Posts by HKATER

Please no. I use Aerofly offline almost all the time. Its the reason I choose Aerofly. I live in a remote location with poor internet connections (may go satellite one day) and I suspect I am not the only one.

Link below

Yes might be the frame rate or my crazy flying 🙂

As I use a wireless Xbox controller and my ipad is stationary (ie I don't tilt it for flying control) I use a near empty spray can, by putting it behind the ipad, wedged between the ipad and the cover. Spray cans are aluminium and they conduct heat very well. A thin and tall can works well for me. The hotter the spray can gets, the cooler your ipad will be - though it still gets warm. I use a starchlike chemical spray for ironing clothes - something not too toxic!

Don't recommend a full spray can or putting it in the fridge or an icepack - might be too cold for an ipad (I personally would not put anything too cold against an electronic device - any trapped air inside could cause condensation which could short circuit your device internals and kill it - I would not take the risk - room temperature is recommended). Room temperature works well for me. Don't use a full spray can as the pressure will build up and its best to be on the safe side when it comes to confined gases - always!. Use an empty or near empty one, or an empty drink can.

Just an idea.

OK Phil, 😊, yes they may well use CF6 turbines than the RR, it all depends on the airplane specs used by Aerofly, weights, thrusts etc.. I expect only they know. I tend to fly RR fitted 747's so use those charts.

Judging by Ray's 747 manual it seems that 747 pilots prefer flap 10 when permitting for better fuel economy, climb out etc, but fully loaded there may not be a runway long enough for a 747 at flap 10 so flap 20 has stuck in my routine. With aerofly 2021 though I use flap 10 for the reasons explained in my earlier replies to the post about the 747 stalling. At the end of the day it is a personal preference and a choice, not a necessity, EXCEPT when dictated by runway lengths. Its clear from my library that either can be used at any weights. Runway lengths appear to be the determining factor, including thrust derates, as to the t/o flap setting of a 747.

Yes its a good question - one I have never really considered before. Before Aerofly I used to always use flap 20, but seems from charts that the plane can do either 20 or 10 even at the highest weights.

Theoretically the V speeds should be slightly lower at 20 (but strangely the RB211 charts seem to show no difference either way on a dry runway) and the takeoff length should be lower with flap 20, and the other things mentioned in the last post.

As a general rule a higher flap setting in any plane will give a shorter takeoff run as far as I understand it.

Denver Colorado KDEN is my favourite but because of the overall scenery, not 3D buildings. The nightlighting is incredible at sunset with the orange glow over the mountains. Hopefully a sign of things to come. Aerofly do ground nightlighting well - lots of points of light. Miami looks interesting - haven't flown there yet but seems you get taxiway lights at night.

Zurich Airport was always the masterpiece (apron markings/gates), but I feel that Denver is now.

Yes overloaded 'fish-tailing' is a good description. I was so close to the end of a runway that day (plane's landing right on top of my head), but still beyond the airport fence that the airport security came by to check me out. The twisting action is quite brutal when seen up close especially at large angles - it was a very windy day.

I used to live in London and would see the approaching jets to Heathrow from my kitchen window - they were always just level with my neighbours roof at a particular spot. Every plane the same regardless of size. But there was one country whose airlines were always higher than the others and stood out. Country won't be named. At least they were consistent! Always higher on the approach.

A person I used to know who is a Captain on 747's told me that his job is more about being a manager than flying. The flying bit is only part of the job. Seems that future pilots (if they will exist at all) will be flying keyboards and organising.

*** Jet-Pack (IPACS) if you are reading this - please don't change the R22 flight model to make it easier. I am getting much better at handling the R22 now. The longer I fly it the more stable I become. It just takes some getting used to. Great model. I wouldn't say I can fly it properly - I'm not that good - but I don't jump around now in the hover and can land well most of the time. The Eurocopter is much easier to fly but hard is good.

