Around the world.

[chris]

I've seen this thread on another internet forum and thought we should have a similar one here. :)

If you have Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 (aka FS9.0/9.1), the idea is to fly around the world in a plane of your choice, and write updates here as you complete various stages of the flight.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I've been bitten quite badly by the flight-simulator bug, and I'm part way through my round-the-world journey.

So far it goes like this:

Sydney (start point)
Auckland (NZAA)
Santiago
Rio de Janeiro
Cancun
Miami
New York (en route to KJFK).

The most eventful part of the journey so far was the landing into Miami, which was shrouded in heavy cloud and a lot of fog, making for very poor flying conditions, and absolute reliance on instrument navigation.

For your information, I fly Concorde most of the time, except for Auckland to Santiago, where I tested one of the larger 737 models. That turned out to be a test of conserving fuel, which the 737 can do quite well if you know what to do.

The flight from Cancun to Miami was done at subsonic speeds (mach 0.93) at FL290 (aka 29,000ft) since the distance is too short to attempt acceleration to supersonic speeds and then deceleration.

Previously, I did fly supersonic en route to Cancun from Rio de Janeiro. I let the autopilot fly the plane, since it is easiest. In Concorde, everything is done at a measured pace. Climbing is done in a planned manner, and deceleration isn't done at a moments notice. You also plan acceleration carefully, so that you reach particular speeds (like Mach 1.7 - an important point) at particular altitudes. It's a lot of fun to be honest. :)

[blackice111288]

that sounds like fun, you seem to like that game alot. my dad used to play flight sims alot cause he's a pilot/navigator (now instructor) in the military. the last one we had was FS2000 it was pretty cool, but i kept crashing cause i wouldnt accept the fact that helicopters cant turn loops. i spent most of my time on Midtown Madness 2 when i used to play PC games alot. i had over 300 extra cars downloaded, i dont think i even used them all. i had about 6 extra maps downloaded also. it was all fun and games till kazza kindly inserted 2 gigs of viruses into the Sys 32 folder, even tho all i did was downlaod GTA 1

[chris]

Yes, I do a bit, until I download a plane which has errors. I wish it had some sort of debugging mode in it that would make a log of errors.

I don't like flying the helicopters, they are very difficult, but the heavyweight Chinook is a little bit easier to land than the others because it has wheels underneath it. I've also got a Gazelle which I haven't tried yet. I know what to expect of it, as the real Gazelle is nearly the Formula 1 of helicopters. It is exceptionally fast.

But I'm actually having a go at modelling a F111C for FS2004 at the moment. I doubt it will be finished soon. Just modelling the planes is something I don't normally do. Even worse, the F111C is a bit complex in shape, and my technical drawings of it (from the General Dynamics F111 flight-manual) don't show some details very well.

I've also found out there is a pay-ware FS2004 F111 for sale, so I'll definately do my best to make my one better than the other one, otherwise it'd be a waste of time for me. ;)

I am trying my best to get some more people hooked on FS2004. ;) It's a bit more interesting that racing games since you aren't just going around in circles all the time, and enjoyable because you've got the whole air-traffic control thing. It has an element of interactivity.

[VQ]

Yeah, Flight sims are good, my dad got hooked on Train Simulater, because he's a train driver and all, but his video card made it lag and I think he just got bored of it.

I have midtown madness around somewhere, I could have a go at adding my own cars to it, but I'm not sure of the tools for it.

I did the same thing you did with NFS3, I had so many cars, then dad messed the computer up (it was the only one in the house at the time that could run nfs3) and since then Mum and Dad both have their own comps and I have a decent comp.

[chris]

Had to re-install nearly everything, and sadly lost my old Miami to New York flight. So I started again, but in an FA/18 Hornet this time (RAAF of course), and a very nice one at that. It wasn't carrying weapons, but extra fuel tanks for a longer range.

I filed for IFR and a cruise altitude of 45,000ft. Taxied to the runway, then did a nice takeoff with reheat on, and proceeded up to 11,000ft (got there quickly). After a short while, I'm at 45,000ft. I maintain that until deciding to go up to 60,000ft just to see if it would do it.

So after about 2.3 hours, I'm in New York, in misty conditions, and descended to 1900ft, to make a 22R ILS landing at KJFK. It was a perfect landing. The Hornet flies beautifully. I just about exactly replicated the way the real ones land. Having seen a few of them land in real life, I was comparing this to the real ones.

Just wonderful, and full marks to the author of the great plane. :)

[chris]

I've now also completed New-York to Halifax, and Halifax to Gander, also using the Hornet I mentioned before.

It's so nice to fly that small plane because it can climb so quickly. You can climb so quickly that the air-traffic control is the factor that slows you down.

It also means you can quickly get to 50,000ft, out of the way of other lower-flying traffic.

Also a lot more fun to fly than the big airliners because the visibility is so much better, since the Hornet has quite compact consoles, rather than the huge stacks of instruments and letter-box opening style windows of the big airliners. It is so nimble as well.

One would imagine that a single-seat F18 would make rather a nice plane for a wealthy individual to fly, if he/she could purchase one minus the weapons systems. I wonder if Boeing would sell you one?

What would it be, around US$35,000,000, $40,000,000? (edit, US$29,000,000 so it seems, or US$60,000,000 for a E/F spec Hornet).

[chris]

Now also completed:

Gander -> Keflavik (Iceland)
Keflavik -> Shannon (Ireland)
Shannon -> Edinburgh (Scotland)
Edinburgh -> Heathrow (London, UK)
Heathrow -> Charles de Gaulle INTL (Paris)

The flight from Edinburgh to Heathrow was with the Beechcraft King Air 350. It is a fine plane, but boy does it make an irritating sound.

From Heathrow to Paris I went back to the F18. It was a very short flight, although French air-traffic control in FS2004 is crazy, sending me all over the place, and resulting in me ending up off course for runway 27R, although a few swift and sharp turns fixed that.

[Frank N. O.]

LOL, sounds like you had fun in France :D A shame it's not real then I'd ask for you to come swing by Odense Airport and pick me up when going back to Sydney :D ;) There is actually a great freeware version of Kastrup aka Copenhagen International Airport for FS2004 if you're interested btw, either now or later.

Have fun :wave:
Frank

[chris]

I've now completed Cairo to King Khaled Intl. (Saubi Arabia), and from there into Bahrain. Next stop will be Dubai. :)

So, so far in my journey I've done:

Sydney -> Auckland
Auckland -> Santiago
Santiago -> Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro -> Cancun
Cancun -> Miami
Miami -> New York
New York -> Halifax
Halifax -> Gander
Gander -> Keflavik
Keflavik -> Shannon
Shannon -> Edinburgh
Edinburgh -> London
London -> Paris
Paris -> Munich
Munich -> Montechiaro
Montechiaro -> Naples
Naples -> Cairo
Cairo -> Riyadh
Riyadh -> Bahrain

Edit: Add Bahrain -> Dubai Intl. to that list above. :) Landed in the evening, with the sun just about gone down.

Talk about rush-hour, I was in a airborne traffic jam of a few 737's and various 747s/777s. I knew a 737 was nearby, so I deliberately went a bit quicker to avoid getting stuck behind it in the landing pattern. ;)

------------------------------------------

Frank: I would have went by Denmark, but completely forgot about Northern Europe in my rush to reach the Middle East, and Dubai. I also switched to a Bell Jetranger at Cairo temporarily to do a little siteseeing. I wanted to see the Pyramids of Giza, and the Sphinx. Found them with no problem, and then turned around and went back to Cairo.

Admittedly I probably could have gone straight from London to Cairo with the 747, since it has such a long range (29,000ft @ Mach 0.85 seems very economical), but I prefer to keep the flights shorter, and avoid using the time-compression feature. The 747-400 can actually fly non-stop from London to Sydney (a feat proven by Qantas Airways with one of its then new 747-400's).

For big planes, Qantas seems to prefer 4 engined machines, over planes like 777-300 with just 2 engines. Qantas doesn't have 777's, but rather 747-400's, and 747-400x models, along with the huge Airbus A380. (it is taking delivery of some A380's in the near future).

I'm ready to switch over temporarily to the Jetranger again to do a little siteseeing in Dubai. I want to see the 321m tall Burj al Arab - the best hotel in the world. It should be easy to find, shaped like a sail on a racing yacht and very tall, it is quite distinctive. It is supposed to have a helipad at the top, maybe I can land on it.. (if I'm lucky). :)

I handle the planes beautifully, but the helicopters.. Eeeek.. ^_^ Those are tricky buggers. The only one I've managed to fly properly is the heavyweight Chinook.

That 747-400 though is a big friendly giant. It feels a lot more powerful than the 777, and you can climb up to cruising altitude a lot more quickly in the 747 in comparison with the 777. Both are about 500% simpler than the tricky to fly but rewarding Concorde. That supersonic bird needs to be flown with absolute precision, and a watchful eye on the centre-of-gravity gauge. :)

[chris]

Now started the next stage of my journey, from Dubai to New Tokyo International Airport. A very long journey indeed, listed at nearly 8000km.

I departed Dubai in darkness during nasty looking thunderstorms.

FS2004 seems to have recreated the awesome effects of thunderstorms very well. Some of the lightning strikes are awesome. Sudden and very dramatic.

From above that is. You don't want to be flying through them, because they contain lots of extremely turbulent air, and (I don't know if they simulated it) hail. Hail is particularly hazardous to aircraft.

Needless to say the flight through or near thunderstorms will be a very rough one. So you fly around them if possible, or well above them if your plane can go high enough.

[chris]

Here is a view from my current flight, showing the interior of the 747.

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/panel.jpg

It looks serene at the moment, but it wasn't a few minutes ago. There was a, er, situation arriving in an awful hurry at 31,000ft in the form of a Learjet 45 on a conflicting course. :yikes: Over 300 tonnes of 747 went sharply down, and I presume the Learjet went sharply up.

I'm surprised FS2004 air-traffic control didn't warn me of it sooner.

[Wazza]

My friend has just gone to Dubai and India for 6 weeks, and has lent me his joystick, and 4cds of FS2004. However, 93% through installation, doing the world.cab file, it's corrupt! Kept installing anyway, and game loads still, although the scenery is really screwed up.
So I even tried manually copying world.cab file, and extracting it, but said the file was either write protected.. or just scratched.
Pity, no other friends have CD4, which I could borrow, and try this game out again.

I used to enjoy landing at Kai Tak, and flying low past the buildings, and out to the island. Checkerboard approach is always fun. Unfortunate, they had to close the runway.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/145042/L/

[Frank N. O.]

