G550flyer

I definitely hear ya. I've just gotten so accustomed to it being a tool. It's always in standby unless I'm departing into storms or picking through them. The fun is in building the big picture with the RADAR, looking at the winds and judging how many miles left or right to you need request to steer clear. I do long for the day when storms are actually dangerous and you have the ability to request ATC for deviations. That will be so cool. Especially at night or in the clouds when you can't see the cells and really have to rely on your RADAR skills to stay clear.

Well, the weather RADAR is nice I guess🤔. But until there is weather within the sim that forces me to rely on the RADAR as I do in real life, I'm not sure how necessary it is right now.

Reminds me of flexing in the Gulfstream. Before you flex, you better make sure you are still making the min climb gradients and not exceeding runway available lol. Run your scenario again and see what it does at full rated takeoff thrust. Take notes on lift off point and climb rate after lift off. This is interesting.

This, when flying per the procedures, leads me to believe that there may be some issues in performance calculations for flaps 3. As I mentioned in an earlier post, aircraft performance will follow a curve in regard to flap settings. Another part of the curve that I didn't mention is the accel go portion of certification requirements. There is part for accel stop too😝. For example, FAA certified aircraft will be at 35FT at the end of the accel go distance. All depends on the certification requirements. What this means is that regardless of the flap setting used, the aircraft has to meet no less than that requirement ENGINE OUT. Now in a sense, for the same weight, flaps 3 should easily meet that requirement because more flaps get you off the ground quicker/easier. But regardless, if a higher weight is calculated for flaps 3, it still has to be no less than certified height by the end of it's respective accel go/balanced field length engine out. Based on my experience, if I am rotating in the last 500FT and I am not engine out, something is wrong. You do have the responsibility of ensuring you are not runway limited for a specific weight, but I'm unsure of what the EFB is doing in the back ground. At least in the real world, you are comparing runway limiting weight wet/dry and climb requirement weight to calculate the optimum/max weight. If your actual weight is less than those, you can flex to a point. These days, computers will spit that out in seconds once the conditions are entered.

I'm not sure about the EFB calculations, but from a real world aircraft performance stand point, I will say this. Aircraft takeoff performance and configurations follow a curve so to speak. There are two items that will impact this. Runway available and required climb gradients. These two items may drive where you will fall in that curve. Some manufacturers allow you to take full advantage of the curve and some allow you to take certain sections of the curve. For example, the DC10 and G550 that I have experience with. The DC10 took full advantage of the curve allowing 200 flap configurations from 5 to 25. The compromise between runway available/conditions and climb gradients will lead to the optimum flap setting/max weight for that takeoff. In the G550, you only have 10 and 20 for takeoff. You get two stabs at the curve, but that jet can takeoff at max weight on 5000FT of dry runway, so do you need the full optimized solution? no. 10 for high climb requirements and 20 for short runways. On the typical curve, the front end usually gives you good climb performance because of less flap drag, but may limit weight capability. The middle of the curve will give you a good compromise of climb and weight capability if it's possible. The aft end of the curve will get you off the runway quicker with all of the flaps, but again, may limit your weight and hurt your climb because of the drag. Now, in regard to the Airbus, flaps 1, 2 and 3 fall on the curve and will be based on conditions in an optimized solution. What I'm saying is that flaps 3 should not "kill" you or cause issues because it's on the performance curve. With flaps 3, the calculated Vr, Vmu and V2 should work. Yes, you will have more drag and less climb capability than 1 or 2 for a given weight and power setting. But, the aircraft won't fall out of the sky and get into stick shaker because of flap 3. Flaps 1, 2 and 3 should all have the same percentage of Vstall, which creates the curve.

