On Feb 20, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Harry Campigli wrote:
> Two things cross my mind, whilst I know the designers strive to model the
> true aerodynamics in the fdm.
>
> 1- how many fly these sims on realistic hardware? Would many even go as far
> as a set of imitation yoke and pedals?
>
> 2- I have spent some time in F28s set up for airport navaid calibration
> surveys in the past, No pax and no bags or cargo, not a lot of fuel onboard,
> and I have to tell you that aeroplane could really go!, those pilots could
> and would throw that thing all over the sky. There was never any hint of that
> performance riding in an F28 on normal passenger service. I suspect most
> people would run FG airliners without full weight and slack tanks which
> vastly alters the power to weight ratio of the aircraft.
>
>
> Harry
>
>
This is very true. I've not explored the parameters of the 777 in FG, but if
you fly the MD-81 with no passengers, 1200 lbs of fuel and crew weight, it is
extremely different than flying with standard fuel load and passengers. Enough
so that you can land, and take off, from the Nimitz. This is not as
far-fetched as one may think.
A good friend of mine is a 757 and 767 driver. Most takeoffs are all reduced
power takeoffs, per airline spec's. He did a deadhead trip (empty) the other
day, and just because he could as the captain, he choose to do a max power
takeoff. He said you're doing 80 kts before you take a breath, and he was
pulling the nose up through 30 degrees before deciding to pull the power back,
as it just kept accelerating. The aircraft are built to the airline
specifications, but within FAA parameters.
The FAA specifies that at maximum gross weight the aircraft must be able to
climb out over a 50 ft obstacle one engine (after V1). This means if you lose
all other power and you've passed V1 (decision speed), you must be able to get
over that tree that FG scenery planted just beyond the threshold. So now add
back in the rest of the engines, dump the fuel and kick all the passengers off.
Like Harry said, a passenger will never see any hint of the true performance.
Airlines all have route planners, and provide a full flight chart to the pilots
for each flight. This provides them with the best case for time and fuel burn.
Accelerate at x power. Climb out rate, speed, and duration. Fuel burns to
climb, cruise and descend. Descent rate, speed, power setting. This is all
calculated on all factors - passenger load, fuel load, temperature, altitude,
wind, etc. This is how the modern pilot tells you how many minutes to landing.
It's not about 30 minutes, it's 27 minutes to touchdown. This is all planned
out by the flight department before departure.
Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:16 PM, George Patterson
> <george.patter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:49 PM, syd adams <adams....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like we couldn't see this coming ;) ....
>
> As for the 777 , unrealistic according to who ? I'm not against
> changing it as one of the default aircraft , there are a lot of other
> great choices now , but I do get annoyed with these claims by armchair
> pilots who read it somewhere or saw it on youtube....
> have you piloted one of these in real life ? If so , what could be
> improved ? When I get FACTS from REAL pilots , I tend to be all ears ,
> there are too many self proclaimed experts to take everything I hear
> as fact. I've done a huge amount of research on that aircraft , but
> have never flown one , so I can't say with certainty how accurate the
> FDM is myself , but still
> I'd rather hear how it could fixed rather than a hazy '(the FDM is
> terribly unrealistic)
>
>
> While I am not a real world pilot, I also get annoyed at the subjective
> "<Blah> is broken" where blah is a feature on a particular aircraft. Better
> is an objective "cruise speed of the <aircraft> at x,000 feet is 500 knots
> when it should be 520 knots."
>
> Note: I have plucked those figures out of the air for the discussion.
> However, the first statement is open to arguement and the next question of
> what and how is <blah> broken. The second example can be responded to as "yes
> you are right the FDM is a little out" or "No, it's correct as cruise
> alttiude of <air craft should be no higher than y,000 feet".
>
> As I deal with vauge user reports with as little information to go on as "The
> Internet is broken", I am all for as much information as can be provided.
> Which application... the list goes on.
>
> Jack,
>
> I know you meant well but stating that an aircraft could be replaced with
> another isn't particularly helpful without naming a successor. It help as
> other can then agree with your or say that something else is more worthy. I
> think this discussion comes up every time a new release gets close.
>
> Regards
>
>
> George
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb_______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
