Hi iPacs,
I have been doing a lot of landings lately. Mostly in the 777
When landing at Oakland runway 30, the 777 uses 1/4 of the runway. Tho the runway is 3.206 meters long and the 777 needs approximately 2440 meters to land.
I think it sorts of ruins the realism of the game.
It’s a game breaker for me.
Thanks for reading
Cap. Aron
The autobrake controls a deceleration rate and that value comes from the handbook. That means regardless of aircraft weight or runway conditions the autobrake will try to match the deceleration rate that you selected with the autobrake knob.
The landing distances that you read about are for maximum landing weight, including 50ft over the threshold and then flare and rollout. For higher weights the approach speeds are much higher than what we currently have in our B777 (since it's below max landing weight) and since the distance is proportional to velocity squared you get a much longer distance for higher weights.
Long story short: The distances should be somewhat realistic, If the autobrake controls the deceleration rate correctly.
You can select a lower autobrake setting, too. That would be more realistic if you have a long runway.
Okay thanks a lot.
It’s just unrealistic when you stop a 777 after what fells like 100 meters
Tho its unrealistic that I can land a 777 at the half of the San Carlos runway
Cap. Aron
Here is a Google drive link to download a video of the landing: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FlzzFY…iew?usp=sharing
I'm guessing you're using max reverse thrust and braking?
I don't think aircraft will in real life actually use max reverse thrust unless they need it?
okay but have you seen the video?
The time is not unrealistic. The Rwy of KSQL is 2600m long. The minimum runway length for the B777-300 is 1900m. if you compare the landing with the airport diagram (https://www.airnav.com/airport/KSQL) you can see that the landing from the length is realistic. Please inform yourself about this next time, it only took me a few minutes to find out, that the landing is realistic
Thanks for your reply A321-200XR
I have done some research, and have found out that the runway required for an A380-800 to take off, is 2,900 feet. Why can I then take of the A380 without a overrun with flaps set to 2? (im guessing that the A380 is the -800) Well that’s unrealistic as the runway length of San Carlos is 2,621 feet? But that’s another thing for another time. Tho a thing that would be nice is if there was tire touchdown smoke. Thanks all for the reply’s it helped.
Reply, if you want a demonstration of the A380 taking off from San Carlos.
I’m writing this stirring in the back of a car on my phone so sorry for any grammatical errors
Cap. Aron
The A380 cannot takeoff in 2900 ft. More like 2900 meters at maximum takeoff mass of 575 metric tons. Our A380 only has a mass of 390 t just under the maximum landing mass of 391 t.
Please stop comparing apples and oranges. The takeoff and landing distances that you find on the internet are usually for a maximum takeoff or landing mass but we have neither of those!
There are runways in AF that you can’t stop in time using the 777 747 380 and also takeoff before going off the runway
Are you considering take-off and landing weight?
An empty 777 flies like a fighter!
Yes i have
there you could make an update, so you can change the weight of the plane. I would personaly love and update that includet that. And i would also love tiresmoke.
