Flight was cancelled by Website ?!

[CAPFlyer]

Oh yeah, one more thing - it's not the responsibility of the pilot to know whether or not he can get off a runway - It's the ROUTE PLANNER's responsibility. Whomever is planning the routes is the one responsible for ensuring that whatever aircraft he assigns to a route is physically capable of operating the route, including getting off the airport. It takes 10 minutes to figure out whether a route is physically possible by looking at publically available data on the internet and comparing it to the capabilities of the aircraft, also publically available on the internet. If you fail to do so, it's not your pilot's fault- It's YOUR'S.

[Tomb]

i got just curious enough to try it out since pilots who make routes are expected to test them with the aircraft assigned

at mount pleasant in zero wind using 28 which is a nominal 8497 ft at alt 244 ft

3x B747 test

PDMG queen of the skies loaded to the max allowed of 875,000 lbs flap 20, full power using the lowest rated engine (RR)

V1 is at the runway intersection, Vr around the Tower the aircraft clears the end of runway at about +300ft and 180kts in takeoff config

MS default B747-400 loaded to the max of 875,000lbs flap 20 full power

V1 and Vr about the same but MS B747 is doing about 205kts as it crosses the end of runway about +300ft

frankly this is not even challenging its no effort for those with even basic skills in flying FS B747's

just for the grin

RFP B747-200 overloaded to 795,000lbs (+10,000lbs) flap 20 full power

V1 is past the tower is VR is approaching the ruway end at which point on passing the runway end its at 200ft and 165 kts, in take off config, more of a challenge

i find my pilot operated his aircraft in a perfectly safe and resonable manner ( MS B747-400)

Like all sensable pilots we operate our aircraft on the performance it delivers and not manufactura's figures.

this is of course the advice found in just about any aircraft manual

[SnakeBite]

Im not sure if that will convince him Tomb, anway CAPflyer... I'll be in Texas in 2 months, I'll show you how to take-off from Mount Pleasant.. and how to fly 26 hours long flight using the stock B744 in FS9..

Im not sure you ever tried that, we fly what it gets, and Flynet is a client which is based on MS flight simulators with any version..

So, Bill Gates named it Simulator, then it is, then I fly it.. I dont give a damn about Boeing's Technical data given for each jet they built, I care about what FS gives, and what it can afford...

The case is so simple..

[MMattyK]

Sorry to interrupt this discusion guys, but apart from calling someone a cheat, is this really worth the agro?
I guess you could call me a cheat too... I'm using FS2000, have no add-ons, no ATC, no extra traffic, and just bimbling around the skies in the stock aircraft in FS2000 (not pro), a PSS 777-200/200ER for FS2000 and occaisionally a downloaded free model of a DH89, not only that, but I don't always fly at x1 rate ,I fly for the most part GPS routes (apart from the DH89 which I fly using nav beacons) but always for FUN! I have flown the models to find out my own model data for fuel burn etc, never exceeding max alt or mach, but not nescessarily obeying all the real world weight data either. I've crashed (ground looped my DH89 on T/O) and overcome some of the inflight failures that the client can generate, but in my opinion if the simulated flight takes off does the trip and lands, without the obvious cheats like slewing or unlimited fuel, then surely the problem is in the actual aircraft modelling.
I suppose that in the 'real' world we would all be using 'real' hard data and flying 'real' routes with 'real' passengers, competeing with 'real' airlines for limited numbers of passengers, earning 'real' cash, and generally hoping that we cope with every possible contingency. No pilot/passenger suffers 'real' injury when a disaster happens or a mistake is made either, unlike the 'real' world either, so lets just keep it to the 'Simulated' environment, and use what we get, or can afford... faulty models and all.
Crux is let's enjoy what we have, good and bad, and chill out

[MMattyK]

Gentlemen

If I may direct your attention to the following link http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=100

The B747-400ER at MTOW 910,000lbs has a range of 7670NM (Still Air) at 490Knts - this would give a maximum endurance
of 15.6 hours - so it matters little what PMDG or anyother "modelmaker" says - Boeing says the aircraft is incapable of
staying in the air that long - so 21, or 24 or 27 hours in the air is totally unrealistic. I believe Flynets data base uses the same source that I do BAC backed by Airliners.net as credible sources

As an aside - My maintenance controller in the real world who I trust implicity as he has 35 plus years in the industry as an
A&P serviced JALs flights from Las Vegas to Tokio, tells me that flight was at the maximum limits of the 747-400s range -
I think if you check the airmileage that comes out to about 7500NM great circle.

ATB

Leif

I wonder which value is correct?
http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/map?airpor ... rize=track

[IslandBum]

Yours is actually much close

After I wrote that I ran a quick flight plan on the company system using NOPACs - and came out fairly close to 4800NM - However I couldn't be arsed to change it because it seems no one is realyl interested in realism here...so why even fight it . But as you called it into question yes that approximates the route operated by JAL (give or take for winds) But even so operating off a
2000+ AGL runway in temperatures of upwards of 35C tends to reduce range somewhat....Not that I would have the slightest
knowledge about that.