CROSSWINDS AND THE CRAB

It would seem from my library, in particular Mike Ray's 747 manual that airliners do a combination of both crab (sideways to centreline) and sideslip (kicking out the crab with rudder and wing down technique to bring the nose to the centreline of the runway) when touching down (ie a bit of both, not one or the other) so as to avoid something scraping (Ray mentions a 16 knot crosswind component limit on the 744 for sideslip/wingdown). In other words a crosswind component of greater than 16 knots with 100% sideslip (rudder/wing down) will result in a possible scraping of the wing that is down and crab should be used as well.

Davies (744) states that a component not exceeding about 10 knots allows pilots to rely on the strength of the landing gear to avoid the sidslip completely (ie landing crabbed) and avoid any possible scraping contact with a runway.

Stanley Stewart makes it clear that sideslipping is standard practice for a 747 just before touchdown - presumably meaning that airliners do not correct for crosswinds on finals but fly crabbed until they touchdown.

But I have witnessed many airliners landing at major airports in heavy crosswinds and have almost never seen a sideslip (they have all landed crabbed - some alot!) though it is true that it may be hard to spot as the moment they touchdown the rudder will have to be used. But being positioned at the end of a runway gave me a clear view of the angle to the centreline on touchdown. When I first saw this I remember my first thought was that it was laziness (its doubtful that an transport pilot would be lazy!) or a fear of scraping (ending a career).

[As an aside - I once knew an ex-airline pilot who had an eventful landing (it seems you only get one chance). A couple of years later I had the fortune of working in an office with the engineer who represented the manufacturer of the aircraft component in question (it was a speed controller for turbines - the reverse thrust). He was their 'expert' in court. Needless to say the pilot was a gonner! whether right or wrong.]

My second thought was maybe that the engineering designers of these airliners allow for pilot abuse and had a stronger design (ie they could get away with it but their maintenance staff probably had other ideas about it). An airliner landing crabbed puts an enormous twisting action on a landing gear.

But after all these years I am thinking that maybe part of the problem is the landing gear itself - maybe the manufacturers would rather a crabbed landing than landing on one landing gear. Landing on one side (on one wheel as GA aircraft do) may not be such a great idea due to the landing weight.

If anyone knows the truth about this and the airliners I would be interested to know. Have seen too many airliners landing 100% crabbed (up to almost 45 degrees!) to believe that they sideslip, and Ray's comments suggest that even when they do sideslip it is only a limited one to avoid scrapping. I suppose if I go on utube and look up landing videos for something famous like Kai Tak I may see some kicking out the crab?

By 'heavies' I mean anything 737 and above in weight (not strictly the definition). I am about to do some simulated training using Aerofly 2021 (will get 2022 next month), no more external views for me :), will be sitting in the right hand seat, and will refer to the excellent resource on the A320 online in French (I speak French but a non-French speaker can put each paragraph through an online translator if they wish to read it

Google Translate

which can be found:

Bienvenue à bord - A320 | AEROFLY FS 2022

Montez à bord du simulateur de vol mobile le plus avancé du monde et décollez pour de bon aux commandes d'un des avions les plus évolué...

a320afs2ios.wpweb.fr

The circuit training description is what originally attracted me to this website resource.

Have just discovered the cross wind modelling in this sim landing at Denver (KDEN) and am super impressed. With the copilot flying you can be fooled into thinking the modelling is not there, but try it manual and you will discover it is! Better still try landing the cessna with max wind settings (30+ knots) and a 90 degree crosswind.

Not sure what others think of the cross wind modelling of this sim, but it was the reason for my original attraction to Aerofly 1 years ago. Flying a small GA with one wheel touching down is an experience as close as it gets.

I find the wind deceptive. Most probably don't play with it, or happen to have it blowing down the direction of the runway and hardly notice it, or let the copilot do the work, but I have renewed respect for this sim since trying to land a 737 on max settings yesterday.Its a real challenge to do properly on the centreline, especially once the wheels hit the runway and all hell can break loose. Kicking-out the crab is a real experience. To do all this on a humble old ipad is simply amazing. Have also new respect for the copilot - he makes it look easy.

