If I have to stop or pause a flight, I usually just leave the flightsim paused and running

Just keep going.  My longest one was 12.25 hours.  Straight.  With out saving.  Or eating...

In 10+ years of MS flight simming, the longest flight I have ever made, a few months ago, was a trip in my Beech Baron 58 from Santa Monica to Chicago, across the U.S.A, following the famous Route 66; but that involved filing Flight Plans, talking to ATC, stopping off at various Airfields en route, saving the flight, then continuing the flight next day, day by day... ...!

A continuous, long haul flight, in a high altitude, Commercial Passenger Jet, running on Auto-Pilot, never did appeal to me!... ...I would find it unbelievably boring!

All my daily flights are short, day-time, clear weather, hops from Airfield to Airfield, at low altitude, in light, single/twin engined General Aviation Piston/Turbo-Prop Aircraft... ...!

I like admiring the scenery, around, and below me!... ...!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Navigator..and a baby Cessna 150... ...!

Anyone ever tried the round the world trip? I'm thinking of doing one from UK - Australia - U.S.A - Brazil - South Africa - UK. I have alot of free time this week . Anyone else fancy the challenge?  

While I was doing my longest long-haul flight so far, in a Swiss A340-300 from Zurich to Santiago, Chile, I pieced up the flight. 4 hours one day, 2 hours another day, 30 minutes another day, 2 hours another day, and continuing on all the way till I landed in Santiago with my thirsty A340..

I can't do long-hauls without saving. That makes me as bored as when I fly low-altitude flights.

Fozzer wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 10:58am:


I would do some of that If my parents wernt on holiday 

I think heres what I'm going to do tomorrow:

London Heathrow - Dubai Intl   777-300ER Emirates Airline

Dubai Intl - Melbourne  A340-300 Emirates Airline.

Obviously, I will take a 45 min break while at Dubai before I make the next trip. I'll save the flight while at Melbourne then continue the next legs the following day 

I done it.
Around the world, 340 600.
Departing from Portugal, 6 days ( i wasnt flying all the time), but at 32000 ft well you cant see much.
It was fun, but...................NEVER AGAIN.
i had to land in 8 airports (i guess).
Good luck to you TRANS WORLD guys.

I fly mainly short and medium haul (European continental flights at the moment) but how do you go 'away' from the computer (sleep, life, etc) and still keep up with ATC Frequency changes, etc?

I heard there was a way to do it - but wasn't sure how to.

Cheers
Stew

About round-world, I tend to specialise in it nowadays!

I found both pottering around with short trips near home, and cruising in the stratosphere in a jet, equally boring after a while. So one day I tried the 'MacRobertson Race, England to Australia' scenario in the DH88 Comet. Nearly killed me (the default aeroplane doesn't have an autopilot) but I got to Melbourne - and then, on impulse, took it all the way round.

The very best thing about that trip, of course, was that I 'stuck to the rules' and stayed below oxygen height (maximum 12,000 feet or so) - which meant that I had to thread my way through the Rockies and go round the Alps. That made for terrific scenery and lots of challenging flying, and I was 'hooked' for good.

Since then I've taken almost all the default props round - including the Cessna and the Dakota - and a lot of downloads. My current trip is in a De Havilland Leopard Moth (1930 three-seater cabin type, far ahead of its time) - I've just finished threading my way round the mountains of Papua New Guinea and am setting up to land at Jackson's, Port Moresby. The best thing about using short-range types (the Leopard Moth, for example, only has a range of 900-1150 miles, depending on winds) is that you have to plan your routes carefully, and often have to land at airports that are less than fully equipped, because there is nothing else available.

As to time, the last thing I would do is just leave the computer running while I do other things - where's the fun of simming if you're not even THERE? So on the long stretches (especially over oceans) I make judicious use of 'accelerated time.' Make it a rule, though, only to use it when cruising, always handling the initial climb to height and the letdown myself in normal time. And use VOR-to-VOR navigation or 'dead reckoning' for navigation, never GPS hold. Also, of course, AT won't work properly in bad weather. I find that that's a fair compromise between realism and having fun.

Wrote it up once in a tute which has some screenshots to whet your appetite - available here ('FS2004 Round The World In A Prop,' halfway down. Fair warning though, once you're an addict you'll never be able to give RW up!:-

http://www.simviation.com/simviation/static.php?ID=151&page=10

Well, I've just finished my London Heathrow - Dubai Intl trip.

