are one thing. Doing it regularly on runways of 1200 metres is another. The shorter the runway, the less margin for error, and the greater the anxiety when on final approach! I am currently doing practice landings at EGWC RAF Cosford (the site of the UK Flightsim Show) in my PMDG 737-600 in P3Dv4 (no passengers; two thirds fuel load).....during early morning twilight......to a runway that is only 1127 metres long, and has no lighting or approach path indicators. The final approach speed is 127 knots, and I limit myself to thrust reverse only until I get down to 75-80 knots, and then full braking after that. This requires an approach more like the one at Skiathos (in other words, skimming the fence and landing short of the normal touchdown zone)

Edited February 13, 2023 by Christopher Low

[crimplene 634]

4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

thrust reverse only

Interesting. I make it even more challenging by landing the A320 on grass strips only and braking with a little drogue parachute I am holding by hand out of the window. Very satisfying!

Edited February 13, 2023 by crimplene

[Bobsk8 12,745]

16 hours ago, bobterri said:

Thanks, MDFlier!  I'll give these settings a go!  I have been flying and landing various payware tubeliners since 2010 in FS9, FSX, P3D and MSFS.  I have consistently been in the 50 to 190 fps range in landing.  Not the Fenix A320.  It's frustrating, and I even bought FSIpanel to practice landing, but still struggle to get my landings below 200 fps. 

Same here, Just for comparison, yesterday I made three landings in the 737, 120FPM, 135 FPM, and 2 FPM . Never even came close to this is the Fenix, usually 230-350 fpm. 

[Michael Moe 495]

Anyone who had a almost sideway experience after touchdown in the Fenix? It just went really bad and brakes were almost none existing. No major wind to my knowledge but could be something with MSFS weather as i recall the TurboArrow did the same. Or brakes issue maybe?

Thanks Michael Moe

[MDFlier 2,031]

14 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

Anyone who had a almost sideway experience after touchdown in the Fenix? It just went really bad and brakes were almost none existing. No major wind to my knowledge but could be something with MSFS weather as i recall the TurboArrow did the same. Or brakes issue maybe?

Thanks Michael Moe

For me, that behavior was corrected with the 1.0.6.146 release. It's been fine on landings ever since.

I ended up off the side of many a runway prior. Very frustrating.

Edited February 13, 2023 by MDFlier

[F737MAX 5,614]

54 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

Anyone who had a almost sideway experience after touchdown in the Fenix? It just went really bad and brakes were almost none existing. No major wind to my knowledge but could be something with MSFS weather as i recall the TurboArrow did the same. Or brakes issue maybe?

Not any more. There was a change last September and SU10 was also released. Lots of complaints followed, then a flurry of updates to make the aircraft behave.
Make sure you are updated to v1.0.6.146.

[lancealotg 95]

The most important part of a landing is where in the touchdown zone you land followed by the landing rate.

What I read somewhere is that a "perfect" landing should be 1250 feet from the threshold at a 250 fpm touchdown rate.

A three degree glide scope intersects the runway at 1000 ft from the threshold.

Accounting for the flare, 1250 is the holy grail with the flare reducing your descent rate to 250 fpm.

 

Landing an airliner at 20 fpm is actually not something to be proud of, it means you floated to get the descent rate that low.

Anywhere near 1250 ft and 250 fpm, pat yourself on the back.

 

 

 

[RALF9636 1,970]

11 hours ago, lancealotg said:

The most important part of a landing is where in the touchdown zone you land followed by the landing rate.

What I read somewhere is that a "perfect" landing should be 1250 feet from the threshold at a 250 fpm touchdown rate.

A three degree glide scope intersects the runway at 1000 ft from the threshold.

Accounting for the flare, 1250 is the holy grail with the flare reducing your descent rate to 250 fpm.

 

Landing an airliner at 20 fpm is actually not something to be proud of, it means you floated to get the descent rate that low.

Anywhere near 1250 ft and 250 fpm, pat yourself on the back.

 

Wise words. But most simmers don't want hear them. I don't know where this obession for low landing FPM comes from.

I think no real world pilot cares for his landing FPM as long as the aircraft does not issue a hard landing message which necessitates a hard landing inspection. Flying a stabilized approach and hitting the touchdown zone is what makes a landing a good one.

And there are many reasons why you shouldn't be proud of a landing FPM below 50, eventually it can be dangerous.

 

By the way this is one thing I like about "A pilots life": They recently added a landing details report which includes a picture of your touchdown point so you can evaluate how good you hit the touchdown zone.

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by RALF9636

[BrammyH 447]

15 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

I don't know where this obession for low landing FPM comes from.

I wonder how much of it is VAs and the "any PIREP with a landing over (x) will be automatically rejected" plays in this.

[Bobsk8 12,745]

Just now, BrammyH said:

I wonder how much of it is VAs and the "any PIREP with a landing over (x) will be automatically rejected" plays in this.

MY VA rejects at around 600 FPM, which is doable with the Fenix, don't ask me how....😉 In real life, that aircraft would have to go for a maintenance  check.