Nice cockpit picture, but how can you move the camera position, is that the payware Active Camera program or have I missed something in the manual (most likely because I haven't really read it apart from the student pilot homework from the printed book in the FS2000 Professional release :D )?

I was also wondering Chris, have you ever tried flying with a CH Yoke? I tried flying the student courses with my replacement joystick and I couldn't release it without it tilted and generally I just couldn't fly that precisely with it, and indeed my own concept sportsplane is designed with a yoke for the sake reason, a stick just isn't for me except if it means manual gearshift in a car :D

Wazza: That's bad luck, pardon the dumb question but you have tried cleaning the CD, using any available CD/DVD-drive connected to the PC right? I sadly have no other advice, there isn't a codeword on the .cab-files in the FS2000 release anyway.

Good luck and greetings
Frank

[Wazza]

How do you clean the disc?

I physically cleaned it, but lots of small scratches on it. I know with properly made cds, the data is stored on the backside, under the label, whereas burners, just copy into the top outside layer, so they don't last as long.

[chris]

Nice cockpit picture, but how can you move the camera position, is that the payware Active Camera program or have I missed something in the manual

Aha! :D Big secret so it seems but it is included in FS2004. These are not listed in the manual, and I discovered them by chance.

There are a number of key combinations to try:

SHIFT+ENTER = UP
CTRL + ENTER
CTRL + SHIFT + ENTER
CTRL + BACKSPACE
SHIFT + BACKSPACE
CTRL + SHIFT + BACKSPACE

With all of those keys, you can move the camera about in just about every direction you want, without buying any payware utilities. I suppose I've just spelt the end of them, at least for interior views.. ;)

Just try those key-combinations and see how they work. :)

Also, on the question of yokes/joysticks, I personally don't have a preference, I find them both easy enough. The Yokes are a little easier because the up/down, and roll left/right are seperate. But with the joysticks, it depends on which one you get, because some are better than others.

Wazza: Not sure about cleaning the CD's, I've never tried it. The CAB files are hardly ever pass-phrase protected.

CD 4 is the one you should try and make a copy of, because it is the most used one, you need it in your CD drive every time you run FS2004. So if you can make a duplicate of it, you should, and use that one instead, while keeping the original safely stored away. I've not tried doing that, but I suspect it should work without problems.

[chris]

Complete list of commands to move the cameras inside the plane:

RESET position = SPACE
SHIFT + ENTER = UP
SHIFT + BACKSPACE = DOWN
CTRL + BACKSPACE = FORWARDS
CTRL + ENTER = BACKWARDS
CTRL + SHIFT + BACKSPACE = LEFT
CTRL + SHIFT + ENTER = RIGHT

[chris]

Decided to stop in Delhi, at Indira Gandhi Intl (VIDP).

I'll continue on to Narita from there.

[Wazza]

Don't get lost in Narita.. I flew there in 1995, business class, on way to London also, via Amsterdam.. Flew JAL Auckland - Tokyo - Amsterdam, and KLM Amsterdam to London.

Yeah, well Narita is damn huge, so many gates.

And Schiphol was just scary with semi-automatic gun carrying guards. =[

I shouldn't worry too much about this cd anyway, it's only a friends. And shouldn't really be sharing games away. ;)
Just wait for him to get back in January. I won't mention the game is not working :p Overwise, he may want $120 from me.

[chris]

I'm going to Hong Kong Intl first (the new one). The old one still exists in FS2004 but has no ATC/tower frequencies, or ILS system. It's almost a ghost airport.

[chris]

Getting closer to Hong Kong, and the darkness of night is slowly being replaced by a brilliant sunrise. The sky is becoming more light, and soon the glow of the sun will be visible.

I'm still some way from Hong Kong. Last major area I overflew was a city called Kunming in China. It had a decent size airport and I could have stopped, but since the 777 doesn't climb so quickly, I'll skip past Kunming and go straight on to Hong Kong, to avoid the extra time of landing, and then departing again.

One thing that would have been nice to have in FS2004 is air-traffic control messages spoken in appropriate voices/accents for each particular region, rather than Microsoft employees voices used for every region in the world (although they did a decent job of a mammoth task of recording so many phrases!)

[chris]

Here is a view from the cabin of "Soar 1123 heavy", in early morning, somewhere over China, and around 400 or so nautical miles from Hong Kong:

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/panel777.jpg

If the logos on the yokes, and on the centre of the console didn't give it away, it is indeed a Boeing 777-300. :)

Looking at the VOR displays, you can see that I'm flying directly towards a beacon (the green arrows). You can see also that I'm flying exactly on course, indicated by the centre section of the vor/compass display. (see note at the end of this post).

The autopilot is on the GPS mode, but the NAV frequencies are tuned correctly anyway. You can also see that I'm flying at 35,000ft, at mach 0.84.

You can also see I have the altitude hold on, and the auto-throttle is on as well, as is the Mach hold set to 0.84. The nav hold is also turned on, while the mode for that is set to GPS. So it is effectively flying itself, and I'm doing little more than watching over it, answering air-traffic control requests, and keeping an eye open for other aircraft which could present a problem in the way of a conflicting course.

I'll soon be starting to descend somewhere in the next 50-100nm, and making the final approach to Hong Kong International airport.

Note: The deviation from course is shown by the coloured bar in the centre of the vor/compass display. Your intended course is represented by the white bars. When the coloured bar moves to the left or right of the white bars, then it means you are deviating from your course. The circles indicate how many degrees you are from your course. If the coloured bar is stuck at the side of the vor/compass dial, you won't know exactly how far of course you are, just that you are more than say 10° off course. As you return on course, the coloured bar will gradually line up with the white bars. When it is lined up perfectly, it means you are on course.

This can be useful when you are landing as well, as a means to help you intercept the final approach course (when your navigation radio is set to the ILS frequency of the runway you are using). You also have the cross-bars on the artificial horizon display to assist you as well.

[Frank N. O.]

Thanks for the reports but if you could then a screenshot per destination could be extra good imho.

From what I've heard then the ATC is based on a US-system only and the persons used for voice-recording, that took a very very long time, are not just employees but several of them were ATC/pilots but they trained them all well so you can't tell the difference, according to them anyway, I haven't got the experience to pass judgement on that.

Greetings
Frank

[chris]

Might do that actually.

Also realised why the interior textures were so bad before.. They were getting badly mipped, so turning up the mip-mapping quality fixed those to a large degree. :)

[monaro]

sorry if this is detracting from this interesting journey (non-sarcastic) but do you know how much FS2004 is and if it is still available in stores chris?

one of my friends had 2002 and it was a pretty fun thing to play living by an airforce base, but i never really got into the whole flight sim thing because i dont have a joystick or anything.

sounds like you are enjoying it chris, and i am enjoying reading the journey.

[chris]

I think the cheapest you'll find it for in Australia is around AUD$80.00. I spent AUD$85.00 for it. You should invest in a yoke style controller as well. You can probably just connect steering wheel to the computer, and use its pedals for the control of the rudder. A joystick will work okay, provided you let the game co-ordinate the rudder for you.

Because FS2004 is a Microsoft product, it is very easy to find, and doesn't disappear off shelves three months after it is released.

Meanwhile, as per Franks request, here is a view of my plane in Hong Kong, along with 2 others of its breed (same airline too - what a coincidence!)

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/hk_777s.jpg (194kb)

My one is the middle of the 3 777's. There are some other big planes nearby as well. 1 747's in view, a cargo 747 and another 747-400 out of view, and another two 777's also out of view.

[Myshkin]

Hmmmm would be interesting to fly into the old HK airport just to experience the infamous approach... you know Chris, your posts here about FS2004 have made me interested in trying it myself. I haven't played a flight sim for years, and demos I have played recently have not interested me much.

Every time I've played a flight sim I end up trying to fly low and fast to get the best sensation of speed. Like in IL-2 or even flying the planes in Battlefield the strafing, close-in dogfights and low-flying bomb runs are the fun part.

[Sepecat]

Flight Sim is fun, when you first get it, but then after awhile it just gets boring… And I mean boring… I was into RTW trips and stuff… But then it gets boring… IF you really follow the flight plan, it takes hours to get to your destination… You can speed it up if you want....

I liked it, when I got it, then after a bit, it just wasn’t fun… I also didn’t like installing the traffic and newer aircraft…


Btw Chris you should have stopped at BOM, and picked up some Pax to NRT... ;)

[chris]

I don't mind installing new planes (or new traffic).

I've downloaded a few planes, but I'll probably end up making 1 or 2 planes not currently available for download, and if there is enough interest (and if the planes are good enough), I might even sell a few.

And I really follow the flight plans, and don't use time acceleration. But I can save flights if I need to and continue them later, so I'm not spending 6 hours at once to finish a flight. :)

[chris]

Hmmmm would be interesting to fly into the old HK airport just to experience the infamous approach... you know Chris, your posts here about FS2004 have made me interested in trying it myself. I haven't played a flight sim for years, and demos I have played recently have not interested me much.

Every time I've played a flight sim I end up trying to fly low and fast to get the best sensation of speed. Like in IL-2 or even flying the planes in Battlefield the strafing, close-in dogfights and low-flying bomb runs are the fun part.

This might satisfy your need for speed:
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/speedbird1.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/speedbird3.jpg

Although it's a different kind of speed, high altitude mach 2.0 speed. It's not an easy plane to fly either - it takes a lot of practice.

It's also a very pretty plane to look at, and one of the nicer ones you can download for FS2004. There is an even better pay-ware one, which is costly, but excellent.

For the ultimate challenge, trying flying into the old HK airport, using Concorde. :)

[chris]

I've arrived in Taipei now, after departing New HK Intl airport. I diverted from course a little to overfly the infamous old Hong Kong International airport, and it does still exist in game. Plenty of space for parking, but just one runway.

If you are interested in that airport, this site has a lot of info, including some videos of the most infamous landing approach in modern history of flight:

http://www.nhirai.com/hkg/cx250.htm

Mr Hirai was invited to the flight-deck of a 747-400 before they started to descend into Hong Kong, and allowed to stay there until the plane had landed. It would have been quite an experience, one not to forget.

[chris]

Wondering if I should write an approach/landing tutorial for those just getting into FS2004?

Admittedly FS can be overwhelming to the first time user when things start beeping and with dials presenting lots of information.