Emirates Airlines 777-300ER.

Flight time was 7hours 15minutes for some odd reason 

Gonna wait 2 hours or so before I do the next leg. I'll try and get pics up but cant promise nothing, as my flight sim has poor graphics.

Just completed an island hop from San Juan to Martinique and enjoyed every mile. Some fascinating airfields on the Caribbean lands. On longer stretches I study stuff I've printed out from the learning center. I fly real weather.

With the spirit of this thread, I announce after I am done with my job in two weeks, I shall do my 2 day around the world tour, flying into various airports such as VHHX and TNCM! I will post screenies! 

Fozzer, I have a lot of respect for you mate for being such a VFR officianado!

I'm an Aussie, but currently loving flying in Europe - the scenery is stunning, weather keeps you more on your toes and 2 hours is a long flight, compared to Aus where 2 hours is a normal flight!

I like flying the tubes - but VFR takes a great deal more patience!

How about VFR in a tube?


737s at tree top level Paul.  


I do a mix of both.  Most of my low & slow trips are around my  part of the country, or nice little hops through various mountain valleys around the world.

My Long hauls are mostly recreations of routes I've taken in real life, and the occasional hop in the Concorde.

I've recently started a trip across the USA following I-70 using a BMW. That should take me a while.

I normally fly my long-hauls without a pause in fat cigar tubes on autopilot.  Also done a few 8-11 hour hops on my laptop before without any trouble, though I don't do long-hauls all that often.  

Nav wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 12:10am:


Aye, aye!  That is always a joy and challenge.  The only time I've done an unsegmented trip around the world was a few years back using a King Air, with the range not being that much higher.  I used to do little three to five hour trips from airfields to airfields and boy was that a lot of fun.  Some of those "less than fully equipped" airports were really challenging to find and land on!  I remember once having to find this small field somewhere in the northeastern side of Russia, because I needed to cross the Pacific onto Alaska, where I had to dodge a giant hill beneath a pretty orange sunset only to land on a short, grassy, and partially submerged strip.  Oh it was quite the adventure!

BFMF wrote on Aug 8^th, 2009 at 9:16pm:


Good luck! I once tried flying transatlantic from from Boston to London via Canada, Greenland, and Iceland in a Cessna 210. I was about 15 miles from the coast of England when I ran out of fuel. I was sooo close!

Once I flew from Amsterdam to New York in a KLM 747; I saved the flight a few times, but it was very boring (not much else but sea down there) and I was stupid enough to crash at JFK, so I felt it hadn't been worth my time.

I had more fun flying from Chania, Crete, to Amsterdam in a Transavia 737, reliving a flight I made in real life as a passenger. More to see down there: Greece, the Croatian islands, the Alps around Innsbruck...but I forgot to watch the fuel flow, so I landed in Amsterdam on the last drops of kerosine.

In general, I prefer to fly short flights, up to one hour each, over beautiful terrain (Santiago de Chile to Mendoza, Geneva to Turin, Spokane to Seattle - stunning views of Mt. Rainier along the way!). Keeps me more or less busy in the cockpit, in my own amateurish way.

PGW

This my first post on this forum.  When I first started out as a new simmer I tried several "long haul" flights (i.e., LAX to Auckland, NZ) and at that time I felt it was important to try to stay aligned to the realizm aspect.  Over time I have given in to the "quick" fly mode, often adjusting to 16x Speed.   Over time, I have found that I enjoy the take off and the landing aspect of FS.   Long flights tend to be boring, although the scenery can be beautiful.   I dunno.  There is no right or wrong I quess.  LOL  

I've flown a 'round the world' in a combination of LearJet for the big hops and Cessna 172 for short and sightseeing around some of the cities ... both default planes.

The route was across America first then Hawaii, Tahiti, Australia, New Zealand then Far East, Middle East, Europe then back home.  Coming into Kathmandu from China at 32,000 feet was an eye opener when the Himalayas start springing up higher than I was flying!!

Also tried another RTW but North to south - down Africa and planned to go over the South Pole and back up the other side - no-one told me the FS9 map doesn't work this way.  Ended up skirting around Antarctica and back up across South then North America, Canada then across the Arctic and back home again.

After all that, I seem to be spending a lot of my time just admiring the scenery around Western Canada and West Coast America.  I have very fond memories of real flights in that area.  

Alex

Super map, BMFW!

