|
|
Post by simpilo on Jan 5, 2019 6:32:14 GMT
Missed the threshold using the autoland feature. The threshold barrier is before the rectangular solid strips on both sides of the runway. The rear gear should touch down before those. This is why I prefer manual landing. Other than that it is a good plane to fly in FS2004.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Jan 5, 2019 14:37:04 GMT
Have you tried this experiment with another plane at the same airport?? I suspect the results would be the same. The autoland is highly dependent on the location and settings of the ILS for that runway. Open up the AFCAD for that airport and look at where the ILS is located. Also check its settings with regard to the glideslope. I bet (and I would put money on this) that an adjustment of the ILS location/glideslope on the AFCAD would change the touchdown point of the plane. I sincerely doubt it has ANYTHING to do with the autoland feature of the DC10 AP.
I can check this out: what airport and runway is this? Is it a stock airport or an add-on?
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jan 5, 2019 16:55:40 GMT
I can see the latitude and longitude, which suggests it's Runway 17L at the Will Rogers World Airport just outside Oklahoma City.
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Jan 5, 2019 18:13:31 GMT
Unfortunately I have a custom airport installed for KOKC, where that looks like a stock version. Guess we'll have to wait until he responds.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jan 5, 2019 23:11:35 GMT
Been away (back today only though) .... and will continue to be so over the next couple of weeks too .... but .... are just catching up with the great goings on here recently now  There's nothing wrong wrong the A/L system in any of our DC-10 simulations (and I'm not suggesting you're suggesting there is ) .... provided it's used properly to start with. In respect of the RWY TDZ though .... I think you may be expecting a constant precision which FS doesn't, and can't always, deliver .... and .... I'd also suggest you're probably still carrying a wee bit too much airspeed during your flare and prior to actually landing and which is prolonging your touchdown. "IF" .... ones landing weight is correct (not over weight .... preferably with no more than 20% total fuel remaining by the conclusion of any flight), then, the FULL FLAPS/FLAPS 50 approach to landing airspeed "prior to the flare for landing" should be computed to be around 135 KTS and 141 KTS for the lighter DC-10-10's and 146 KTS and 151 KTS for heavier the DC-10-30's/40's .... as I mentioned recently. Performing any A/L landing using our DC-10 simulations one has the option of .... (a) using the AT system to control engine thrust/airspeed .... or (b) controlling engine thrust/airspeed manually. Using the AT system .... engine thrust will be auto-retarded to idle, by the A/L system, during the flare to landing and whilst passing through approximately 20 FT to 15 FT prior to the actual touchdown .... and as it does so airspeed will decrease so "the actual touchdown airspeed", by this time, will be several KTS below the computed V-APP and V-REF data. If the AT system is not being used .... engine thrust will need to be manually-retarded to idle during the flare to landing and whilst passing through approximately 20 FT to 15 FT prior to the actual touchdown .... and with the same result .... airspeed decreasing below the computed V-APP and V-REF data. In this particular case though .... if one maintains the computed V-APP and V-REF airspeeds during the flare then 2 things are going to happen as follows .... 1. The flare to landing will become prolonged. 2. As the result of the higher than desirable airspeed and a prolonged flare the simulation will tend to want to float .... and will likely shoot straight over/past the RWY TDZ. Getting it/this right (as recommended) is really just a matter of practice and perfection .... HOWEVER (and as Mike quite correctly hints) .... "in FS" it's also not uncommon to find the ILS programing for some airport RWY's is better than is the case with others .... and as a result of this the ILS/GS behaviour of any simulation can vary accordingly at different FS airports too. Best to follow the recommended procedures in either case whilst also bearing in mind the possibility of subtle variation/s existing in regard to ILS/GS fidelity for some FS airport RWY's .... since FS "is not" perfect. Mark C BOG/CO |
|
|
|
Post by simpilo on Jan 6, 2019 6:49:00 GMT
It's really the best add-on even better than payware. I learn by trial and error. That is KOKC Will Rogers World Airport. I live roughly 7 or 8 miles east of it in the midtown area of Oklahoma City Oklahoma. Not far from the now closed Downtown Airpark where OKCPD (Air 1 and N2OKC) and a few other City owned helicopters reside and service from. I do not fault the A/L system because I seen it do the same at KLAS, KATL, to name a few. I use third party ADCAD2 files for the default FS9 sim. Those AFCAD2 files are newer but not as new as they could be but closer to the AIRAC 1812 runway headings and frequencies. I use AIRAC for FSNavigator. I wasn't sure if I was to fast but now I know i was about 10 knots to fast. Will lighten the load more. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by simpilo on Jan 6, 2019 6:53:40 GMT
Have you tried this experiment with another plane at the same airport?? I suspect the results would be the same. The autoland is highly dependent on the location and settings of the ILS for that runway. Open up the AFCAD for that airport and look at where the ILS is located. Also check its settings with regard to the glideslope. I bet (and I would put money on this) that an adjustment of the ILS location/glideslope on the AFCAD would change the touchdown point of the plane. I sincerely doubt it has ANYTHING to do with the autoland feature of the DC10 AP. I can check this out: what airport and runway is this? Is it a stock airport or an add-on? Mike Its default textures with a newer AFCAD2. It's included with OKC2008 on AVSIm and flightsim.com. I wish there was a better newer version for FS9. if so I havent found it yet. I was landing on 17L which is typical departing runway. I should have took 17R which is the typical landing runway with winds from southerly directions. 35L is typical departing runway and 35R is typica landing runway when winds ar from northerly directions. The other runway is used for general aviation. A DC 10 any variant will chew up that runway. |
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Jan 6, 2019 14:04:08 GMT
Hi friends: If one is unhappy with a default FS9 airport one can create a costum designed one by flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/1232/afcad-221-for-fs2004/Takes a little time to learn it but putting new VOR, ILS or NDB transmitters into an existing airport is not a great affair still much easier is to change the position of an already existing transmitter. Kind regards Walter P.S.: DC-10s or Tristars were not landed in real too close to the numbers as their cockpits and radar altimeters were "flying" much higer than their main gear and so the gear could mow into the approach or runway end lights even on glideslope. The DC-10 manual proposes an aim point farther down the runway to avoid an unwanted too short touchdown . |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jan 6, 2019 18:39:54 GMT
Beyond (possible) minor infidelities in regard to ILS/GS programming for RWY's at some FS airports .... then this (excess airspeed) is likely to be the more fundamental cause of your experience. It's important to get both the airspeed and attitude right prior to landing .... since too high a pitch attitude during the flair, combined with excess airspeed also, will result in a prolonged flair and float prior to touchdown. The DC-10 is apparently quite sensitive in this regard .... as has been explained to me by many retired aircrew. As far as weight is concerned .... just ensure that the total remaining fuel quantity, at the conclusion of any flight and prior to landing, is less than 20%. Use the cruise fuel observations, stated within the DC-10 flying guides (at the end of the manual), as "a very basic guide" (only) to flight plan how much fuel is required for each simulated flight .... on the basis of the hourly rates per engine stated there .... then multiply this by the estimated flight duration .... with a little reserve added as well. This way one will usually avoid arriving with excess fuel/weight. This prescribed methodology is (once again) "VERY BASIC ONLY", but, it does work .... if applied correctly The rest is just a matter perfecting one's procedure .... through experience .... which is dependent on lots'n'lot's of lovely practice I'm likely to be away again possibly for a number of days .... although this isn't yet confirmed. Mark C BOG/CO |
|
