Jump to content

G550flyer

Members
  • Content Count

    784
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

337 Excellent

2 Followers

About G550flyer

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    IVAO
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This topic is a great topic and highlights the perspective involved when dealing with departures. It's a combination of analyzing the departure and knowing the capabilities of your aircraft. Departures in general can be flown in different ways depending on what restrictions they bring. Once you have identified those restrictions and analyzed the departure, you can now bounce that against the capabilities of your aircraft. Once you have those connected, you can decide how you want to fly that specific departure. For example, I would find myself in this type of situation when I flew heavies. There would be departures that would have tight turns along with a speed restriction like you have described. I would look at the departure and think. At 5 miles from the departure end, I have a tight left turn at 165 knots, turning me away from cumulus granite. My standard heavy departure profile is straight ahead, accel at 1500ft, clean up on schedule and accel to 250 knots or minimum maneuver, which ever is greater. I then connect the two to decide how I would fly it. Depending on the restriction, I would normally fly this in LNAV with the FMS, makes life easier. The lateral is taking care of. Now I have to think of the speed. My FMS can drive my autothrottles, but I have a conflict with my standard departure profile and the speed. With 165 in mind, I need to look at my departure speeds first. My speed of concern is flap retract speed. If VFR is 162 knots, I will fly VFR for the departure and keep the flaps at the takeoff position until I am past the restriction of 165K and proceed with accel and clean up. Maybe that speed is above 165 because I'm heavy. If so, I can do a performance analysis to see if I can takeoff with more flaps and still meet requirements, such as climb gradients. If not, I notify the ATC that I can't accept that departure. If at VFR my turn radius is tight and keeps me from spilling out instead of cleaning up and being limited to 15 degrees bank while below min man for configuration. At VFR with flaps at takeoff, I have bank protection. In that case, I will set a manual speed of VFR for the auto throttles at 1500ft/accel height and leave it in FMS. Long way to your answer, but wanted to give you insight into what will drives your decision on how you will fly it. In your case, you have to decide if you can fly that departure at 165K clean. Probably not. In most cases, some aircraft, like the airbus will not allow you to fly below min safe speed clean. You might have to fly it at VFR and manually dial it in and set it after you are safely at accel height. Once past the turn, clean up and bug up.
  2. I am one of those guys with a good system that experienced the crashes in 5.1. I tried it for a year and did all kinds of things to kill the random crashes. I would go two or three flights and boom, crash. Always right when starting vectors or on the approach. After the last crash, I made my mind up and re-installed 4.5. It's solid and no performance issues at all. I do run MSFS as well without any issues.
  3. The actual TDZE for that runway is -128, so sounds like bug or limitation.
  4. I'm not sure of what you are flying, but in general, higher is better for fuel efficiency. That fact is also balanced by the distance in your flight plan. Time/distance to climb and descend will also be a factor in how high you will cruise.
  5. As others have said, I use 3x or 4x the altitude to lose to figure out distance required. 4x is for slippery jets like the ones I fly and easily accounts for the time needed to shallow to cross 10,000 at 250. That technique in most jets will get you between 2000 to 3000 FPM at idle, higher at higher altitude and lower at lower altitudes. The other technique to go along with that is your MACH number. If traveling at .80, that wag is 8 miles a minute. So if it's going to take 80 miles to lose that altitude, you are looking at 10 minutes to do it. Once you have the time, you can figure out what descent rate is needed to do it. If you have 10,000 to lose in 10 minutes, 1000 FPM. Of course, keep in mind that the current altitude will be a factor in what the jet will give you clean. This is also helpful with crossing restrictions. If ATC says, descend and maintain 9,000, cross 30 miles South of CVN at 13,000, you can quickly figure it out without touching the box. If your calculated required descent rate will exceed what you know your jet can give clean or with the brakes out, you can inform early on that you can't make that restriction. Now, you can easily touch the box and run a what if scenario if your box has that. Or, you can alter descent angles and descend now/direct to altitude and see what it says also. I'm just old school 🤣.
  6. I wasn't making fun of you lol, I would never do that. Just wanted to throw in the shock wave. Now, another cool thing is to see the shockwave on the wing. In the Gulfstream, when the weather and sunlight is just right, you can see the shockwave dancing on the wing. Reminds me of a translucent flickering flame. Rick
  7. VR can be pricey and takes a good computer to run it, but you can't beat the immersion. When I first started, I would laugh a lot because it felt like I was in the jet. The visual cues were all there. I would find myself subconsciously doing things that I do when flying. Now, there are a couple of drawbacks. One, most sims are not effectively tuned to VR yet, but are getting there. AFS2 is as smooth as butter in VR. Two, in sims where there is a lot of action, such as DCS, you may feel some sickness on your first couple of flights. For example, when flying the F14 in DCS, I like to go into the vertical on the head to head pass sometimes depending on the aircraft I am fighting. It allows me to take advantage of the power to weight ratio and coil up like a snake before striking. As I pass, I look over my shoulder and keep my eyes on them as I pull up. As I go inverted, I am keeping the back of my aircraft to the target while gravity assists the tight turn. This will make you disoriented and feel sickly the first couple of times. The other is when you are doing scissors to force someone to blow past you. You are constantly doing hard pulls left and right while constantly swapping left and right over your shoulders to keep them in sight. Heck, doing that in the real aircraft will make you feel that way, especially when you are not the one doing the flying. After a few flights, you are good. Normal airliner flying never makes you feel sick unless you have low frame rates. Other than that, the visual cues and graphics are much better than what you see at recurrents in level D sims. You can't beat it when landing and can actually crane your head around when in the pattern. Rick