I also find the approach mode on the autopilot not very useful. It seems to take ages to get the plane on the final approach course, while I can achieve the same task much more efficiently. Also, at such low speeds, you don't want to be doing too much turning.

Same as when the plane is near the runway, you want to let it glide down, and you never hold it off the run-way (otherwise it will stall and then slam down on the runway, possibly smashing the landing gear, and resulting in a very silly accident).

The only thing you would do is pitch up to about 10° or so when very close to the runway, or flare as it is called. At that point in a big plane like a 747 you've probably put the engines to idle, although in a 737 you might keep the power on. If you watch in real life, you'll note the very different landing and take-off procedure for a 737 versus a 747.

A 737 lands very quickly, while a 747 is not going at anywhere near such a speed.

737:
250km/hr

747:
200km/hr.

A 737 takes off at over 300km/hr, so it is comparitively racing along the runway in comparison with the 747 which takes of at around 250km/hr. You don't need to know those figures, because if you watch both take-off, you can see the difference for yourself.

[chris]

I'm now half-way across to Narita, Tokyo, from Taipei. Nothing notable to mention on this flight, and I've only come across 1 other plane so far, a 737-400 going the other direction.

Now, the landing tutorial as promised, in point form:

1. Descending: You'll be given instructions on descending by the air-traffic control, follow those. When descending to the instructed altitude, you switch off the auto-throttle, and back the engines off to idle power. I use about -2500 or -3000ft/min descent rate. Because of when ATC gives you the instructions, you do need to get the descent done fairly quickly.

If at 35,000ft, they might instruct you to go down to 23,000ft, and then maybe 15,000ft later, and then perhaps 7000ft after that, and finally a low altitude (maybe 2000ft) to maintain until established on the final approach course.

When they give you instructions to turn to specific headings, follow them. They are directing you towards a location when you will easily be able to intercept the final approach course.

You should also have by now tuned your NAV1 radio into the ILS frequency of the runway ATC have told you to use, and switched the NAV/GPS switch to NAV.

2. When intercepting the final approach course, use the magenta coloured bar on the horizontal situation indicator to help you understand when you are on course. It will line up with the white bars nearby when you are on course. If it is to the right, it means you are too far to the right of your course, or if it is left, then you are too far left.

Also use the crossbars on the artificial horizon indicator to help you stay on the approach course. You need to pay attention to the vertical one in particular.

When on the course, make sure you are on the correct glide slope, and established at the proper speed, and with flaps down, and gear down. You'll probably also want to switch off any autopilot functions if you have them switched on. But leave the flight-director turned on. Also use the autobrake function. Only set it to the Max auto setting for short runways.

3. Stay on the glide-slope. Keep an eye on those previously mentioned crossbars. If the horizontal one goes above centre, you are not high enough, and if it goes below centre, you are too high. You can pitch up if you are drastically too low. If you are high, you can pitch down slightly, or just reduce throttle slightly to increase the rate of descent.

The most important thing is not to make any sudden violent turns, climbs or descents. These will make crashes much easier. As you get over the end of the runway, and very close to touching down on the runway, decrease power further, and gently pitch up just slightly (or flare). The plane should touch down on its main undercarriage first, and then you let it down carefully on the nose wheels after that.

4. On the ground, the autobrakes should be slowing the plane down, and you can also press F2 to use reverse thrust to help you slow down further. Once you've slowed down below 50kts, switch off the reverse thrust, and the autobrakes and manually operate the brakes yourself until you've slowed down to 10kts. Exit the runway when able, or when told "turn next taxiway". 10kts is a good speed to taxi at.

Then you contact ground, and get the directions for taxi to the gate.

Go around??
If on final approach, you get the go-around message, you want to put full throttle, and pitch up quickly but carefully until you are climbing. Retract the landing gear as well. Then adjust the throttle to maintain the normal speed you would when you are on flying to the final approach course. Don't go too fast, and don't go too slowly. Follow the instructions from the ATC on what else to do.

Aborted landings:
If for some reason you doubt you'll be able to make the landing, use the same procedure as for the Go around, and advise ATC of your aborted landing. Follow the ATC instructions.

[chris]

I've departed Narita, and I'm heading for Boeing Field in Seattle.. They'll love me when they see what plane I'm arriving in. :D

Since it is a long journey, BA Concorde was rolled out this time. I tried a different configuration/install and it seems to work better, with functioning nav radios finally! Performance also seems more realistic this time. The original performance included with the plane is favourable to the 3rd party one.

I taxied to the runway, held short, waited for the MD-83 to depart, and on getting clearance, prompty wound up the engines, and switched on the reheat. :) Man does it accelerate well. 5000ft in no time. Before long, I'm at at the point to begin acceleration to supersonic cruise speed (M2.04 - 1170kts). Arrived at 45,000ft, with the plane accelerating through Mach 1.7 and switched off the reheat as directed in the (real) flight checklists. I've continued to climb up to FL580, and as the altitude got to FL540, I levelled off the climb gradually, letting the plane ease up to M2.04, and the cruise altitude. So I'm screaming towards a lightening horizon at 1170kts, as seen in the screenshot.

In a few short hours we will be in Seattle. :) The wonders of supersonic travelling. Enjoy your flight. ;)

[chris]

I've since arrived at Boeing Field in Seattle, and then went on to Los Angeles.

I've since been doing a lot of "touch-and-go" landing approaches, practicing landings with the Concorde. It is a tricky plane to land - and it takes a lot of practice to learn the technique.

If you find a 747 or 777 difficult, you'll find Concorde impossible to land.

The toughest part is getting it to touch-down on the runway nice and gently on its main undercarriage, and not flaring too much and bouncing it off the tail-wheel, or completely scraping the back of the plane and the engines severely.

Even a real pilot did that on approach to Cairo in a British Airways Concorde. The exhausts were damaged, the back of the plane was badly scraped, and the tail-wheel/gear assembly was completely smashed. Nobody was hurt. The damage wasn't considered severe enough to stop the plane returning back to the UK, where it was retired for a while, and later returned to flight status after repairs.

On the virtual one, it seems to get near about 200kts when landing, and then sort of drifts about, even if no winds are present. :?

[chris]

I've now arrived in lovely Honolulu, greeted with perfect weather. :)

Air France 002 didn't take long to arrive. ATC wanted me to land at runway 4L, but I preferred rwy 26L, not only because it is long, but also because it was basically in line with my flight path.

So I did a visual landing at runway 26L, flying over the city on approach. You can see in the screenshot attached the classic Concorde landing attitude.

The visual landings are not too difficult, since the air-traffic control directs you almost right to the runway.

[Frank N. O.]

Cool picture, and cool report too, sounds like you're on one wild virtual adventure :cool:

Frank

[chris]

Sad thing is that the around the world trip is coming to an end. :(

I'm getting near Australia now. I could fly straight on to Cairns, but instead I'll go to Bali first, and then fly across to Darwin, then Alice Springs, and then on to Adelaide, then Melbourne, and finally Sydney.

My stop in Honolulu was for practical reasons as well. I don't know if Concorde has enough range to get from LA straight across to Australia, or Indonesia.

[Frank N. O.]

You could try and make videos and documentaries about the most difficult approaches in FS, maybe all using the Concorde or a similar spectacular craft.
There's a link at Avsim I think where there's a freeware list/setup for such approaches.

Good luck
Frank

[chris]

I'm actually thinking of buying the Altitude Concorde:

http://www.sstsim.com

I like the Project Mach 2.0 one, but there are a few things about it that don't seem quite right, even though it is a bloody good effort for a freeware thing. One of the things is really needs is some shading for things like insides of the engine air-intakes/ducts for instance - giving the impression of shadows. I've also wondered about the Max Climb and Max Cruise buttons, and if they should actually do anything. Looking on the FSFrance forums didn't reveal much.

I'll wait however until the AUD/pound sterling conversion is slightly more favourable. ;) The conversion rate at the moment is just awful, and paying almost as much as FS2004 costs, just for addon aircraft no matter how well done is a little bit over-the-top.

I was nearly going to make a video of my landing into Honolulu, but settled for a quick and easy screenshot, considering the storms we had this afternoon. I might still make the video, since I saved the flight before I landed.

I always do that so I can go back and practice landings again if I want. :)

I settled on flying straight to Cairns in Northern Queensland, since it was closer than Bali. I was more than a little annoyed at having only the shorter runway 4L and 4R to take off from in Honolulu, since I'd wanted to use RWY 26L again for the take-off, but it didn't appear on the list.. With RWY 26L, I can forget the noise limitation procedures and climb quickly up to altitude (better for fuel economy).

Concorde fuel economy is quite lousy at low altitudes. The only time it really uses up a lot of fuel is during trans-sonic acceleration (mach 0.93 to mach 1.4) , But up at 50,000ft or higher, it has quite good fuel economy, due to the facts of less air-resistance, very cold temperature, low winds, etc. Concordes sub-sonic range is inferior to its supersonic range in fact.

If you don't have FS2004, but are interested in Concorde, you may find the Flight Manual at the following link gives a interesting insight into Concorde flight operations and the various procedures:

http://www.fsfrance.com/Projets/Mach2/Download.htm

The flight manual is a scanned copy of the Air France Concorde flight manual. Be sure to have your French to English dictionary handy (if you don't understand French already).

And if you are wondering what does the Concorde sound like, you might like this small video:

http://campbell-multimedia.co.uk/fs-stuff/fred_tesgo_mq.wmv

This is an Air France Concorde, and it would have been doing about Mach 1.3 or so. Don't turn up your speakers if you don't hear anything at first, because you'll soon hear the sound, a distinct double bang.

[chris]

I've noticed that the Concordes terrible twin is available for download too. Someone made a quite convincing Tupolev TU-144.

It's a rather strange looking plane, a bit like Concorde, but looking more awkward, with canards drooping out to the sides like floppy dogs ears. It has a very well done panel too. In comparison to Concorde, TU-144 seems much less automated, it doesn't seem to have the same sophistication in terms of auto-pilot controls notably.

What it does have though is no shortage of engine power.

Also tried briefly a Boeing 707 in BOAC form. Not a bad plane at all, but my god those RR Conway engines have terrible lag. :eek: You call for power, and wait, and wait.. :eek:

It also needs every last metre of runway available. But once airborne you have to pay particular attention to the throttle because it will easily overspeed. I don't suppose the residents around Narita were impressed with my full power take-off, deafening them with noise, and drowning them in the 707's exhaust smoke.

If you want a challenging airliner to fly, the 707 is your plane. It's got quite a complex panel included with it, so it is best to read the instructions. You really have to fly this plane, you don't have fancy computers to do everything for you.