THE HEAVIES

For years I have sought "the numbers" or circuit training details of heavy jets, after seeing a video years ago of a Cathay 777 doing circuits and touch and go's at low level. Without realising it I had the details for the 747-400 all the time in a book in my library by Davies - Handling the Big Jets.

A weight of 500,000 lbs (227 ton) is given as an ideal weight for approach speeds at flap 20, gear down, 1000 ft above ground level. This is obviously a circuit training description for crew - exactly what I saw on that video years ago. I find the 227 TOW an interesting weight now as it coincides with the Aerofly 747 without payload (EOW 185 ton+ 40 ton fuel). If the Aerofly 747 has no payload they have configured the aircraft at the exact weight suitable for circuit training with 4 hours of fuel onboard (40 ton). Amazing. I can only presume all of the jets are similary configured in this sim (737, A320, 777).

I would have presumed flap 10, based on my flying of the Aerofly 747, but Davies is an authority on this subject so flap 20 must be correct for this aircraft on approach at light weights. Presumably its a flap 10 takeoff and flap 20 approach?, or a flap 20 takeoff and approach?.

For anyone who has witnessed a heavy do a touch and go circuit you will be amazed at how tight the circuit is, and the very low level - not at all like a normal approach by a heavy jet at an airport we see everyday.

INCIDENTALLY - for those 'afraid of flying' passengers - the reason that the circuit is so tight is because of the low altitude of 1000 ft AGL (seems 1500 ft is used on Airbus). Most people don't realise that the height of aircraft (and distance from an airfield - the circuit pattern) is determined by an ability to make a runway with no engines running at all times in the flight (though a dead stick in a heavy is mostly theoretical rather than actual - rarely ever been done - only on simulators). EXCEPT after V1 and on the initial climb out - a complete engine loss would not end well! (my old instructor on the piper warrior told me that he would either do a 180 degree return to the runway if enougth height allowed it or land wherever you can in front of you- not something you can do in a heavy).

But other than that extreme case at any time you are flying you can rest assured that a complete engine loss does not mean death to all passengers - the civil aviation authorities have thought of everything ahead of time. The single most dangerous activity it would seem in aviation is flying small aircraft at low levels - height is everything when you lose power - these guys have to improvise and know how to land on anything available - even roads. At least this is my understanding as a sim pilot, not real.

I believe that the drama of the BA 777 that didn't make the runway at Heathrow years ago after a complete double engine failure was because it didn't make the runway! not that its engines failed as shocking as that is (an impossibility considered by Boeing until after this incident). It should have been able to make the runway without power on approach. Seems something went wrong on short final and it landed on grass in front of the runway before making the runway if memory serves correct. The loss of power must have initially gone unnoticed and they lost precious seconds. That is my take on what happened but I may be wrong.

Try KDEN Denver Colorado, famous for gusting winds and the worst accident in their history Continental 1404. Was a training base and hub for United Airlines after Chicago airspace became too congested. May still be?

And Colorado springs a short flight to the South famous for mountain waves (Pike's Peak) and the Boeing 'rudder reversal' saga on the 737 - an old drama before the present MAX saga. Look up United 585 and USAir 427 (Pittsburgh USA). Personally I believe it was rudder problems (full deflection reversal) - the one part of a plane you do not won't to fail in flight is the rudder - plane's stop flying without a rudder (rudder/tail loss) and a full rudder deflection is RIP - uncontrollable roll over.

Not sure how hard Aerofly wind settings are but I intend to try some flights there on Aerofly 2021.

EDIT: sorry might be bad form to be commenting on the old 2021 version with the latest just released (will be getting it in January) but the cross wind modelling and turbulence is excellent. The copilot does such a good job of landing and taking off that you don't notice it in the 737, but try a manual landing and you do notice how hard it is. Its as good as Aerofly FS1 on the PC for crosswind modelling. I let the copilot land the cessna on a 90 degree 31 knot crosswind! max wind, max turbulence, max thermal, and that was a blast. Excellent sim. I gave up flying GA fixed wing a while ago but will give it another go. Too much boring time spent on other sims with little challenge offered with regard to wind. Thankyou Aerofly.