Very close to my own routes in short-range types. Looks as if it even includes Eareckson and the (dreaded) Yelizovo.  

I've fired up my old favourite, the DH88 Comet, again, and am taking it round eastbound. Just finished a bit of a 'landmark' flight.

Up to now I've tended to think of the Comet as having a 2,000-mile range. So the only available trans-Pacific route has been Honolulu-San Francisco. Much as I love SFO, though, that leaves me way south of the Great Circle route to St. John's, Newfoundland, and costs me a couple of hours plugging north across Canada.

I happened to remember reading Ernest Gann's excellent book, "The High And The Mighty," years ago - in which he said that the old-time Pacific fliers used what they called the 'North Dog Route' - they deliberately flew north of the direct track to SFO, because it gave them a much better chance of a tailwind.

So, for a change, I decided to head for Seattle - but keep checking the wind direction and fuel, and divert to SFO in good time if I didn't look like making it.

Worked out beautifully - crosswinds rather than headwinds half the way, then a steady 25 knots or so from the west for the rest of the trip! Landed with 6% of fuel left - 2,322nms. nonstop!

For people trying RW for the first time - about Great Circle routes, it's a good idea to plan the trip by pre-checking the whole route in the Flight Planner. Only trouble is, the Flight Planner won't work right round the world, only up to halfway. So I usually set up say Melbourne to St. John's, Newfoundland (which seems to be on the GC route to almost everywhere!) and note the best places to stop and refuel - even putting them into the Planner to check ranges. Then I set up say Lisbon to Melbourne, and do the same thing for the homeward-bound track.  

Nav wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 2:40am:


Thanks, glad you like it.

Yep, I landed at both of them. Had I known that Yelizovo was a Russian Military Base, I would have gone around it, but oh well....

Going around the world too? If you want a copy of the original map I used to do your own, let me know and I can e-mail it to you.


One of these days, i'll do the MacRobertson Air Race route in the DH88 Comet...

Ang2dogs wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 3:31pm:

Outstanding accomplishment

Quote:

Home of Ellsworth Air Force Base. Oh, those were the days

I don't interrupt the flight by pausing or saving, but I do speed up time. As much as I love flying, long haul flights are nothing more than just watching the autopilot fly the airplane anyway - if I'm not getting payed to fly the airplane, I'm going to speed up the time.

Quote:


If that's how you fly, sure. That does sound boring....

But if you don't let the autopilot do all the flying and navigating, its actually kinda fun...

It really depends on how you want to fly long flights. For me, I navigate using real charts(or the built in map if I have to for information), pilotage, dead reckoning, nav radios ect. I never create a flightplan and couple the autopilot to the GPS to watch the computer navigate for me. I don't even use the GPS.

Flying cross country flights when you're the one actively navigating, checking your sectional charts, cross referencing the chart vs landmarks on the ground, busy dialing in nav radios and navigating down radials to your checkpoints, calculating your own heading/speed/location, and using your compass and clock makes things a lot more challenging and interesting.

You can still do it in the heavies. File an IFR flightplan, and instead of checking the GPS direct to option, plan your route over VOR stations spaced out 1-2 hundred miles. Don't use the Nav option on the autopilot, and don't even touch or look at the GPS. I'll guarantee you that you won't be as bored...

BFMF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 1:10am:


Actually, BFMF, 390 miles apart is enough. Then you can fly the 'From' leg from the first VOR, and the 'To' leg to the next. High-altitude VORs have a range of about 195 miles. Only thing is, click on each VOR and make sure that they're not 'low-altitude' - those only stretch to about 50 miles.

Quote:


Actually there's even a way of doing that! Devised by Sir Francis Chichester, flying from New Zealand to Australia via Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island in his DH Puss Moth in the 1920s. He pre-set his sextant to the latitude of each island, deliberately aimed well north of track, and kept taking sunsights until the sun was on the horizon. Then he just turned due west until he found them!

The 'laugh' was that, as you say, on the last leg he reckoned that he couldn't miss Australia, and didn't bother with the latitude trick. Finished up fifty miles off course and only just had enough fuel to get to Sydney.

I once re-enacted that flight; the hard way like you, no A/P or GPS. Easy for me to find my latitude in FS2004, of course - all I had to do was press 'Shift-Z' - but it was easy to imagine just how 'alone' he must have felt. Literally 'life or death' - no fear at all, that guy.