Yes. Every jet I flew didn't really have issues with it. In the DC10, the engines are below the wing, but you had a lot of engine clearance. I never flown airbus FBW aircraft, so it can be quirky. I once had this guy in the C-141B try the old rudder kick during some strong crosswind touch and goes. He said, hey, I'm going to use the ole decrab on this one. I don't know what he did on the controls, as I wasn't following him on the controls like you would a student. When he touched down, he still had a little crab in and the aircraft whipped sharply left and my Davy Clark's ended up twisted right and off my ears. I remember whispering into the hot mic "somethings off". He stated, enough of that and went back to the wing low method🤣. The 141 was a 4 engine heavy, but flew just like a Cessna with that nose down attitude on approach.

I wouldn't worry about those rates unless you are consistently exceeding touch down limits for the aircraft😋.

In general as others have said, you don't normally need it inflight. As you turn, roll spoilers and yaw damp systems kick in. For approach and landing, there has always been two methods used(rudder kick and wing low). Main point is to have the nose pointed and aligned down the runway at touch down. I personally feel that peeps will use the method that suits them. Take me for example, I like to warm my hands up and have my crosswind controls locked in by 300 feet AGL. I prefer not to try to figure out my flare and crosswind controls all at the same moment. There are some limitations with the wing low and they are engine pods. Take an aircraft like the KC-135R. The aircraft has been modified with bigger engines and now they are close to the ground. This will decrease your bank limit at touch down. In a strong crosswind, it may be better to rudder kick in the flare. In all, land as you wish. I remember when I was flying KC-10s, you would come a cross a person every blue moon who uses the rudder kick method. 10 times out of 10, they would be a former KC-135R pilot.

Nice!

Anyone using it yet? 😁

Very nice!!!

Perfect, I thought it was the case since I see that you are active in the beta forums😁

Yes, seems you have set properly, but don't forget to set the MSFS UI traffic setting to off. When you load to an airport, it and the skies should be empty if you have turned it all off. Ground aircraft and traffic all off. FSHUD should only have external selected. Now, when you load FSLTL while FSHUD is already running, you should only get FSLTL models. Also, make sure you configure these items when FSLTL asks if you want to configure by answering Y. By the way, FSHUD is still not perfect at the moment, but they are working through some issues. If you configure as discussed, those issues should be minimized, but will still happen based on the traffic load you have. I don't see that issue often, just make sure only external is selected and MSFS traffic is off so that the built ATC is not running traffic on you. Disable blank liveries ('Yes' / 'No') (current Yes): Disable generic models ('Yes' / 'No') (current Yes): Prioritise Just Flight FS Traffic models ('Yes' / 'No') (current No): Then, you should only see FSLTL models.

I think you are miss understanding, at least from my perspective. When properly configured, FSHUD controls everything. This is why FSHUD gives you a major performance hit when there is a lot of traffic because it is calculating and control each injected traffic. The ideal configuration for full control is to turn traffic off in MSFS settings. This keeps the sim from putting in any uncontrolled traffic. You then set FSHUD to utilize external injectors. Through the API, FSHUD will control/manage what's being injected. It's not looking at a database and injecting the traffic, it is controlling what the external injector is doing. This is why FSLTL will wait for FSHUD to load a flight and hand off it's injections to it. FSHUD has performance hitting settings in it, but FSLTL gives more fidelity on what, when and where other items can be loaded such as populating airports or airspace on a non interference bases. This configuration gives FSHUD the ability to stop traffic taxiing in your way or vice versa by stopping you. If there is a unsolvable conflict, FSHUD deletes the traffic. It also minimizes go arounds because it's managing the traffic. It's actually the big advantage FSHUD has over others until beyond ATC comes online looking to control traffic as well. In simple thoughts, when configured properly, injectors create traffic and hand them off to FSHUD for management through API.

