iwebber

Massive fan of RFP in it's day, haven't used it for ages, indeed haven't used FS9 since P3Dv4 and haven't used that since about 2 years ago... However, I'm a digital hoarder... https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gvrp8w3q7e2b5is0gmom2/RFP.7z?rlkey=88lo36pyyi5fbadykxd5og021&st=grdm5w0u&dl=0 Hope this helps, Ian

Try AI Aircraft Editor, along with Model Converter (MCX) you should be able to check your AI aircraft installs. https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/ai-aircraft-editor-version-4-2-1-released.458324/ https://www.scenerydesign.org/modelconverterx/ HTH Ian

What everyone else said is right and also, from memory (it's been 10 years since I flew the A32X) the autothrottle didn't always do what you expected. I recall being on final and the autothrottle happily letting the speed drop a few knots low, then at about 100ft suddenly realising and stuffing on a fistful of power. As the thrust levers don't move, unless you were looking at the ECAM at the time you wouldn't really notice until the power came on. Let's just say that it could 'destabilise' the approach. It didn't always do it but when it did it caused a bit of sphincter exercise, especially if it was a challenging landing already.

Plan fuel - not required - used for planning purposes before you've been refueled (I think) Crz alt - Put your cruise alt in here, tells VNAV what the cruise alt is for the inflight performance calcs. Crz wind - not required - used to optimise the arrival time and fuel calcs. Most plans will have an average wind or, failing that, a top of climb wind. Top of Climb OAT - not required - as above, usually on the plan Only the cruise alt is required and as to where to find this info, it very much depends on what format the simbrief file (brief?) is. Hope this helps,

Do you mean this one? https://library.avsim.net/search/basic/root/Weather Radar VC %26 pop-up Gauge V 1.0

As Rick said, in the US it's very strictly mandated that you shouldn't fly over 250kts below 10000ft (unless aircraft performance requires you to) but in the rest of the world they're less rigid about it. It makes the ATCer's life easier to have everyone at similar speeds (for spacing and turn radius etc) so the rule's on the books and they expect it (and we usually fly it) but if it's not too busy (or sometimes if you're getting in the way they will ask you) you can request high speed and they'll happily grant it. Some aircraft (757?) have a windshield protection speed which is roughly 250 below 10 so they would probably respect it worldwide. The big gotcha that often gets non US operaters (in the US) is when the ATCer says "no speed restriction" as most (non US) people believe this means "no speed restriction". In the States the ATCer doesn't have the authority to cancel the 250 below 10 speed restriction so what they mean is "you don't have to comply with any of the SID/STAR/previous ATC speed restrictions but you do have to obey the 250 below 10 speed restriction". And equally, when a US operator (not in the US) is told to "maintain high speed" the ATCer is expecting them to "maintain high speed" and not "maintain high speed until 10000ft and then slow down". It's all part of the rich tapestry of international travel.

Check that the voltage required for XMP is being correctly set by the BIOS. I had a board that said it was delivering 1.35v but the hardware monitor in the BIOS showed it as 1.32v. It gave me the kind of problems you're experiencing. When I bumped it up a bit (I think I typed in 1.38v which showed about 1.35v) everything worked as it should. I've never come across an XMP profile that didn't work. Failing that, test each stick individually, could be one of them is faulty. Good luck, Ian

Ah, the memories... G-BKVB, a 110ST, was the first I ever took the controls of... My only recollection of it was reversing over Kent on a particularly windy day... Better at slow speeds than fast, the Ralleye...

Centre runway's closed at the moment... or at least it was last time I was there

I believe it's from the game "Halo"...

The track message shows the validity times of each track (https://www.notams.faa.gov/common/nat.html) It's usually 0100-0800z eastbound and 1130z-1900z westbound but whatever it says in the track message is correct. I don't really use simbrief so I don't know how to select an alternative. All of this is irrelevant though, if you reach 30W outside of the time window for your selected track, you'll get the error message you initially posted about.

Define 'correctly'. Do you reach 30W between the active track hours of 0100z to 0800z? If not, the track isn't valid anymore and you'll see that message. At the planning stage, the system won't know what time you'll reach 30W so it's impossible for it to know if it's valid or not. It's only when you actually generate the plan that it figures it out and then tells you.

So everything is working exactly as advertised. For the record, in Belgium you are GMT +2 so at 7:20 GMT it's 9:20 local. Your AI flightplan says departure at 7:20, this is in GMT, so when you see it push about 9:20 local it's spot on. Hope this helps, Ian

No, an engine failure in a twin is a land at nearest suitable, they would have dumped fuel and returned to LAX. And, No, according to the wiki article you quoted, "BA said they hadn't changed their procedures" so their flight continuation policy remains the same and even today a jumbo (or 380) would/could continue to destination on three engines (still 50% more than the 777 departed with). Flight safety has improved and so has our evaluation of it, if a 777/330 can fly across the Atlantic on 2 engines a jumbo can get across it perfectly safely on 3.

Errrrr, they diverted to Manchester... I suppose that's a bit like swimming but your feet don't get wet. You're proving their point though, engine failure at 300ft and still managed to fly over 4500 nm to get everyone to within 20 mins of their original destination, would have never even been reported if the winds weren't so bad over the Atlantic. Like to see you do that in a twin... I agree that doesn't necessarily mean they're safer but they have much more redundancy and can withstand more failures (particularly engine related) and continue safely than a twin. Ian