Great Jan, makes sense. Also explains why I see 'power' all the time on this topic used as though it were interchangeable with a force (thrust), which it isn't.

A final comment on MRT and TOGA and heavy airliners. Years ago an engineer told me that an aircraft turbine is most efficient at sea-level. Something I could not understand as all aircraft fly as high as possible so surely that is the most efficient place to be? It took me years to understand what he meant. I had no interest in aircraft at the time but was studying aerodynamics. I remember being in a lunch room around that time full of Aeronautical Engineers joking that any time an aircraft crashed, like its wings fell off, it was the fault of a mechanical engineer not an aeronautical one.

He was not talking about fuel efficiency of course but power efficiency. That all aircraft turbines develop their maximum power at sea-level due to a higher air density. Its good news for the loss of an engine and when taking off but bad news for fuel economy.

This is the reason that all pilots should be wary of using maximum thrust at low altitudes or on the ground. A turbine's power has to be respected. Same applies to Aerofly. And of course this thrust is not the actual maximum - emergency power - that is something else entirely. The maximum 'rated' thrust that can be safely used.

Never had the time to fly the A380 on a sim but found a great article on this topic, link below for those who like to:

Flying the Airbus A380 – Takeoff!

Thank you to everyone for your feedback on the first two posts. I think it is time we took the A380  into the air, don’t you?!   Before we go blasting off down…

captain-daves.com

and V speeds at a lower weight, link below

http://www.srs.aero/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/SRS-TSD-005-Rev-0-A380-Flex-Take-Off-Analysis.pdf

No worries Jan. Its a good and impressive flight model, both 777 and 747 based on my arm chair charts (I am not a real pilot) - only the copilot actions seem questionable. Good to hear that he has had some remedial training! Very nice, thank you.

Did some takeoffs in the 777-300ER last night. Was a bit wary and expecting the copilot to have an even worse problem of excess thrust. Reminds me of the line from that TOOL song (Vicarious): "I like to watch things die - from a safe distance." Unlike the 747, each engine is capable of flying a 777 on its own and have heard that some airlines takeoff at 50% thrust routinely as the engines are so over powered. Seems that a max rated thrust MRT takeoff in even a fully loaded 777 is rare thing.

He actually did a good job at MRT. I was surprised.

My estimates are:

OEW = 168T (this figure may not include crew?)

Fuel = 54 T

Payload estimate at 365 pax@100kg per pax = 37 T

TOW = 168+54+37= 260 T approx

Managed to get some takeoff data for the ER at flap 15 from a pilot forum:

V1/Vr/V2 of 142/149/162 at flap 15

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/273815-where-find-b777-flaps-15-takeoff-speeds.html

Say rotate at 150 knots and

climb out at 165 knots, at max rated thrust.

Managed to climb out at 165 kots (about 20 degree nose up) at flap 15 and after cutting the thrust an amber stall warning began at 149 knots just like the 747 did. That the stall warning begins at 149 knots, exactly as per the Boeing data at this weight is seriously impressive. A lower thrust would have been a sedate and comfortable take off and a lower angle of climb at the 165 knots, before flap retraction and speed up.

Maybe the V speed bugs on the 747 are wrong - hence why the copilot rotates too late and too fast? On the 777 they appear to be correct.

Well just did some takeoffs on the Aerofly 747 and I am very impressed. The closest thing I have come to flying a 747 on a computer.

Based on Boeing data with RR RB211engines, flap 10

Region C (approximately at sea level and normal ambient temperatures)

Assuming 40T payload, 40T fuel, 185T OEW = approx 270T TOW

V1-120, VR-131, V2-149

say VR (130 knots) rotation speed

150 knot climb out speed, flap 10

Was able to acheive and maintain a 150 knot climb out at 20 degree pitch angle at maximum rated thrust TOGA leaving the flaps out. The copilot retracts the flaps which explains the stall warning alarm.

If you leave the flaps out you can climb to 10,000 feet, the flight director bars guiding you all the way from the runway. If you cut the thrust you will discover a cool looking amber stall warning indication (not the alarm like your pants are on fire of before) commencing at 130 knots.

