Simviation Forum - Sim Flight Training: PPL: Part 1 of 7

Reply #15 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 11:07am

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Hey ! Where's YOUR alternate fuel stop ? Tongue

Grab a sectional whip one up

Yeah... I'm just trying to get a feel for this.. The discussion started in the FSX forum, and the idea was well received. If it needs to be moved, I'll let the Mods decide...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 3:10pm

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

Brett_Henderson wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 11:07am:

Hey ! Where's YOUR alternate fuel stop ? Tongue

Grab a sectional whip one up

Sorry; I've been too busy or distracted to get involved... but offhand, I look at that course and think "this won't do at all on 13 gallons..." still thinking Champ; LOL.
I want to partiipate and probably will catch up with you guys this weekend.

Quote:

Yeah... I'm just trying to get a feel for this.. The discussion started in the FSX forum, and the idea was well received. If it needs to be moved, I'll let the Mods decide...

I also didn't mean to suggest that this was not an appropriate place, rules-wise, for this thread... just trying to help attract more participants.
Not that all those button-pushing jet-jockeys will be interested, anyway... Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 3:52pm

TSC. Offline
Colonel
The older I get, the better
I was...
Torquay, Devon, England.

Gender:
Posts: 5132

beaky wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 3:10pm:

Not that all those button-pushing jet-jockeys will be interested, anyway... Roll Eyes

Now, now Sean - not all of us are able to cook our own dinner & watch the entire Godfather Trilogy during our flights...... Roll Eyes

The lessons look excellent thus far Brett, I'll be keeping tabs & learning myself.

Smiley

TSC.

'Only two things are infinite.......The Universe and Human stupidity........and I'm not too sure about the Universe' - Einstein

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 4:52pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

beaky wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 3:10pm:

Not that all those button-pushing jet-jockeys will be interested, anyway... Roll Eyes

If those button pushing sim-jet jocks are wannabe real jet jocks then they ought to be interested!

(edited to correct the awful spelling of wannabe!)

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 7:04pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

I think the theory behind VFR-only weather planning for the sim is covered well enough. I'm still looking for a few, different fuel-stops to show up here.. maybe even another flight or two. I think this will work best, and flow best, if I just keep forging ahead. All this stuff will be here for anyone who comes along and chooses to join in...

OK.. we're grasping the theories about loading.. how that limits the fuel we can carry.. and how wind has the last say in how far that fuel will get us. Again.. all we're trying to accomplish here, is to get people to approach a sim-session, as though it were a real flight. You're whole frame of mind is different when a solid flight-plan in front of you, and sliding that throttle to takeoff power is a little more fun and exciting, when you're thinking like a pilot... Knowing that you have to get, and stay on course keeps you on your toes... and knowing that monitoring you progress is important (it's fun to pinpoint your location by nav-aid, enroute), keeps you "into it".

Now.. the next most important part of this flight-plan, is to be familiar with all the airports where you might be landing. You already know the prevailing winds.. so if you know the available runways, their traffic patterns and the field elevation... the task of approaching the airport is half-way done. All this imformation can be found at www.airnav.com.

Even though our fuel stop at KMOP is out of range.. we'll use it for reference:

Runways are 09/27 ... Field elevation is 755msl ... Trafic pattern is left hand, for both runways...
AWOS is 110.60 ... CTAF is 123.00 ...

With all this data at hand, getting from cruise altitude down to the fuel pump (and snack machines (and bathroom)) is just a matter of knowing how to land an airplane..

Pattern entry (and it's lively discussion) will be covered later; we're still planning.

One last item to cover in sim planning; is to get all the frequencies for the VORs and NDBs that will come in handy as we grope our way from airport to airport (GPS is off limits, for now).

There is one thing that I've yet to mention. We'll pass through or near a couple of controlled airport airspaces (Toledo's class Charlie, and Detroit's class Bravo). For simming purposes, and that we're not into advanced navigation yet, leaves that topic better touched on, later.