So, FSLTL is an injector itself with built in models. It will place traffic where it should be at your departure, arrival and enroute. It also has configurable settings. Even if you ran FSLTL without FSHUD, it will place the traffic. FSHUD is an ATC program. It will give you it's own ATC for your flights and will control AI aircraft regardless from where they are injected. FSHUD can be configured to use MSFS's models/traffic or an external program such as FSLTL. The best way to run the two is to set FSHUD to user external(FSLTL), turn the MSFS internal live traffic and models off and configure FSLTL to a setting that your computer can handle. There is a good video on the FSLTL site for configuring FSLTL with best traffic and minimal impact. You will now have to start FSHUD first and then FSLTL. FSLTL will see FSHUD and interrogate the settings/loaded flight and load in the traffic. I use them both myself and it works perfectly. But yes, you will have to run them both.

From a software development and agile delivery standpoint, early access is the same as agile. You are delivering small chunks of features to deliver instant value to the customer along a schedule. This brings a major advantage. Even with a QA team, they are only testing in regard to acceptance criteria. They are testing functionality as designed. When you early access in a agile flow, costumers use the product based on the use cases they have. This is where the valuable feedback and advantage comes from. One, you deliver value instantly, two, you get the feedback that will actually shape your product through out development. In the end, you deliver what the customer wants based on their needs. Plus, you do the work in small manageable chunks, thus making delivery attainable within a schedule. After all, that's the basis on agile versus waterfall delivery in a finished product at the end. Waterfall is change adverse. Agile puts the voice of the customer at the center of development and leverage on delivering exactly what the customer needs. In fact, all of us are receiving our products in an agile flow and don't even realize it😝.

Keep that scan going! Approach pitch is good too! If you know the rate should be 700 FPM and 3 degrees pitch on a 3 degree slope at approach speed, a glance at approach pitch will tell you give you a clue. If it's high on the path, you are slow. If it's low on the path, you are fast. Center on the ADI and then star out to speed, VVI, etc. Just remember to fix one thing at a time😝. I have found that flaring between 20 and 30 feet in the PMDG and FENIX has given me good consistent landings.

This is a great example approach of what I was saying about making unusual approaches normal if possible. In your approach, they list the obstacles and the mandatory altitudes. As long as you meet those and stay clear of obstacles, you have some space to work with. Note that the max airspeed during the turn and final is 180KTS minimizing flight time and spill out. You should have a limiting speed in mind even when they are not listed. Some aircraft have you circle/maneuver with maneuvering flaps, which could kick you into the next category, which may impact your circling mins and obstruction criteria. Other aircraft have you circle/maneuver at landing flaps. This is why it's important to know the obstruction criteria and the governance. If you are on a offset approach or using an instrument approach to get visual for another runway, you don't want to break off too late or too early. You want to get inside the obstruction criteria and then break off and depart MDA once you can make the approach normal. Depending on the criteria, you may want to over fly the field before commencing the circle. Another important thing you mentioned is judging the descent rate. Approaches will usually have a ground speed and descent table on them. You can also find the table in the FLIP or use equations to figure out the descent for the runway's glide path angle. This is an item we mention during the approach brief. Normally you will SMOE your approach speed to make it TAS and then add tail wind or subtract headwind to get the ground speed. Once you have the ground speed and path angle, you can calculate a target descent rate. On your approach, if you had a ground speed of 140, your target would be 743 FPM for a 3 degree path. The PAPI has a 5 degree offset and gets you 3.2NM of obstacle clearance. Even if you can't see the PAPI initially, you can calculate a descent point and a target rate and you will be close. At that point, it's a normal landing. Another thing that I learned flying jets in the VFR pattern, coming off downwind at pattern altitude when the runway is 45 degrees off your shoulder, 500 to 600 FPM works great at capturing the PAPI on a 3 degree slope. Half way round, half way down. If you are higher than your target sink rate, you either started down late or may be a bit aggressive. with 600 to 800 FPM, you should be able to apply your text book flare procedure for your aircraft without issue.

For the scare bus, you have to ensure the flight plan sequenced, hit TOGA and push in the heading button to engage the NAV mode to follow the armed (GA TRK) missed approach track. Probably not automatic because you may have missed approach instructions other than the full procedure. Such as ATC giving you specific instructions for the miss.