Its a vastly different experience to the copilot and feels very real. Fantastic flight model. Very impressed.

I doubt I could do this takeoff without the wireless Xbox as its quite challenging with everything happening much faster then normal. Great job at this plane. I would recommend takeoffs at a derated thrust, it would be much easier.

Boeing data state a pitch angle of 16 degrees, and 18 degrees at no payload (230T TOW), as high as 20 degrees at the lightest weight, but I was at times well above 20 degrees. Only because the speed gets away so fast you have to raise the nose almost 30 degrees to bring the speed back to the 150. But once you get to 150 knots you can hold it there happily at 20 degrees pitch. Fantastic.

EDIT: just read a 747-400 reference manual for simmers which states that a -15% thrust de-rate is recommended for a lightly loaded 747. Options are full thrust, -5% and -15%. It also states that the climb angle on takeoff for light loads is not fixed but dependent on acheiving the set climb out speed or V2. (V2+10 in some cases).

Seems that though the plane can do this, passengers would not appreciate the wild ride and most real pilots would struggle to perform this rapid takeoff - as we can witness with this copilot. This guy likes to live dangerously. Its a good thing that us sim pilots are not allowed near the real thing. But I recommend doing this takeoff on Aerofly. It is quite an experience and a challenge. My advice - don't let the copilot takeoff!

Anyway I now know the speed targets for this 747 on takeoff for a more realistic simming experience.

A 777 or 747 "Preighter" (a passenger plane with the seats removed for cargo) flight from Paris to LA. I like cargo as I get to discover parts of the airport I am less familiar with and fly anywhere.

Or a freighter if we get one.

With lock downs the airlines are adapting. Alot of pilots out of a job right now.

The list of 777 Preighters is growing daily. So far

Singapore Airlines

Air Canada

Cathay

Emirates

have done the conversion on their 777s.

An interesting aircraft flying around at the moment is Longtail's VQ-BZV. Looks like an ex-Virgin Atlantic 744 flying cargo.

Heavy Cargo - Longtail Aviation

www.longtailaviation.com

Studying this plane's specifications gives you an idea why the freighter's empty weight are so much lower than their passenger versions. This plane even with its seats removed cannot do the same duty as a dedicated freighter. An airline seat is pretty heavy plus all of the cabin interiors for comfort.

Yes I see what you mean. Just did a copilot takeoff in cockpit view and it was a pretty alarming takeoff. In external view (my usual viewing location) I have noticed the aggressive climb out before but wasn't watching the speed - as I am not flying.

At full thrust (a lightly loaded 747 it would seem judging by the very high acceleration on the runway) he seems to let it get away from him, doesn't rotate and leave the ground until almost 180 knots (way too fast and late) and then because of the crazy speed build up on climbout (lighty loaded plane) he has to pitch the nose up at 20 degrees to ride this rocket. A lower rotation speed would have had a slower speed build up on departure - but he does attempt a proper rotation at the bug setting - seems it all happens too quickly for this geezer. Then he dials down the thrust and SETS THE STALL WARNING OFF in the cockpit at about 150 knots - scary stuff and then recovers by lowering the nose.

Its not a comfortable feeling - quite scary really - I didn't see any of this drama from the outside view before. Seems that the excess power at full thrust is testing this robot pilot to the max.

Was reading Mike Ray's legendary 747 manual recently and I noticed that he warned the real 747 pilot of the perils of pressing the TOGA (full thrust) on a go-around. He suggested it should only be used if absolutely necessary. He mentions something about being left with a handful of rocket ship. Its obviously a well known problem of a lightly loaded 747 coming in for landing. Seems that we have some hard physics in this simulator. Not surprised as I have come to expect nothing less from these guys - proper engineers, a few Doctors of Engineering as well.

Below is a link of a commentary on the rotation and climb out speeds and angle of the 747 for those who are interested. Its highly variable and needless to say our copilot is not up to the task.

In a 747 is it normal for the Vr (takeoff speed) to vary greatly depending on fuel load and ambient temperature?