[chris]

Air France 002 has arrived in Cairns in late afternoon.

Honolulu to Cairns is stretching the Concordes range a bit, it finished with around 20 tonnes of fuel left, and some fuel low warning lights on.

Not bad though for M 2.03 at 58,000ft most of the way.

I went into the landing approach with IAS HOLD on at 250kts, and then slowed down to 210kts before beginning turn to intercept the final approach course. I then slowed down further to 179kts, before disengaging IAS HOLD and throttling back for a reasonably smooth landing.

The landing is tricky with this plane because it seems to want to "bounce" rather than touching down smoothly, surprising considering this plane weighs quite a lot. I've wondered if this trait is an inaccuracy, or if anyone else has noticed it.

[chris]

Now about 40% into the journey from Cairns to Sydney Kingsford Smith International airport.

I'm being very naughty and flying over land at M 2.04. Mostly over unused land however. I will have to back the speed off as I start getting near the outer reaches of Sydney.

I should be in Sydney within 30 minutes.

[Frank N. O.]

Nice, could be cool if I could start up my FS9 and go online and go to Sydney and see you land live :D

Frank

[chris]

You'd need to be quick. ;)

I swapped Concordes, I'm now in Speedbird alfa-foxtrot, otherwise fully known as golf-bravo-oscar-alfa-foxtrot, or for those not well versed in the phonetic alphabet, G-BOAF.

I don't know much about the multiplayer stuff, so maybe we might wait for another time to try the multiplayer thing..

Who knows, maybe we should try and recreate the scientific expedition done by two Concordes flying in close formation, chasing an eclipse. :) That would make a nice screenshot opportunity.

[Sepecat]

Chris, I would think there will be more Interest in this over at Flightsim.com?

You should post over there... They would be very interested.... ;)

Btw Chris, did you get FAA Approval to fly the Concorde to Honolulu.. ;)

:D

[chris]

Bugger the FAA. :D I was even so considerate to fly Concorde into Boeing territory. ;) She is a beautiful old bird to fly once you learn how to handle it nicely.

As for flightsim.com, I prefer this forum, although I was posting in the rscnet flight-sim forums until rsc went offline for a while.

[chris]

I'll continue the approach into Sydney tomorrow night. It's too late to continue it at this hour of the morning.

At the moment, I've passed over Scone, and will soon be near Richmond. I've decelerated to M 0.95, and I'm now at around 30,000ft. But for now, that's on hold until tomorrow evening. If you are interested Frank in taking up that idea of the multiplayer, and seeing me land, it might be possible tomorrow. :)

It's amazing to fly at FL550 or higher, and the Learjets, 737's, 747's, 777's and MD-83's at 30,000ft all look like little tiny ants so far away. :)

If you should happen to be flying in the same direction/course as one of them, you can really see the speed difference as you race past them at better than double their speed.

[Wazza]

Good to see yourself still enjoying the game.

Have you tried landing at Antarctica? Scott Base, or similar. Download a scenery add on, heh.

[Frank N. O.]

Sounds fun allthough I have no idea how FS multiplayer works. I know that if you don't have a certain add-on plane, and I don't have a Concorde atm, then you're getting another plane. My brother flew a Concorde in FS98 and followed a guy in a tight landing online and he asked why he didn't land there too and my brother asked if he couldn't see what he flew in? He couldn't, he didn't have that add-on so he saw a Cessna or something :D

It's 20:32 now, when are you going to start the last stage?

Frank

[Frank N. O.]

Pardon me for not catching it, but what Concorde are you using? PM2? And what liveries? I just noticed they have a fictional one for the old SAS-scheme and that's funny for me. The new Qantas one looks great too imho.

Fank

[chris]

Project Mach 2.0 Concorde.

Using these liveries:

British Aircraft Corporation / Aerospatiale France house colours
Air France (current colours)
Air France Pepsi Concorde
British Airways (current colours)

Those are the colours I'm using.

Everything you need can be downloaded from here:
http://projets.fsfrance.com/Mach2/Fichiers/

Also, you'll probably need the Delco Carousel IV A inertial navigation system:
http://www.simufly.com/ins

Install it, and copy its GAU, and the other files to the Gauges directory. Personally, I don't use the INS because I just don't understand it properly at the moment.

And don't forget to edit the panel.cfg file and remove the line with sonicbang (or similar). That will stop the crash to desktop when exceeding Mach 1.0. It's a lovely plane to fly, but it has a few bugs, and they won't release a proper list of sound files.. If they did, I'd just hack together some silent place holder sounds to put in place of the missing files. I'd love to know if anyone has the 16.9mb size panel for this Concorde. That is the one without bugs.

I'll fly the last stage at around 10:00pm Australian eastern standard time (Sydney). Looks like that would be at around mid-day for you. I'll send you a private message anyhow at that time. It's 11:00am at the moment.

[Frank N. O.]

Well this sure is complicated. I haven't got much practice in costum-assembling files and it doesn't even have the texture-folders made and I don't speak french so my try to install texture-files did not seem to work very well :D

I almost had a complete stress-breakdown yesterday trying to get out from a big crowd after browsing in Toy'r'Us (modelcars) then I slept extra early and got my sleep-pattern interrupted, again, and just woke up extremely early after having a massive headache last night and starting to feel horribly ill at the same time, so we'll probably use the early time to go out and get some of the last grocery-shopping done where it's on sale so I'll probably not be around at noon sadly. It doesn't seem like I understand the whole FS MP thing anyway so it's probably for the better so I don't risk ruining your flight. Ttyl and have fun :wave:

Frank

[chris]

No no no, I'll help you get it installed. No problems in that. :)

Install in the following order:
1. http://projets.fsfrance.com/Mach2/Fichiers/PM2C_V2_BASE_FS9.exe
2. http://projets.fsfrance.com/Mach2/Fichiers/PM2C_V2_SOUND.exe
3. http://projets.fsfrance.com/Mach2/Fichiers/PM2C_V2_PANEL2004.exe

Colour schemes:
1. Install colour schemes of your choice
2. http://projets.fsfrance.com/Mach2/Fichiers/PM2C_V2_COMMON_TEXTURES.exe
(install into the directory for each airline colour scheme, run this program multiple times, for as many airline colour schemes you have)

3.http://projets.fsfrance.com/Mach2/Fichiers/PM2C_V2_NIGHT_TEXTURES_1.exe
(install into the directory for each airline colour scheme, run this program multiple times, for as many airline colour schemes you have)

4. http://projets.fsfrance.com/Mach2/Fichiers/Patch_PM2_fsfrance.exe

Now look for the panel.cfg file, open it in notepad, and search for bang.

When you've found it, delete, or put a comment // in front of that line. It will remove the sonic-boom sound effect that might cause a crash because the sound file is missing.

That will get you a working Concorde. :D Ignore the irritating "soundlib-fehler" messages, and "sound-file ungueltig" messages. The only problem one has been removed by the panel edit I recommended.

[chris]

Updated the post above. That's all that is needed for making the Concorde work. They made the installer this way to make downloading easier.

[Frank N. O.]

Ok I'll take a look at it thanks. I got some waiting time since I don't know if we gotta drive my sick brother somewhere.

Frank

[chris]

At the time of writing this, it is 8:52pm Sydney time, just for your info.

[Frank N. O.]

Yeah sorry but my sick brother had to get a ride, he was in very bad shape and had missed his exams (again). Forehead cavity infection or whatever the proper english term is, something that can lead to nmonia.

I just got back now. I finally figured out how those liveries had to be installed.

Hmmm, I get a crash to desktop as soon as it loads the plane to the create a flight menu.

Frank

[chris]

Plenty of time. :) Glad you worked it out.

I practice finished the flight, and the silly twits made me land at runway 34R. If you know Sydney airport well, you'll know that's the short runway on the right hand side near the long "bay" runway. It's only just long enough for Concorde to land. I actually did quite a nice landing.

I didn't like much the close proximity of the "Orbit" 737-400.. It got well within 1 mile, close enough for me to make out all of the details on its landing gear, and they seemed to want to land as well, same runway.

I wasn't going to get a go-around, when I'm cleared to land, I want to land. :) So I increased the power, and overtook the annoying 737. ;) Got far enough ahead of it, and slowed down enough, just in time for the landing. :)

I've parked in an out-of-the-way area on the far side of the domestic terminal buildings. I've parked at what would have been the old Ansett Airlines domestic terminals. Ansett not only was the local Australian airline (before it went bust), but it also operated some 747-320's it acquired from Singapore Airlines on Asian flight routes.

And that concludes my round the world flight.

In the Concorde package, there is a list of flight routes, and I think I will try some of those now. Anyone else here with FS2004 is free to join in (online) if they wish. :) Just use the Concorde mentioned above, in one of those airlines, and all will be well. Might be 1 or 2 flights per week. :)

[VQ]

I hope your brother gets well soon.

[chris]

I hope so too. :well:

Those types of illnesses are very serious.

[Frank N. O.]

Thanks VQ and Chris, we hope so too, he's also supposed to join us for christmass which hopefully is the last one on this island for both me and my mom.

It could be cool if I had a Blackbird to join you with, but there is not one single FS9-compatible freeware model I could find =(( But oh well, I got a nice Black Widow II and I should get the Valkyrie freeware model installed to at least get the 3rd super-plane of the 60s (or around that time).

Frank

[chris]

I don't think an SR71 would be very good, because Concorde wouldn't keep up with it. ;) YF23 might be okay, just as long as it has enough range. ;) But then again, the design requirements for YF23/YF22 were for a super-cruise capability, and long range, right, just like Concorde, since it also does the "super-cruise" trick, that is, maintaining supersonic speeds without using afterburners.

There is a decent Tupolev TU-144 available from Avsims now. It seems decent, but it takes an eternity to load, and is a lot more difficult to fly than Concorde.

Anyhow, the flight plan map is attached. I'm working out a plan, to basically use them to go around the world again, but quickly this time - maybe to see how quickly one could go around the world, with the logs keeping track of flight time. :)

If anyone has suggestions on an ideal combination of flight routes, or where to begin, reply. :)

[chris]

My initial thoughts are:

1. Sydney to Singapore
2. Singapore to Bahrain
3. Bahrain to Lisbon
4. Lisbon to Dallas
5. Dallas to Honolulu
6. Honolulu to Guam
7. Guam to Sydney

The major problem is the USA, in that you can only go sub-sonic speeds over the US (unless you are air-force, in which case the rules mean nothing). Unless I plan a stop somewhere in central America, instead of Dallas, and then go from there to Honolulu. :?