That would totally be my fear. I always wondered about the different power settings turbos have. Pistons scare me even more as you could be doing damage and not realizing it. I looked up SETP and that's a sweet ride for sure. Yes! More cool planes and dangerous weather!

The DC10, GIII, GV and G550 become real pitch sensitive when we swap from indicated airspeed mode to MACH mode of the IAS/FLCH. Most jets will swap to MACH speeds around 28500 to 29500(MACH change over). One day I sat and watched how bad it would get and the DC10 got pretty bad. It usually starts with the jet getting .01 to .02 slow. It then lowers the nose a little and the MACH starts to increase. Suddenly the jet says oh, my bad and then raises the nose a bit higher. It then gets about .1 slow and dumps the nose again. As you know, once you get slow and on that backside of the curve, takes for ever to catch up in the climb. I don't know much about turbo props besides looking at C130s low in the 20s beneath me while crossing the pond lol. I was teaching a GIII initial class back in the day and a C-130 guy was like, hey, what's MACH change over. I was so confused and then another said, we don't fly that high lol. It totally made sense when I had a helicopter guy ask, what's transition altitude in a separate class😁.

You would definitely have to check your approaches for details and be mindful of minimum altitudes and obstruction criteria/governance. Normally, once you depart MDA, it's up to you to proceed visually. That airport has the approaches that spell out some issues. For the NDB ILS DME 9, it warns of descending below 1290 before D2. NDB LOC DME 9 warns that the final approach segment crosses high obstacles, do not descend below minimum altitude. A lot of this will depend on what type of approach you are flying as well. If you are flying a precision approach, it's great to follow it all the way down to your DH through your transition point. This ensures you are not going to drag anything. The GS receiver is usually in the nose. When I flew long bodied heavies, the threshold crossing height meant that my nose crossed the threshold at 52 feet, imagine the gear's crossing height lol. This is why we aimed 1500 feet down. So if flying an ILS, you want to be no lower than the DH at that point. Note that these approaches have CDFA calling for a constant descent for the non precision approaches, but we are not diving and driving here either. One thing to mention again is the obstruction criteria governance. I'm FAA based though I operate internationally. I definitely have to consider the governance where I'm operating. So FAA wise, I know my protected area, clear ways and what the protection visual guidance provides. For you sim'n fun, by all means, make your slight adjustments to get accustomed to that airport and then start to adjust to staying 5.5 all the way down once you have that puppy locked😁. But, at any rate, you shouldn't be getting the GS warning even with your slight adjustment lol. Just remember to slow and configure early. 😁. Try using one of those EJETS out there that has those steep approach modes. Also, give KASE a shot in a CRJ. I see them there a lot.

😁We were talking about unrealistically flying aircraft into EGLC that are NOT certified for the 5.5 degree approach. I also posted early on that you can deal with steep and unusual approaches by making them normal at some point if possible. I then gave a quick example of doing that in a unrealistic situation. I flew the 5.5 slope down to the minimums, adjusted slightly and then picked up a 3 degree very short final to describe an example. Of course you wouldn't do this real world if you must maintain that slope visually. For example, the LDA X Rwy 8 at PAJN. It's a 3.69 visual angle, but you can adjust your aimpoint to make it more normal once clear of the hill. But, it does say you have to maintain the 3.69 visual angle at night until the threshold. Another good one is KASE to 15. It is a 6.59 slope down to MDA and there are minimum points along that path until MDA. Once visual, you can adjust to make it more normal. This means getting lower after MDA once visual. There is also a visual approach where you can come over low terrain and maneuver to become normal if you have the weather. I'm most familiar with those one because I've flown three types of Gulfstreams into KASE without issue. The instrument approaches do state not authorized at night because you have to be visual. At the end of the day, landing is a visual maneuver lol😁

That's awesome! If my tips can help, I'm glad to share. In my approach at 133, the speed never got above 136 on that 5.5 slope.

Good times! Getting lost and caught in bad weather are two of the big ones lol.