As soon as some of you decide to start contributing (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) we can discuss which VORs and NDBs we'd use on this flight, and how, and why.. Other than that, we'll leave advanced navigation until later.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 7:15pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Quote:

I also didn't mean to suggest that this was not an appropriate place, rules-wise, for this thread... just trying to help attract more participants.
Not that all those button-pushing jet-jockeys will be interested, anyway...

LOL

Actually.. it's the "Instant Airline Captains" who will benefit most... They'll start pondering an optimum ILS intercept angle, instead of asking what an ILS is, and how to use it it to get that 737 full of virtual souls to stop crashing on final Roll Eyes

I'm not sure myself where these threads should be. I'm just gonna keep going and let the higher-forces decide...

By the way... when we get to teaching proper tail-wheel technique.. you're in charge (starting with teaching me)..

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Nov 16^th, 2007 at 8:03pm

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

Brett_Henderson wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 7:15pm:

[quote]

By the way... when we get to teaching proper tail-wheel technique.. you're in charge (starting with teaching me)..

LOL! If I'm the best tailwheel instructor this school has, we're in trouble... Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Nov 17^th, 2007 at 10:46am

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

I think we can wrap up, PPL: Part 1 with a summary, and any submissions for sample flight-plans can be in simple text format.. something like this:

Mission statement: 170lb pilot, and a 170 passenger, and 100lbs of luggage traveling from Green Bay to New Orleans for a football game.

Flight plan: Confirming VFR weather and density altitudes; Confirming winds aloft and the corresponding fuel stops that those winds and the load will dictate; Fuel needed for each leg; Aproximate headings and ETAs for each airport; Airport information (runway-numbers, elevations and patterns, CTAF/Tower, AWOS/ASOS/ATIS, frequencies); Nav-aids and frequecies ...

When you take the time to have all that data at hand.. you're ready climb into the virtual cockpit and take to the sky

When you get into the habit of simming like that.. each new level of learning will make more sense, and you'll actually start wanting to learn more... Simming will take on a whole new purpose and identity.

For example... Just like in real flying.. A flight from Green Bay to New Orleans is very likely to NOT be VFR all the way. And it can be a rather tedious chore in a C172. The real pilot who's stuck on the ground in St. Louis, waiting out low ceilings, is thinking, "I've GOT to get an instrument rating... and I've GOT start flying bigger, faster airplanes"

Of course.. nobody in their right mind would just hop into a twin-engine airplane and zoom into IFR flying, before they've mastered it all in a C172. Things happen quickly when you're flying an approach-plate in zero-visibility... and they happen even more quickly in faster airplanes. All the reasons that you'd be following that approach plate (and that you even know how to do it safely), need to be second-nature.. not something you're focusing on.. because you'll need plenty of focus, just to fly the plane when you can't even see the wing tips Wink

When it all comes together...when you DO execute a perfect IFR flight, and precision approach, to accomplish a well planned mission... it's a very good feeling.. and by then.. you ARE a pilot. Admitting the limitations in simming, when it comes to learning how to really fly airplanes... a disclaimer been be lifted (just a tad)... because you can indeed learn quite a bit about advanced navigation and instrument flying sitting behind the yoke of MSFS..... IF you build a solid, piloting foundation , AND approach it patiently and realistically....

End of part 1 ...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Nov 17^th, 2007 at 11:52am

TSC. Offline
Colonel
The older I get, the better
I was...
Torquay, Devon, England.

Gender:
Posts: 5132

OK, here goes my plan with an alternate fuel stop:

Mission statement: One 200lb pilot, and two, 200lb passengers carrying 150lbs of baggage and gear between the three of them. Flying from Columbus, Ohio (KOSU), to Mackinac Island, MI (KMCD).

Confirmed VFR with winds out of 325 @ 35knots. Air density is a sim standard 29.92

Fuel stop will be KFNT Bishop International AirportFlint, Michigan, USA.

KOSU -> KFNT = 176nm @ 355 (direct)
KFNT -> KMCD = 178nm @ 353 (direct)
Total distance = 354nm

Ground Speed works out the same for each leg, as follows (although the direction will be slightly different):

Wind correction leaves a groundspeed of 75, burning 9gph we will need:

First leg:

176nm @ 75 = 2hrs 35min

Fuel required = 21.5 gallons plus 3 gallons for start up etc (147lbs which leaves 3lbs (1/2gall) reserve - not 5 gall).