Or maybe:
1. Sydney to Singapore
2. Singapore to Bahrain
3. Bahrain to London
4. London to Montreal
5. Montreal to Anchorage
6. Anchorage to Tokyo
7. Tokyo to Guam
8. Guam to Sydney

I'm pretty certain Montreal to Anchorage could be done at supersonic speeds. When one of the Concordes flew to it's final place at a museum in Seattle, it when over rural Canada at supersonic speeds.

Shame that Honolulu to Sydney would I think just be out of reach for Concorde. It might just be able to achieve it, but it would be pushing the limits too far, and it would be flying on vapour by the time it reached Sydney.

Now of course, the easy way for an around the world flight would simply be a B747-400, tanked up to the max, and doing few stops, but flying at only sub-sonic speeds. That wouldn't be much fun, nor would it be very fast. :)

I should also recommend that anyone wanting to try this flight, might do well to take a look at the Concorde "manual d'exploitation/manual d'utilisation" I mentioned earlier in this thread. Even despite it being in French, you can find handy hints on correct and safe operating procedures.

[Frank N. O.]

Well for long-distance flights and such then the Black Widow II I got won't do. It's too sensitive and I managed to get it stuck in a runt doing spirals in the air so the controls locked, including the afterburners.

There's a B1B that looks a lot more purpose-made, at least judging by the 2-digit amount of mb. I have a little IE trouble to download via IE from Simviation, and I gotta find the Valkyrie, I'm trying Firefox now, hmmm, Firefox, hehe that's another supersonic thingie I could get for FS9 :D

Frank

[chris]

Ah, yes, I had that one. ;)

("think in Russian, can not think in English and transpose, you must think in Russian, do you think you could do that Mr Ghant?)

But Concorde would do fine, true. :) There is an F18 super-hornet available, but it doesn't seem very fast, or particularly long ranged.

But the range should be around 3,360 nm (6,225km) at mostly supersonic speeds. Concorde isn't super-long ranged, but she can fly reasonably far, and quickly.

Concorde has actually inferior range at sub-sonic speeds, because at 29,000ft at Mach 0.93, the operation is not as efficient, the air is more warm, more dense, less calm, than the ideal regime of 55,000ft plus, with its very cold, thin air, and relatively calm conditions.

And yes, the B1B might do okay, although it won't actually do much more than 725kts, right? I regularly achieve 1165-1170kts in Concorde. :D But I could slow down somewhat, to maybe Mach 1.6. :)

Very pleasing to note you can out-race USA's most exotic strategic bomber of today. :D

Nothing preventing you I suppose from using Concorde, if nothing else suitable presents itself ;)

So just to summarise, the ideal performance specs for a plane in this journey would be:

Performance:
- Able to cruise at Mach 2 for extended periods of time
- cruise between 50,000-60,000ft
- range around 3000-4000Nm.

Practical features:
- has decent autopilot functions

[Frank N. O.]

Hehe thinking in russian, don't know about that but I can easily think directly in english, no problem at all and that's handy for translation directly to danish for my mom while reading the english text.

I found a Blackbird on Simviation but it didn't work, but then I tried the Valkyrie, oh yeah baby! Fits my ancestry too, the name is from nordic mythology and it's built in a place visited by the my ancestors 1000 years ago :cool:

I don't have a functioning webspace so I had to heavily compress the picture but I guess you can read the read-out and see where it's from.

Frank

P.S. You may be able to outrun todays bomber, but yesterday's.... :D :Peace: :wave:

[chris]

Hmm, I see a little tiny speck looking like a Danish designed Opera House, and a certain well known bridge. :)

And also easy to see the place where the Olympics were held back in 2000. :)

I think I'll get the XB-70 as well. I've got it saved on CD I think.

[Frank N. O.]

Hmm, I see a little tiny speck looking like a Danish designed Opera House, and a certain well known bridge. :)You do? You got better eyes than me. I continued the flight after the screenshot and I think it's a bit over-optimistic and a bit too easy to fly so you might not like it. The screenshot says it all :D

Frank

[chris]

I don't mind. :) As long as it can manage the distances and speeds required. :)

I find it more challenging than Concorde actually.

I like to do the climb perfectly, then set my plane up to fly to the destination on its autopilot (or change radio frequencies when needed), and do a nice descent by the book and a nice landing. :)

Anyhow, it's 3am in the morning, I had better get a few hours sleep. ;)

[chris]

Okay, I'll soon have the plans for the around the world record flight, for those who should wish to join in online. We'll have to find a good way of organising it, and getting everyone to arrive at the right time. :)

I'm getting the distances worked out for all of the legs of the flight, and or potential variations. I'll post them here, along with the flight plan files when they are done.

[chris]

Concorde landing demo-video coming very soon. :)

[chris]

Well for long-distance flights and such then the Black Widow II I got won't do. It's too sensitive and I managed to get it stuck in a runt doing spirals in the air so the controls locked, including the afterburners.

There's a B1B that looks a lot more purpose-made, at least judging by the 2-digit amount of mb. I have a little IE trouble to download via IE from Simviation, and I gotta find the Valkyrie, I'm trying Firefox now, hmmm, Firefox, hehe that's another supersonic thingie I could get for FS9 :D

Frank

Tried that B1B, and it didn't seem so impressive (apart from excellent shape). I got it from:

http://www.i3dteam.com/

Looked good, but didn't seem to fly very well. From what I got, it seemed to not handle like a large and heavy plane should.

[Frank N. O.]

Yes I noticed that too, especially since my joystick is over-sensitive compared to a yoke for smooth flying. Well for me the only fast plane I have is the Valkyrie but I have no idea about route-planning, calculations etc.

Frank

P.S. My brother seems to be getting better, but my mom also had to demand that he took all rounds of penicilin also when he starts getting better and not go to work (kindergarden, and he didn't want to let us drive for him two days earlier because he was afraid of infecting us, my bro is a piece of work).

[chris]

Did you manage to get Concorde to work? It will have Sound File Ungueltig messages occasionally, but you ignore them and it does work quite fine.

Only this following line in the panel.cfg file...

gauge121=cm_conc_sonicbang!cm_conc_sonicbang, 12,3,3,3

... should be deleted, or changed to:
//gauge121=cm_conc_sonicbang!cm_conc_sonicbang, 12,3,3,3

I mentioned before about Concordes inertial navigation system - and after trying it, I think you'll find the GPS navigation mode of the autopilot is easier, and quicker.

The INS takes 15 minutes just to align itself properly. :rolleyes:

Shame the flight manual for Concorde only describes the décollage avec anti-bruit take-off procedures. Those are the noise-reduction take off procedures, described for KJFK, particularly the Canarsie area. Those take-offs limit speed to 250kts, until the plane is up to about 10,000ft, or a certain distance away from the airport, where power is incrementally added.

Particularites procedures antibruit
If assigned altitude is lower than 2500ft, do not activate the mode <<max climb>> at Theta 2 in order to exceed this altitude, because it would result in extremely uncomfortable flight.


That's just one of the many instructions. What it means here (if my translation was correct), is not to press the Max Climb button when climbing from below 2500ft, because it would probably result in a steep and extremely uncomfortable climb rate.

As a rule, Concorde pilots prefer to stay "low and slow" for as little time as possible. As soon as they can climb to higher altitude, and high speeds, they will, because their plane flies far more efficiently in those conditions.

The real Concorde flights were always one big mach 2.0 party. The cabin-crew, the passengers, even the pilots had fun. One would apparently fly over his house on approach to Heathrow, and crank up the throttle quickly for some extra noise (sending things on tables in the cabin flying), only to excuse it as "boys will be boys", much to the amusement of everyone. ^_^ Others weren't so naughty, but they all appreciated being a part of something special.

[chris]

Just did a Dulles-Heathrow (Washington-London) test flight in G-BOAF to see what it could do, and more precisely, how fast, and I managed that in about 3.5 hours, with about 20% fuel left-over. So it's obviously got some decent range.

With that in mind, I'll post the final record-round-the world flight plans later today.

I also note on the Dulles-Heathrow test flight that I achieved a higher cruising speed than before, reaching 1267kts, or over 2450km/hr, or in excess of Mach 2.2.

I had picked up a great jetstream (actually really happening at the moment in real life), and this made for a fast journey, even with a 27R landing at Heathrow, forcing me to circle around at very slow 250kts (the maximum allowed for the London area, and the maximum intermediate approach speed for Concorde). While circling around, I managed to spot the Millenium Dome, and Buckingham Palace.

With more flights in the Concorde, I'm quickly learning the tricks of flying and landing this plane. It actually responds reasonably quickly to control inputs, and turns reasonably well for a delta-winged plane, and it also seems quite stable.

But it absolutely doesn't like any sudden hurried manueovers, everything should be done carefully and not rushed. You should establish yourself on the final approach course/glide slope for landing with at least 15-20nm to go, and then leave it on auto-throttle, with the IAS hold at between 160-179kts, and only disengage A/T when close to the runway (40ft above the runway).

The touch down is absolutely critical, the negative vertical speed should be very small when very near the touch down point, while performing the flare.

[chris]

I did have a longer more detailed post written, but lost it when trying to post it.. Here is the basics:


Cruise Altitudes: 54,000ft - 60,000ft (depending on air-temperature at high altitude)
Cruise speed: M 2.04 (maximum operating speed)

1. New york -> Paris
2. Paris -> Novosibirsk
3. Novosibirsk -> Tokyo Narita
4. Tokyo -> Anchorage
5. Anchorage -> Montreal
6. Montreal -> Paris


Each stage is within the Concordes 6225km range, with fuel to spare should anything go wrong. The flights also go east, because this should allow the jet-streams to be used to good effect.

These don't cover all destinations, just the minimum required to go once around the planet, in the shortest time possible.

The flight manuals for Concorde mentioned earlier in this post will give a good insight into the correct procedures to fly Concorde. Mainly, take notice of any procedures relating to throttle, auto-throttle (automanette), speeds, reheat (rechauffage). The manuals are in French, but it is all mostly illustrated, and the meanings are quite obvious.

Next thing is to find a mutually agreeable time for all who wish to join in. Perhaps we use GMT for the sake of simplicity.

I suppose also others could join in with the subsonic 777-300, or 747-400 airliners included with FS2004, if you think you can beat those of us using the supersonic Concorde. Obviously you won't need to make so many stops as those using Concorde, but you also will be flying at less than half the speed, so it is balanced to a degree.

[chris]

The Concorde landing video I promised before is coming soon. :) It is recorded from a 3.1 hour flight from Paris CDG to Bahrain Intl.

You'll note that the landing is nearly identical to the way the real plane lands. So Flight-sim France Design team would appear to have created their Concorde with a degree of authenticity. :)

[chris]

Here you go:

Concorde Landing - 5,170kb:
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/speedbird_landing.zip

Requires Windows Media 9 Series.

I've added captions to this video, so turn on the captions in your Windows Media Player. Pause the video if you need to.

This is the landing at Bahrain International airport, ILS runway 30. It took about 3 hours to arrive in Bahrain from Charles de Gaulle INTL in Paris. The flight was largely uneventful, with only a few sightings of various Alitalia and Lufthansa "heavies" at 30 to 40 thousand feet altitude.

Concorde is certainly ideal for covering long distances in short time. Anyhow, enjoy the video, hopefully you will find it useful if you are trying to fly this plane in FS2004. :)

One last note: If you are trying to land this plane, and look like you are not going to make it, you should commence the go-around procedures immediately. Power up, climb steadily, maintain preliminary approach speed (250kts), advise tower of missed landing.

[chris]

Just tried the reverse of before, Bahrain to Paris, to see if it could be done any faster, and 3 hours, 6 minutes seems to be the best it will do.

Crazy Paris air-traffic control with many different zones didn't help, along with a long way to taxi to the gate (spotting an Air France Concorde being readied in the process)

I stopped beside a Cathay Pacific 747-400, and a small Lufthansa 737-500, with a British Airways A319 pakred beyond that.

I surprisingly haven't had any mechanical failures or engine dramas so far, and with more practice my landings are getting much better.

[Frank N. O.]

Nice video, allthough the video I saw of a Concorde showed a somewhat higher-nosed pitch but that could be the angle since I'm sure you've researched this bird a lot more than me :)

Glad you're having fun but if you ever want to try a even more complicated landing then, if FS can simulate it and you can find it, then try a glide-landing of a NASA Shuttle Orbitor from 90K ft :D

Happy holidays
Frank

[chris]

Haven't looked for any orbitor vehicles yet. (Either Buran, or the nasa shuttles).

I'd imagine FS would be unsuitable for those, since it doesn't offer any proper guidance to get to the runway, from long distances. The shuttles probably can not just fly in like a 747, or Concorde, and level off at 7000ft, then start descending a minute later to 3000ft. I'd imagine they have to keep descending to avoid stalling.

Then again, you could always try this:
http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/gallery.html

It's freeware, and apparently excellent.

[chris]

Finally ended up getting the INS system on the Concorde to work. A couple of buttons are less than obvious, so once it is set to Standby, the CDU selector is turned to the POS setting, and then the initial location of the plane is entered.

The 2 button is pressed first (because it acts as N, for north initially), then the rest of the numbers are keyed in.

So at first, it'd be 249007, meaning N49007 on the display, then the insert button is pressed. Then next, the 6 is pressed (meaning E for east), then 023453, meaning E023453 on the display, and then insert is pressed. This is done for the second INS unit, then both CDU's are switched to the DSRTK/STS setting. At which point the mode settings for both are moved to ALIGN, and the INS units begin aligning themselves. (takes about 15 minutes).

Then you switch the CDU modes back to WAYPT, and start entering the co-ordinates for each waypoint. By the time that is done, and other air-craft checks are done, the INS units should be aligned. &(

Complicated. &(

[Frank N. O.]

Finally ended up getting the INS system on the Concorde to work. A couple of buttons are less than obvious, so once it is set to Standby, the CDU selector is turned to the POS setting, and then the initial location of the plane is entered.

The 2 button is pressed first (because it acts as N, for north initially), then the rest of the numbers are keyed in.

So at first, it'd be 249007, meaning N49007 on the display, then the insert button is pressed. Then next, the 6 is pressed (meaning E for east), then 023453, meaning E023453 on the display, and then insert is pressed. This is done for the second INS unit, then both CDU's are switched to the DSRTK/STS setting. At which point the mode settings for both are moved to ALIGN, and the INS units begin aligning themselves. (takes about 15 minutes).

Then you switch the CDU modes back to WAYPT, and start entering the co-ordinates for each waypoint. By the time that is done, and other air-craft checks are done, the INS units should be aligned. &(

Complicated. &(
POOF, Frank N. O.'s head goes pop. Tilt! Tilt!

You should be an engineer, you got skills!

Frank

[chris]

I've actually got it flying on the INS at the moment, From Charles de Gaulle to Dakar. It actually works really well! This thing is bloody awesome!! :D

It turns to the course quickly and efficiently, with no messing about, or chasing the course.

The trick is getting the first initial position in, and getting the INS units to align themselves. Once that is done, entering in the waypoint co-ordinates is quite easy. I'll write a tutorial about it, and illustrate it with some screenshots.

But when you are in that initial alignment phase, have the parking brakes on (INS sees that as also external power connected), and the engines switched off. And DO NOT MOVE THE PLANE AT ALL! That will ruin the alignment.

You'll know its aligned, because the alignment accuracy indicator will be counting down from 9, to 0, and when it is ready, the green READY NAV light illuminates on both INS units.

Then you can switch to WAYPT and start entering in all of the co-ordinates for your way-points. If you have more than 9, just enter the first 9, and then enter the rest mid-flight. :)

If you open a flight sim flight plan file, you'll get some co-ordinates like this:
waypoint.0=, LFPG, , LFPG, A, N49* 0.02', E2* 33.86', +000390.00,

So on the INS display, the bold bit would appear like:

49'00.2N 002'33.9E

Note the 33.9 comes from the 33.86, simply rounded off.

Note on the INS keypad, the 2, 8, 6, 4 keys represent north, south, east, west respectively. You push one of those first, before entering in your set of co-ordinates.

So for:

49'00.2N 002'33.9E

You'd press:
249002 INSERT 6002339 INSERT

Make sure when entering way-points the REMOTE function is switched on for both INS units. This will transfer the co-ordinates entered on one to the other one quickly and easily.

And in case you are wondering, the INS system used on the virtual concorde (CIVA130.ZIP) is an exact replica of the real thing. It's complicated at first, but works very nicely.

Latest version available at:
http://SimuFly.com/ins

Also, note that when you are flying, the INS ALERT lights will come on occasionally. This happens when you are 2 minutes away from your next way-point, and gives you warning to switch to the next waypoint manually if you have it on manual mode, or don't worry about it if you have it switched to auto mode. :) Don't get too stressed when you see that light. ;)

[chris]

Here is how the INS looks in my Concorde at the moment (see attachment).

On the main displays, the figures are:

distance to next way point: 1286NM
time to next waypoint: 66.3 minutes
course: 214.6°
current speed: 1165kts

The little small display with the 45 on it is a two part thing. Has two sides, FROM, and TO. FROM is the left number, TO is the right number. I'm going from waypoint 4 to waypoint 5.

The ALERT light will come on when I'm 2 minutes away from my current waypoint.

It is a complicated system to configure at first, but your flights are truly easy when it works, since you need not mess about with navigation radios. All it requires is that the initial position you enter into it is accurate, and for the aligning process to be done without error.

[chris]

Air France 001 arrived in sunny Dakar, about 2 hours 48 minutes after leaving Paris.

A very pleasant flight, and the Inertial Navigation System worked beautifully, I only needed to intervene when nearing the approach to Dakar, at which point the INS was switched off, and I switched to the ILS frequency of runway 36, and used conventional navigation to get to the runway.

Slowing to 250kts feels so slow in comparison to 1165kts.

What I flew was one of the actual Air France Concorde flight routes

[chris]

Here is a good page of the real Concorde flight plans if anyone should need them:

http://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/concfp.htm

Some of them require a program called FSNav.

[chris]

Okay, I'm stuck, I'm trying to find in FS2004 an intersection called RILKA, located at N49º25.0’ W006º20.0’. Can anyone here with FS2004 confirm its existance, or help me find it. I've been putting together some ready-to-download Concorde real flight planes, and a few intersections have been VERY hard to find.

So far, I've been putting together this one:

MYNN (Nassau)
MAMEL
EXTER
MACCK
CORAL
LAZEY
--other custom co-ordinates/waypoints go here--
BISKI
??RILKA??
KATHY
EGLL (London)

So far, it is obvious this flight plan, for British airways from Nassau (Bahamas)to Heathrow (London) has been designed to spend the majority of its time over water, and not near land. Even when nearing the UK, it passes between England and France deliberately, before turning off and going north towards Heathrow from KATHY (near St. Catherines point).

So far, this site has been quite useful, in conjunction with a google search on it:

http://www.fallingrain.com/waypoint/

Edit: RILKA isn't in FS2004, but it is very close to PEMAK. :rolleyes:

[chris]

Here are the real world flight plans used by British Airways on the Concorde flights from Nassau (Bahamas) to Heathrow (London) and reverse. Put these in your \My Documents\Flight Simulator Files\ folder, and load them:

British Airways Concorde Nassau -> London (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Nassau-Heathrow.PLN)
British Airways Concorde London -> Nassau (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Heathrow-Nassau.PLN)

This will save you having to create them yourself (not easy to do).

Notes: The waypoints marked NATxx are North Atlantic tracks. When nearing England, the waypoint BISKI (Bay of Biscay) is your cue to begin deceleration. When departing London, the waypoint UPGAS is where you begin acceleration.

You can open these PLN files in notepad and print them out, if you need to use the co-ordinates for the inertial navigation system. You'll probably enter just the first 9, and then program the rest in later during your flight (as waypoint 1, 2, 3 and or 4). When the INS reaches waypoint 9, it will wrap back to waypoint 1.

Screenshots:
Going past Bermuda at 60,300ft altitude (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/bermuda.jpg)
screenshot 2 (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/nassau_heathrow2.jpg)
screenshot 3 (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/nassau_heathrow3.jpg)
screenshot 4 (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/nassau_heathrow4.jpg)
screenshot 5 (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/nassau_heathrow5.jpg)
screenshot 6 (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/nassau_heathrow6.jpg)
screenshot 7 (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/nassau_heathrow7.jpg)

My 1st landing attempt at Heathrow was messed up by the tower telling me to go-around. Meaning I had to rejoin the crowded landing pattern again, following a Boeing 757, with an Airbus A320 following me.

Not fun when there is about 20% fuel left over. Eventually landed safely. ;)

[chris]

note: excuse the French explanations (probably not perfect French), I also posted this in another, predominantly French speaking forum, and I didn't feel like rewriting it again.

EGLL (Heathrow) -> MYNN (Nassau):

767, 777 et Concorde (avant decollage):
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau1.jpg

EGLL -> MALBY:
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau2.jpg

MALBY -> UPGAS:
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau3.jpg

UPGAS (début accélération):
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau4.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau5.jpg

LESLU -> NATSP: (croisiere supersonique)
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau6.jpg

NATSP: (croisiere supersonique)
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau7.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau8.jpg

Bermuda: (croisiere supersonique)
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau9.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau10.jpg

Approche à Nassau:
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau11.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau12.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau13.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau14.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau15.jpg

Atterrissage à Nassau:
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau16.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau17.jpg

Cessna, Learjet, Concorde:
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau18.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau19.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/heathrow_nassau20.jpg


This Concorde flies very well on long journeys, and the Inertial Navigation System proves it is still a wonderful system, even if it is rarely used in modern planes.

After a while, I hit a nasty head-wind. The autothrottle attempted to maintain the speed at M 2.02, but the fuel consumption proved slightly too high for this very long journey, so I attempted to climb carefully past 60,000ft in an effort to find better fuel economy. It worked. The speed went back to about M 2.01, but the fuel economy was better.

I can't quite work out how the real Concorde prototype G-BSST managed to achieve M 2.23 at 63,600ft (overspeeding for certain, given that M 2.04 is the certified maximum for normal operations). That is something I haven't been able to replicate. Unless G-BSST used its afterburners to achieve that. :? Normally Concorde does what is known as a super-cruise at 50,000ft+ altitudes. It flies supersonic without using afterburners. It was probably one of the first planes to do that.

After landing, I parked beside a Cessna and a Learjet. Presumably their pilots will have "oh my god" thoughts when they see the mother of all airliners parked beside them. ;) I finished with about 10 tonnes of fuel left. :eek:

[chris]

British Airways Concorde - New York to London:

British Airways Concorde New York -> London (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Kennedy_Heathrow.PLN)

That is the actual real life flight plan of BA Concorde flights from New York to London, using North-Atlantic track sierra november. It stays over the ocean for as long as possible, before hitting the UK, and passing right by Bristol and Filton (where Concorde was built!).

I would have included the alternate airport details in the file, but it didn't work properly. The alternate destination airport is EGKK (Gatwick), south-east of Heathrow.

[chris]

This was a lucky screenshot opportunity too good to pass up:

Concorde and Konkordski (CCCP-77116)
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/sst_rivals.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/sst_rivals2.jpg

She is a strange old plane, CCCP-77116, and a very different machine to Concorde in the way it flies.

Not so polished, and not quite with the same level of sophistication in its flight controls. (no handy max-cruise/max-climb buttons in particular). Not much forward visibility either, thanks to the moving nose with only windows at the side. :eek:


You can't help but wonder if Tupolev might have achieved a decent result if they had not been rushing frantically to be the first in the SST race, especially given that Tupolev had some very smart people in it. Didn't help that the stolen Concorde plans they recieved had been "doctored".. ;) (that'll teach them to spy!)

[chris]

London to New York flight plan:

This plan uses the sierra-mike North Atlantic track. The decelleration point is
N39 43.0 W071 07.0, while the acceleration point is included in the flight plan as the UPGAS waypoint.

Be aware of the 250kt speed limit in the London Terminal Manouevering Area. This applies to all planes, and not just Concorde.

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/EGLL_KJFK.gif

British Airways Concorde London -> New York (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Heathrow-Kennedy.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 55,800kg
Cruise speed: M2.02 / M2.03 / M2.04
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 5788km
Est. time: approx. 3 hours

Note: You can also download KJFK to EGLL above, if you wish to return to London. You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

Air France Concorde Paris -> to New York (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/AF_LFPG_KJFK.PLN )

Est. fuel consumption: 55,800kg
Cruise speed: M2.02 / M2.03 / M2.04
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 6150km
Est. time: approx. 3 hours 30 minutes

This was done on request for someone in another forum. Most of the waypoints were manually entered through Notepad.

NATSM is the North Atlantic track sierra-mike, a series of individual, non changing waypoints used by Concorde pilots when flying across the North Atlantic ocean. The deceleration point for this flight is N39 43.0 W071 07.0. Since this flight has 21 waypoints, you'll need to re-program the INS mid-way through the flight, because it can only store 9 waypoints at a time (as in real life).

It is based on the real one:
LFPG, EVEREUX, LE HAVRE, TESGO, AKELO, RILKA, RATKA, NATSM, KENDA, LINDD, OWENZ, CAMRN, KJFK

A few years back, if you were really dedicated, you could get a boat and navigate your way out to the TESGO or AKELO way-points (in the English Channel) ahead of a Air France Concorde flight, and then see it pass overhead, and be struck by the huge "double bang".

[chris]

This may have been the route which was serviced by the joint British Airways/Singapore Airlines Concorde. This overflies Oman, Indonesia and Malaysia en route to Changi International airport in Singapore. This plan has relatively few waypoints so you will not need to reprogram the INS mid-flight.

Do fuel up to around 90 tonnes. You will use a lot of fuel on take-off, and on climb from 33,000ft to 43,200ft/M 1.70 at which point the reheat is switched off. Once you are established in cruise climb 500-600ft/min from 49,000ft/M 2.00 the fuel economy will be very good.

When climbing from 33,000ft up to 58,000ft, disengage Mach/IAS hold, and use full throttle manually. Adjust climb-rate if needed to avoid over-speeding, or, alternatively if you are too slow. This is how the Max Climb/Max cruise modes on the real Concorde work.

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/OBBI_WSSS.gif

British Airways Concorde Bahrain -> Singapore (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Bahrain-Singapore.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 80,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02 / M2.03 / M2.04
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 6350km (7343km is distance record for Concorde)
Est. time: approx. 3 hours 30 minutes (my estimate)

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

This plan took me a long time to research. The missing ALMON waypoint is actually AMLON - something I discovered when tracing all of the jet-airways carefully. There is one small section which might not be 100% accurate, but I estimate it is very close. FS2004 doesn't seem to include all jet-airways or intersections.

There are 30 waypoints here, so you'll be reprogramming the INS often during flight.

Acceleration to supersonic speeds and cruise altitude (FL270-F450) begins at somewhere just after the VIC (Vicenza) intersection, en route to the UL612 jet-airway. At AMLON, you'll probably be at FL450, and ready to begin cruise-climb to FL580. You continue at that altitude and supersonic speeds before slowing down to M0.95 or M0.93 in time for the KFA waypoint (King Fahd airport in Saudi Arabia)

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/EGLL_OBBI.gif

British Airways Concorde London -> Bahrain (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Heathrow-Bahrain.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 70,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02 / M2.03 / M2.04
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 5763km
Est. time: approx. 3 hours 45 minutes (my estimate)

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

Just tried the plan above with Concorde, and Concorde does indeed have enough range to make it to Bahrain from Heathrow, even with the torturously slow and busy Mach 0.93 flight across Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Italy. It is very busy flying through Germany, past Friedrichshafen at 29-33,000ft altitude, having to watch for 737's, Airbuses and other assorted low flying planes.

Once you've cleared the coast of Italy, you can request FL580, and really go for it. FL580 is also quite enjoyable because no other planes are at that altitude - so it's very peaceful to fly there. :)

It may seem like you might not have enough fuel to go so far - south past Cyprus, then across the middle-east, but don't worry, because Concorde is very frugal with its fuel at anything above 55,000ft at Mach 2.0+. At those altitudes, fuel flow is not very high, and it conserves fuel well. Thank smart engine design for that - notably the ramp system.

Very nice also to try FS2004 in widescreen mode, with a couple of monitors connected. It takes a bit of tweaking the virtual cockpit eye-point and zoom levels to get it right, but once it is done, it is very nice, and much easier to fly that way.

It doesn't work so well in wide-bodied aircraft, since you get the dreaded fisheye effect, but in a slender bodied plane such as Concorde, it is little problem. Visual landings are easier too, since you can more easily look through the side windows to judge the final approach interception turn without needing to use the instruments.

The screenshots are also so much more impressive in widescreen format: :D

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/bahrain1.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/bahrain2.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/bahrain3.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/bahrain4.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/bahrain5.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/bahrain6.jpg
(all 3200x1~~~ px format)

That landing was visual, not IFR. I requested runway 12 visual landing, but didn't get the clearance. Got told to fly right downwind, runway 30 approach.

Not too difficult. Simple mathematics, and use of the compass will get you through the approach, and onto the final approach course. It does help to fly a plane with responsive handling, like Concorde. ;)

747 and 777 are more difficult because they are so large, and heavy.

[chris]

Just tried Kennedy Intl. to Grantley Adams Intl in Barbados, along the real world BA Concorde flight plan. It is a nice short flight.

Flight Simulator reckoned it would take 1 hour 40 minutes, and I achieved 1 hour 43 minutes

Not bad considering I obeyed the noise-abatement procedures foisted on most aircraft these days, and also considering FS2004 has a bug in its flight planner where it expects you to be going at full speed right from start (impossible).

I don't mind flying from New York, but flying to NY in FS2004 is no fun, because it wants you to land at RWY 22L or 22R all the time. :rolleyes:

The left 2 screenshots in my signature show some of that flight. I'll put up the plan file and info sometime in the next day or so.

[Cheyenne]

WoW :beer:

[chris]

This is a short flight, and should only take about 2 hours at the most. You should easily be able to better that time. I added some extra waypoints for the approach to Barbados should you wish to use them, or you can use your own approach.

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/KJFK_TBPB.gif

British Airways Concorde New York -> Grantley Adams International, Barbados (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_NewYork-Barbados.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 45,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02 / M2.03 / M2.04
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 3505km
Est. time: approx. 1 hours 50 minutes or less.

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

This is the return journey to complement the previous flight plan. It differs slightly to the previous one. It is another short flight, just a small skip and a jump for Concorde. It uses the SM2 approach into New York (LINDD, OWENZ, CAMRN)

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/TBPB_KJFK.gif

British Airways Concorde Grantley Adams International, Barbados -> New York (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Barbados-NewYork.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 45,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02 / M2.03 / M2.04
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 3495km
Est. time: approx. 1 hours 50 minutes or less.

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

There is also London to Barbados, and the return flight. Those are dated Aug. 30, 2003, and are BAW273 and BAW272 respectively. Those are both very long flights, I estimated around 3 hours 30 minutes or so.

[VQ]

considering FS2004 has a bug in its flight planner where it expects you to be going at full speed right from start (impossible).
That's like with the trip meters on cars, I've seen my freinds AU Fortre apparantly get 1l/100km's for about a minute.

On topic, I'll be getting Flight Sim 2004 soon enough, look forward to it myself, and your trip looks awsome.

[chris]

I just completed Barbados to New York, and I was expecting to have to do a 22L or R landing, via the DPK VOR, but no, I got 4R, but I asked for 4L (longer and safer) and got 4L. :D

Did a reasonable landing on 4L using the approach mode. Concorde alpha-delta turned itself onto the approach course after I set the Nav 1 to ILS, and Nav 2 to a VOR.

My flight took 1 hour and 40 minutes, 1 minute longer than FS2004 estimated. :)

Leaving Barbados, you don't really need to worry about the noise-abatement procedures, because you are right over the ocean right away. You take off and bank left and turn back onto the course to the first waypoint, and it is all over ocean.

final-approach and landing video:
http://racerplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14007

Here is where it finished:
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/concorde_4L_landing.jpg

Stopped at Gate 1. Another Concorde (Air France) can be seen loading at a nearby gate.

[chris]

This is the flight plan for the flights from London to Barbados. Be warned, this is a long flight, so you'll need to have plenty of fuel. I'd put 93 or more tonnes of fuel in it just to be safe. Acceleration to supersonic cruise begins at the UPGAS waypoint.

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/EGLL_TBPB.gif

British Airways Concorde Heathrow -> Grantley Adams International, Barbados (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Heathrow-Barbados.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 80,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02 / M2.03 / M2.04
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 6800km
Est. time: approx. 3 hours 25 minutes.

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

This is the return flight to go along with the one listed just before this. This is also a very long flight so be sure to have at least 93 tonnes of fuel loaded. Once you near the UK, you'll follow the standard SL1 flight path used also in the Nassau to London flight. You'll also overfly the Bay of Biscay (BISKI waypoint) on your way to London. Your deceleration should probably start somewhere near the RILKA waypoint.

Special note: There is no subsonic cruise portion of this flight. :D The initial climb goes straight through to 50,000ft, and as such, you should attempt to reach FL500 as quickly and efficiently as you can. Full take off power is apparently used all the way up until 47,000ft (Mach 1.7). One would imagine this would be quite a wild departure.

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/TBPB_EGLL.gif

British Airways Concorde Grantley Adams International, Barbados -> Heathrow (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Barbados-Heathrow.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 85,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 6850km
Est. time: approx. 3 hours 30 minutes.

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

Coming soon is the Boston to Heathrow flight plan. I'm unsure how accurate this one is, because the arrival flight path (SL3) to Heathrow has been documented in a number of variations. They all however go via Ockham, just south of Heathrow, as do all the Concorde flight plans arriving at London. The alternative destination airport is Gatwick.

[chris]

This is to my best knowledge the flight plan used by Air France on flights from Washington to Paris. It uses the PRYME2.SWANN departure from KIAD (JUDAH, FNGER, PRYME, ROOST, RAISN, SCOWL, OFFEN, SWANN). The following graphic shows the departure highlighted:

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/pryme2.swann.gif

If you depart using RWY 19L or 19R, you'll need to do a 180° turn back to the JUDAH intersection. You must cross that at above 3000ft. On RWY 1 departures, you'll be doing a turn to the left a short while after positive climb has been achieved. The idea of this departure is to avoid a couple of residential zones. It flies between them IIRC.

The acceleration point in this flight plane is SIE. After reaching SIE, the plan then follows the sierra november North Atlantic track. Once completed the sierra november track, it then follows the standard Paris approach over the Bay of Biscay (BISKI), Guernsey, then the Deauville VORTAC, and then towards Base de Creil (CRL) if doing a west landing. East landings would not fly towards Base de Creil, but rather head further south-west in order to line up with the runway.

I also believe that sometimes when departing from Washington, PRYME2.PALEO transition would be used.

Flight plane Image not available at the moment.

Air France Concorde Washington Dulles International -> Paris CDG (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/AF_KIAD_LFPG.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: n/a (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: n/a
Est. time: approx. 3 hours 20 minutes.

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

This is a special flight of BA9093, Concorde G-BOAF, also known as Blair Force One. The crew consisted of Captain Les Brodie, Captain Stewart Bates and Senior Engineering officer Peter Carrigan. Senior First Officer Mark Walden and Senior engineering Officer Jez Wood were also on board for the return sector would be used for further training.

This flight was a special charter to the US by British Prime Minister Tony Blair - a welcome endorsement of Concorde in the wake of the needless and avoidable accident in Paris. Also on board the flight were many UK journalists.

I've taken an educated guess with this flight plan. I assume it uses normal SL2 departure from Heathrow, and crosses the Atlantic using the Sierra-Mike North Atlantic track, and uses something similar to the normal Washington Dulles DELRO.ONE approach. Andrews AFB is closer to the coast than Dulles.

This flight departed at 16:36 GMT, and arrived at 15:11EST.

No flight plan image available yet

British Airways Concorde Heathrow -> Andrews Air Force base, Washington (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Heathrow-AndrewsAFB.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 80,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 6102km
Est. time: approx. 3 hours 15 minutes.

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[Frank N. O.]

This is amazing, simply amazing. Are you sure you're not in possession of a CPL?

Greetings
Frank

[chris]

Few more flight plans coming soon, among them:

Paris to Washington (Air France)
Dakar to Paris (Air France)
Heathrow to Heathrow (BA)
Heathrow to Paris (BA)
Lisbon to Heathrow (BA)
London to Washington (BA)
Washington to Heathrow (BA)
Keflavik to Heathrow (BA)
Heathrow to Filton (BA)
Bahrain to Heathrow (BA)

Heathrow to Heathrow and Heathrow to Paris were short supersonic "taste-test" flights for those who wanted to experience what supersonic flight was like.

They adopted the usual departure procedures (WOD, CPT, MALBY, UPGAS, MERLY), but rather than going into the North Atlantic tracks, they instead did a U-turn and headed back towards either Heathrow or Paris. Paris was via the usual Paris arrival route (GUR, INGOR, DVL, SOKMU, MERUE, CRL).

I'm also looking to find a few other routes, such as some of the around the world charter flights.

[chris]

This is the return flight to go along with the previous EGLL to OBBI flight plan. This is one of a number of Bahrain to Heathrow plans, I've also got another one which takes a very different route.

Special note: This flight goes supersonic right from start. Standard take-off procedure (rarely used) is performed here. You cross the deserts of Saudi Arabia at Mach 2.02. It then goes across the Mediterranean sea, and below Sicily before heading north to the coast of France. It then slows to subsonic speeds, and the plane will likely descend to around 40,000ft.

Although the distance isn't huge, the subsonic portion of this flight slows things a bit.

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/OBBI_EGLL.gif

British Airways Concorde Bahrain -> Heathrow (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Bahrain-Heathrow.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 78,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 5920km
Est. time: approx. 3 hours 45 minutes.

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

Here is one of the supersonic "taste test" flights aimed at tourists, retirees and Concorde enthusiasts, rather than Concordes usual business customers flying between Heathrow and New York on work assignments. This flight takes off from Heathrow, and lands at Heathrow. The fuel load is very light, so take-off may be performed without using reheat.

This flight includes a long supersonic U-turn. You must use the Inertial Navigation System to help you with this stage of the flight. You'll switch the INS units to HDG\DA & XTK\TKE and follow the suggested headings manually.

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/EGLL_EGLL.gif

British Airways Concorde Heathrow -> Heathrow (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Heathrow-Heathrow.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 30,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 1370km
Est. time: approx. 60 minutes

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

Here is another of the supersonic "taste test" flights aimed at tourists, retirees and Concorde enthusiasts, rather than Concordes usual business customers flying between Heathrow and New York on work assignments. This flight takes off from Heathrow, and lands in Paris. The fuel load is very light, so take-off may be performed without using reheat.

This flight includes a long supersonic U-turn. You must use the Inertial Navigation System to help you with this stage of the flight. You'll switch the INS units to HDG\DA & XTK\TKE and follow the suggested headings manually.

This flight uses the normal Heathrow departure route (WOD, CPT, MALBY, UPGAS, MERLY), and the normal Paris arrival route (GUR, INGOR, DVL, SOKMU, MERUE, CRL).

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/EGLL_LFPG.gif

British Airways Concorde Heathrow -> Paris (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Heathrow-Paris.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 35,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 1430km
Est. time: approx. 60 minutes

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

Here is another of the supersonic "taste test" flights aimed at tourists, retirees and Concorde enthusiasts, rather than Concordes usual business customers flying between Heathrow and New York on work assignments. This flight takes off from Paris, and lands in Heathrow. Consider it the return flight to complement the previous one. The fuel load is very light, so take-off may be performed without using reheat.

This flight includes a long supersonic U-turn. You must use the Inertial Navigation System to help you with this stage of the flight. You'll switch the INS units to HDG\DA & XTK\TKE and follow the suggested headings manually.

This flight uses one of the normal Heathrow arrival routes (MATIM, MALBY, NIGIT OCKHAM), and the normal Paris departure route (EVX, LE HAVRE, TESGO, AKELO, RILKA).

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/LFPG_EGLL.gif

British Airways Concorde Paris-> Heathrow (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Paris-Heathrow.PLN)

Est. fuel consumption: 35,000kg (my estimate)
Cruise speed: M2.02
Cruise altitude: 58,000 to 60,000ft
(depending on weather, and temperature).
Distance: 1400km
Est. time: approx. 60 minutes

Note: You can use these plans with any realistic FS2004 Concordes, such as Project Mach 2 (free, by FSFrance design team), Altitude Concorde (payware), PSS Concorde (payware).

[chris]

Now moving away from the party flights and back to the serious Concorde flights, here we have Heathrow to Washington. This uses standard departure, and the standard DELRO.ONE arrival route into Washington. I suppose the OWENZ and CAMRN waypoints could also be replaced with LEOES and SHERL if you wanted to do this flight the old way.

For flights to NY, the LEOES and SHERL waypoints were changed to OWENZ and CAMRN in response to complaints from Long Island residents about noise from aircraft. (Eg, noisy Boeing 707's).

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/EGLL_KIAD.gif

British Airways Concorde Heathrow -> Washington Dulles (http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/fs2004/BA_Concorde_Heathrow-Washi