  8. Honestly, It's really hard to judge what a country's military may do without knowing their war doctrine and tactics. To this day,some information and tactics used during past wars are classified. Though innovation and technology are key to successful engagements, information and tactics are equally key. Information during a war is just as critical as the tactics utilized. The one with key information takes the advantage always. I say key information because there will also be a disinformation campaign going on as well. From a big picture view down to a BVR fight, the one who sees the enemy first takes the advantage. Once you have critical information, your technology, tactics and doctrine become the major factors. Also, one of the benefits of fighting wars is lessons learned and innovation. These in turn drive technology, doctrine and tactics. It's a continuous cycle. Look back at the MiG 15 and 17s. They were kicking tail and the 15 had superior performance to the 86. Once some information was gained on those jets, success was gained against them. I even recall a defection that delivered a MiG to the US. After flying and studying it, tactics changed immediately. Even the MiG 21 led to development and upgrades on the iron sled F4 and tactics. We can look further back in the Pacific region during the war when the zeros were deadly(I think it was the zeros). They were lightly built which made them super performers. But, on the other hand, they were structurally weaker and could not endure a lot of stress and could break up with a lot of loading. They didn't fair too well with ammunition and would easily flame up with a couple of incendiary rounds. Someone mentioned the F14. It's AWG 9 RADAR is still classified. It could carry a large payload, track and target multiple aircraft and had the ability to accept external RADAR sources which could be used to track and target aircraft. That technology along with a two man crew can make you deadly. One guy targets and shoots weapons while the other flies, both working together increasing SA and brain power. Now, in today's world, information happens quickly in real time. The days of having scouts identify targets for someone to go after hours or days later are over. We are more into information warfare that transcends air, ground and sea elements. You can imagine that when any conflict occur now days, someone is watching and collecting data. Even during peace time, someone is watching and collecting data. You can imagine that if the world can detect underground nuclear detonation tests, the world can detect everything else. It's not the stealthy innovation of an aircraft that makes it deadly, it's the information it has and it's tactics employed. A good documentary to watch is one about the F22 development. 2 F22s were put against 8 F15s. All of the F15s were taken out and they never seen the 22s. Again, this goes back to the information it has. I remember when I was flying C141Bs, we lost a jet and crew off the coast of Africa. They ended up converging onto the same place in the big sky with a German aircraft. The collision was captured on satellite. That was back in 1997, imagine capabilities gained since then. On today's battle ground, it's all information based. There's misinformation where you intentionally mislead, there's information gathering where you collect data and there's information protection where you protect your own information. Back in the day, weapons systems, doctrine and tactics were developed using perceived emerging threats. Now days they are developed base on known threats and capabilities. There is no more dog fighting and fighter jets are obsolete. Aircraft today are multi role systems and spend more time doing close air support and interdiction. When was the last air war? Even for the US, the last air kill was a F18 taking out a SU22 in 2017. Before that, a F16 took out a MiG 29 in 1999. The warfare we are seeing today is cyber and asymmetrical based. Back in the day, air superiority delivered the battlefield to you. Now days, standoff aircraft and ships hit key targets to allow CAS and interdiction. The forces that keep up with the ever changing world and evolves their technology, doctrine and tactics stay relevant. Forces that maintain old mindsets tend to lose advantage over time. You can have all the money and technology in the world, but you still need information to be effective. Rick
  9. The fact that VR works so well with it Is money!!
  10. I'm American and that name means something else. I have never heard it associated with hotdogs or any other food. Strange one.
  11. Greetings Ray, I never really thought about it. Back in my military days, when I flew C-141Bs, they called it the tube. Many also referred to it as the "tube of pain" because it wore you out on long flights or during low levels. I assumed it came from mechanics since it carries pressurized air. Rick
  12. I admit that MSFS leaves a lot to be desired in regard to functional airliners. But the scenery and weather can't compare. I have some nice airliners in P3D, but I get those random device hung when flying in heavy weather. I have made adjustments and have a decent system with a 1080 TI. Still, P3D 5+ will hang if you look at a button wrong in the weather. Very frustrating after doing a leg and it hangs once the vectors for approach start. MSFS is growing and getting there, and it looks darn good while doing it. Ray, I literally have the same system as you. Makes me wonder if I should can P3D 5 and roll back to 4.5. Never had issues with it, I should have stayed with it. Rick
  13. Greetings, I have their 747 and actually did some flight testing with it. As far as aircraft performance goes, it's solid. One of the configurations I tested was about 6 knots off on stall, but what's a few knots between friends. Power settings and time/distance to climb to a selected altitude was spot on. I was impressed. If you are looking for the feel and flying by the numbers, it works. I didn't have any complaints with it. Rick
×
×
  • Create New...