I was reading one of the documents linked on this question, particularly I was reading case study number 8 of this particular document. In the conclusion the…

aviation.stackexchange.com

Been spending alot of time on the 747 lately (some if it copilot mode) and my position is external view and I didn't pay much attention to the airspeed on takeoff but I did notice a very aggressive climb out angle which is too steep for my liking but it is possible for a 747 to climb out at a crazy pitch. I witnessed a 744 freighter (Atlas) take off on a beautiful blue sky a few years ago, around 8am on a quiet Sunday morning at Sydney Airport and it climbed out like a rocket. It must have been lightly loaded - a rare site particularly as this airline normally flies East out over the Pacific.

Another reason that the takeoff was spectacular was that the dual runways were operating counterflow, something they rarely do. Meant that he was taking off to the South on 16L (a short runway for a 747) towards oncoming landing aircraft on the opposite runway 34L before he turned left at low level over the ocean. It was a an amazing sight only matched by seeing the Concorde departing Heathrow in my experience. The Concorde was so loud that it would set off the car alarms on our street and if you were on the phone in the office you could not hear the person on the other line.

The 747 takeoff was so remarkable that even the Tower commented on it. He said something like 'beautiful takeoff mate'. Empty a 747 is a rocket ship. I mention this because these Aerofly guys are pretty smart - they use inertia to calculate performance and I notice that the Aerofly 747 is configured at about 40 ton of fuel. I guess they fixed this weight as it allows for both takeoffs and landings, not to exceed the maximum landing weight (295 ton gross weight if memory serves correctly). At a 185 ton empty operating weight (a typical passenger version 744 empty weight with upto 2 flight crews, 4 pilots and their cabin staff for long haul, about 22 people which alone is about 1.6T of weight!) and 40 ton of fuel, this leaves 295-40-185 = 70 ton for payload (cargo and passengers and baggage). A typical payload of say 40-45 ton people and cargo (passenger 747) leaves a small safety margin with 40 ton fuel remaining. Margin is 70-45= 25 ton, not much of a margin when you consider that a 747 can carry up to 173 ton of fuel on takeoff. There are various reasons you would not want to land a 747 with 40 ton of fuel remaining (4 hrs of remaining possible flying time at 10T/hr burn rate) but that landing limit would be the most important one.

I am thinking the reason for the steep climb out is the light weight. A 747 configured for landing (little fuel) is a much lighter beast than it was on takeoff as they carry alot of fuel for long flights. I can see Aerofly's problem - they have a fixed weight (no fuel consumption) and must set a light weight for landing. light load, light inertia means an over powered rocket ship. I suspect that is the problem here and it is not a bug but rather a technically correct phenomenon. We have a rocket ship.

It is customary for pilots to adjust pitch angle on a climb to match a set speed - too slow, they lower the nose, too high they raise it. The guy I saw takeoff at Sydney must have been riding the rocket at a fixed thrust setting and let the airspeed determine the crazy angle.

I have seen Airbus's do some impressive takeoffs but nothing like that day. I was like watching the space shuttle shooting for space.

Just a thought. By the way the copilot does do some strange but maybe normal things? First time I flew a STAR into LAX in the 747 he did a holding pattern at one of the first waypoints at 10,000 feet. Only did one circuit of the holding pattern, maybe he missed the turn at the waypoint?, but it was pretty cool - first time a simulator has flown a holding pattern in my arm chair flying. Seemed very real. Not so keen on the occassional missed approach and return to land - still trying to understand why that happens to me at LAX with the copilot flying. He seems a bit of a nervous flyer - the approach looked good enough to me.

Would love to have a cargo heavy like a 747 or 777. Almost all 747 fleet now is cargo and trying to simulate cargo flight with passenger windows is a bummer. A third helicopter would be great too - any heli, don't mind which, military or civilian.

In external view this sim is gorgeous especially at major airports. I do all my fixed wing flying out of cockpit now on autopilot/copilot following SIDs and STARs (I just taxi to and from the runway) and the external views and sounds are fantastic.

My two bobs worth.