Cheers

Leif

And actually the whole point of relating what my MTC said was , he and I were discussing fueling the 400 and JAL required that the fuel load be computed down the gnats whisker using the specific gravity at the ambient temprature even then they
frequently required to tech stop in Anchorage - so what you proved is that Boeings own proganda is not as good as real life

Chris

Route Planners?? Which we had em - We (dispatch) do our own route planning based on current winds aloft, turbulence and ATC flow every day.

[CAPFlyer]

Leif - I was speaking of it as a "Duty" not a "Title". I know there aren't any actual "route planners" anymore, but someone at every VA is responsible for doing route planning and putting it into the FlyNET database. That is what I was referring to.

[IslandBum]

Actually your right Chris - We have an excellent one who refers to himself of Guardian of the schedules in the VA

Route planners are a luxury these days - they used to be (IMHE) washed up navigators - which could lead to another

funny story , but I wont go there......


Leif

[MMattyK]

I'm not getting involved in this pointless, senseless argument... this is SIMULATION, and will never be completely accurate... each airframe will have different characteristics to the nth degree, as will each engine.
I have no doubt that as Microsoft Flight simulator has evolved, that the stock aircraft modelling will have become more accurate, but is still not as per the real thing. Most of us know that real simulators have loads of time money and effort in gathering 'real world data' to model their products on, but I doubt Microsoft have, let alone an accurate dynamic atmosheric model (anybody know of one anywhere) for the simulated aircraft models to fly in.
Do you think that Flynet should insist that every VA pilot should only be allowed to fly particularly approved models, with a particular version of FS and with particular add-ons, and exclude any pilot that does not fulfill these requirements?
Those who think that an absolute real world fidelity is possible or required a simulation of this type should maybe realise that this isn't a perfect simulation, but as far as I'm concerned... (my opinion) I don't care... I'm enjoying the facilities I have and those provided by flynet, that someone has been kind and dedicated enough to put together for us all, and will continue to do so unless asked to leave, and given a sound reason for doing so.

[IslandBum]

I don't think that MSFS will ever be 100% "accurate" their research team does a passing job , but as Matty says there are
fulltime Sim modelers who do a better job as far as research and development go - As to how "real" or good MSFS is - Well the
FAA approved its use with the Lago MD80 as a systems trainer for the company I work for and we have cockpit trainers using
it alongside a full movement MD80 simulator at our training facility here in LAS. As to Flynet and its uses - I agree it has put purpose to VAs and for that I thank Konny and the gang most heartily - However the ways it's used is a totally different matter.
As I have stated repeatedly here the folks who have chosen to participate in Venture Hawaii have done so because they enjoy flying older accurate models (most of the aircraft we employ are Rick Piper and David Maltbys models which I happen to know the level of accuracy is very very high). They also enjoy the fact that they can fly "realistic routes" in real time weather, using excellent free ware scenery and add ons such as FSInn and Vatsim. We don't have the need or urge to prove who can fly the furthest , carry the most etc etc - we enjoy flying the aircraft as realistically as is possible, and thats it. To that end I suppose I don't understand the mentality or the logic or lack thereof that would attempt to fly a real world aircraft far beyond its real capabilities other than to reduce (as I have said before) Flynet to the level of a FPS.


Leif

[Tomb]

Lief

actually we fly as realistically as we can, it is why Busy Jet pilots have gone to the effort of measuring fuel flows and passing around tables and charts.

these off course have to be the plane you are actually flying which for most folks is the default

why do we have so many varients of say the B777, well because one pilot has B777pro for FS 2000 so he flys the B777-200 and B777-200ER, most are stock so we have the B777-300 for them, others use the B777-Pro for FS 2004 so thats the B777-200LR plus B777-300ER

we pick the closest Flynet model to what pilots are actually flying. it would be much easier to just pick the B777-300 and use what ever you have but that is not how we prefer do it.

quite agree on the old stuff by DM/DB/RP/FM i love to fly it and its easily as good as the large collection of Payware i have and use

thier are others and the DC9 by SH is up thier as is the Connie by D-GHHH.

However Modern airliners dont fly or operate anywhere near thier performace limits and the most exciting thing that might happen is you might miss the Autopilot button on the first attempt.

however the old stuff in the pioneering days flew right at the limits and it was not that unsual to not make your destination or even land with all your engines in working order.

so to answer your question who would fly a plane to its limits, well the pioneers would, they pave the way for the bus drivers to plod along in a nice safe manner.

so while we have plenty of "bus" routes we also have some pioneering ones which means the plane is at the limit. or geography is, or the weather is.

perhaps in our current set up mount pleasant is one of the more demanding ones since it has no NAV aids and the weather is often bad though the plane is easy to operate but at its fuel limits or beyond if you dont achieve the cruise profile.

in terms of diffulty we also have a route into a short runway in moutainous terrain in usually bad weather.

so while most like a nice relaxing "bus" route once in a while we also like to stretch ourselves a little.

not every bodys cup of tea but its ours

speaking of challenge i will run one by you later, as i see you fly comets also, gota go

regards