Q's about Gate Size, Aircraft CAT, & "heaviness"

[thrillsandchills]

I don't think these Q's were covered in the Notes and Handling section of the forum...

What Category aircraft are these MD80 series, as they pertain to selecting an ILS Approach? (CAT I, CAT II, or CAT 3)?

Are the MD 80 Series aircraft considered "Heavy?"

What gate size would be appropriate for this aircraft? (Small, Medium or Large)?

TIA,

Thrills & Chills

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

What Category aircraft are these MD80 series, as they pertain to selecting an ILS Approach? (CAT I, CAT II, or CAT 3)?

To be honest .... I'm not exactly certain .... but .... I think the CAT version designation is dependent upon the type of landing aid/equipment installed on the flight deck of any particular aircraft. The problem with DC9 and MDX TYPE aircraft is .... there's "A LOT" of variation out there according to the particular operational requirements of of realworld airlines whom operate these aircraft.

I'd say .... and I'm guessing only .... but .... what we offer (in trms of our mDX panels) definitely isn't CAT3 .... so .... I'd suggest sticking to either CAT1 or CAT2 operating protocols.

In FS .... it's probably not going to make a hell of a lot of difference anyway .... since all one's really got to be able to do is "SEE THE RWY".

If flown well .... I've had no problems, whatsoever, in regard to these MDX simulations capturing, and flying, ILS approaches to landing .... in all sorts of conditions/visibilities (even from a 90* degree intercept) .... but .... I do like to fly a long final approach to landing (of around 20 DME) .... and then disconnect the AP (and AT also it's being used) at 100 FT, regardless (so long as I can see the RWY from that altitude), and then land "MANUALLY".

If that's any help !!!!

Are the MD 80 Series aircraft considered "Heavy?"

"NO" .... and which is why one won't find the "HEAVY" ATC option applied within any of our MDX AIRCRAFT.CFG files.

What gate size would be appropriate for this aircraft? (Small, Medium or Large)?

In FS .... one can use "anything" .... really .... probably with the exception of a grass paddock though ;D

If one wants to be "pedantic" though .... then I guess one should always use "MEDIUM" gate allocations for these MDFX type aircraft.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[thrillsandchills]

Thanks so much for the quick reply.

I saw that "heavy=0" in the Aircraft.cfg file, (if I'm not mistaken.) I didn't know if "0" meant it was considered heavy or not...

Thanks for all the clarification.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

In these particular cases .... common to [FLTSIM.XX] data and elsewhere within any FS AIRCRAFT.CFG files ....

"0" is the values used to deactivate/disable something .... and conversely .... "1" is the values used to activate/enable something.

A little like "NO" and "YES" responses respectively

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Alejandro]

Cat III landings depends more of the airports and airplane avionics than anything else.
If I'm not mistaken... Cat III needs two ILS sistems in the airport, one active and another ready to go in seconds, both with high definition. And the airplane needs three autopilots with capacity to self control herself, a radio altimeter and maybe something more.

The problem is that the plane and the airport will be able to use Cat III landing, but the airline wouldn't be autorized, or the pilot wouldn't have the training, or he will be out of training period and need a recertification.

So it's more relative.

As for the MDs, the HUDs are considerated equivalend to Cat I equipament, maybe more depending the instaled avionics.

But for us, as Mark says, we just need to see the runway

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

As for the MDs, the HUDs are considerated equivalend to Cat I equipament, maybe more depending the instaled avionics.

Thanks Alejandro !

Our 2 MD80 ANALOGUE panels .... that's the "GOLDING WHITE" and "GOLDING RED" versions only .... both feature HUD's ....



Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Deleted]

Mark, Does this freeware panel with cool HUD display work in FSX?? (forgive me if you find this question extremely dull and boring)

Regards,

Aharon

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

"NEGATIVE" on that Aharon !

Each of the 4 MDX panels we offer are FS2004 compatible only .... SORRY !

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Deleted]

ahh it is ok Thanks for reply I have managed to make FS2004 panels work in FSX. Let's see if I can try luck on that:) Now let me work on finding that panel and install on FSX.

Aharon

[thrillsandchills]

Sept 10, 2012 2:11:25 GMT Alejandro said:

Cat III landings depends more of the airports and airplane avionics than anything else.
If I'm not mistaken... Cat III needs two ILS sistems in the airport, one active and another ready to go in seconds, both with high definition. And the airplane needs three autopilots with capacity to self control herself, a radio altimeter and maybe something more.

The problem is that the plane and the airport will be able to use Cat III landing, but the airline wouldn't be autorized, or the pilot wouldn't have the training, or he will be out of training period and need a recertification.

So it's more relative.

As for the MDs, the HUDs are considerated equivalend to Cat I equipament, maybe more depending the instaled avionics.

But for us, as Mark says, we just need to see the runway

Hiya Alejandro

Thanks for the reply. Your post was very informative and interesting to read.

Keep up the good work.

Thrills and Chills