I'll stop my planning here Brett, because I have a question, looking at the numbers (The second leg yields almost identical numbers), it looks like 750lbs in the 172 is not possible (given the winds) to cover 354nm with only one stop - it can be achieved, but only by eating dangerously into our reserve fuel.

Or have I got my calculations wrong?

I'll have to replan incorporating two stops I think.

Cheers,

TSC.

'Only two things are infinite.......The Universe and Human stupidity........and I'm not too sure about the Universe' - Einstein

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Nov 17^th, 2007 at 12:40pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

You've hit it right on the head

There is no way to safely make this trip in one fuel stop...

Having another pilot throw the numbers in, for a different fuel stop, shows us not only that it can't be done, it's a good thing to see all the numbers, and see the calculations..

Thanks for the valuable contribution Cool

As we move into Part 2; we'll keep checking back here in Part 1... Eventually someone will post a good, accurate, 3-stop plan, and we'll have more comparisons, and the whole concept will get clearer and more routine.. and we'll all be more comfortable, "eye-balling" these flights, and coming up with plans and fuel-stops that will be comfortably within safe ranges without going throught exact calculations (that our own inabilities and inaccurate weather forecasts render moot, anyway).

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Nov 17^th, 2007 at 12:51pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

A side note on this flight from actual experience. When you do try to squeeze maximum range out of your available fuel... you end up probing around for an altitude with less headwind.. your track becomes less straight and effficient... you burn more fuel in the climbs... you end up IN your reserve .... you have to slow down and lean the engine on the hot side... and your passengers don't like the look on your face when you keep re-starting the timer, looking at your watch and fiddling with the throttle and mixture Shocked

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Nov 17^th, 2007 at 1:20pm

TSC. Offline
Colonel
The older I get, the better
I was...
Torquay, Devon, England.

Gender:
Posts: 5132

Brett_Henderson wrote on Nov 17^th, 2007 at 12:51pm:

and your passengers don't like the look on your face when you keep re-starting the timer, looking at your watch and fiddling with the throttle and mixture Shocked

If you really want to scare them, just tap the fuel gauge occasionally. Grin

TSC.

'Only two things are infinite.......The Universe and Human stupidity........and I'm not too sure about the Universe' - Einstein

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Nov 17^th, 2007 at 2:12pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Universal, Morse Code translation for any fuel gauge taps... "find an airport NOW" Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Nov 17^th, 2007 at 3:03pm

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

Brett_Henderson wrote on Nov 17^th, 2007 at 2:12pm:

Universal, Morse Code translation for any fuel gauge taps... "find an airport NOW" Cheesy

By my lights, just looking at the gauges (which can't be trusted!) means you have no clue at all how much fuel remains... Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Nov 17^th, 2007 at 3:37pm

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

Brett_Henderson wrote on Nov 17^th, 2007 at 12:40pm:

You've hit it right on the head

There is no way to safely make this trip in one fuel stop...

That's because you're trying to do it with the SP, which has fuel injection and leather but doesn't have legs like the older ones. Wink

Take the 1969 K model I used to fly: 1000-lb useful load , capable of trimming out at gross for almost 120 kts at typical altitudes...and the O-320 would do this at about 9 gph. You could do this trip at 120 kts TAS with one stop in an M with 38 gals. usable fuel, even if the average groundspeed was 75 kts... Grin

If you were feeling lucky, you could probably do it nonstop, maybe with an engine-out descent from cruise for a straight-in... Cheesy

At 5000 and 2500 rpm, it could give you almost 5.5 hours at about 105 knots... so maybe, even with that wind, you could do it nonstop with a healthy reserve. Grin

Sorry; I'm at it again... it's my prejudice against the newfangled Skyhawks, I guess. I promise I'll look at this flight plan later and offer something based on the SP, despite the fact that it has about 50 lbs worth of extra hardware on it just for the extra fuel sample points... Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: