FS2004: Trans-Atlantic Challenge!

[chris]

http://www.sstsim.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1515

It's war! :D

Concorde will take on the opposition (those pesky Russian SST's) in FS2004 in this event coming soon. The idea will be to smash the Trans-Atlantic speed record from New York's John F. Kennedy airport to London's Heathrow airport.

Any Concorde SSTSim pilots should definately practice for this, learn the optimum procedures for very efficient and fast flights, and join in.

[chris]

In testing, I've just done the New York to London flight in exactly 2 hours 52 minutes. :yikes: That beats the real world record, albeit very narrowly.

[chris]

Doh!, forgot the screenshot:

http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/the-record.jpg

Note the "ELAPS" timer. :)

[Frank N. O.]

(long pause while the eyes scan back and fourth over all the instruments to find something called elaps) ah there! Very impressive! :cool: I so wish I didn't have so many headaches and there was so much noise here (and that I had proper controls) then I can think I could've had a lot of role-playing/sim-fun with this :D But atm my endurace is quite small, and there isn't relaly that long between interruptions here.

Chris have you ever thought of making a video perhaps with voice-overlay describing a complete flight like you perform it like the real plane did? Like a mini-documentary (mini to make sure it's small enough to download). I for one would love one.

Frank

[chris]

I'm thinking of doing that yes, maybe with some text overlays on it pointing to various things. There seems to be some interest from various people in something like that.

Also, funny little detail, when the plane is so light as it was after landing, you don't need 4 engines on any more, just 2 is enough. With 4, even the slightest throttle increase has the plane racing forward. :eek:

[chris]

Tried the flight again, with different weather conditions.

This time I had sometimes 99kt tailwinds, so the plane zoomed along at around 1425mph. And near 20 or 30 west, the temperature started to drop very quickly. First -60°C with ISA -05, then -68°C, then -70°C, and finally ISA -18!!! :eek: :eek: -75°C at 58,900ft!! :eek:

Those are the coldest conditions I've ever flown this plane in. The instrument showing International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) just kept on showing ever lower readings.

But unfortunately, a 27L landing at London slowed down the flight, so only 2hr 57min, but for a long while, I was well ahead of 2hr 52min and looking like I might beat that time by maybe 3 or 4 minutes.

I had a rather fun traffic alert on the descent into London. ;) The plane was descending in the usually abrupt fashion I use to save time and fuel, when the TCAS starts announcing TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC. Seems I was descending above a slower plane. I ended up overtaking it and passing in front of it harmlessly.

[chris]

Tried another flight from New York to London, but this one was slower.

I didn't have strong tailwinds this flight, it was between 50-99kts sometimes. Although the temperatures were extremely cold (try -65°C at FL400!) and soon after ISA -17 to start with and -74 degrees celsius at around FL535 to FL545.

So the plane climbed like a rocket out of New York from the 22R runway taking only 23 minutes to reach Mach 2.02. But went slower later with less tail-wind. So only 3hr 03 minutes this time, with a landing at runway 27L in Heathrow.

A 9R landing would be quicker, but probably not enough to break 2h 52min. No traffic alerts on this flight, and the landing was smooth as could be, although landing with just 14.26T fuel left-over is probably pushing the limits just a little bit. ;)

[Frank N. O.]

I just read the forum-thread about the contest but I still have some questions. Are there russian FS'ers in a Tu-144 trying to compete with SST-Sim pilots or are the SST-Simmers flying against the actual and old record? And what Concordski did you try Chris? The freeware one or another one and how can you judge realism from that vs the SST-Sim Concorde?

The flight-procedures that some of the others described sounded almost like not all realism was on but maybe I'm mistaken? I also understand it that the flight route has to be done online and monitered to be authentic correct? It does all in all sound very interesting. It's times like this I wish I had better place and could put up a FS cockpit too so I could do some serious flying but sadly it's a lot easier to make a real car-setup than a flight-setup :(

Good luck captain :wave:
Frank

[chris]

Yeah, there are Russians with TU-144's. But I'm fairly confident our Concorde should beat them comfortably. Anyhow, a copy of SSTSim is up for grabs for the winner of the contest. (excluding SSTSim team of course since we already have it).

We are being quite realistic with it, following real world procedures, using a mix and match of various procedures used in the real world. Using a slightly different but still realistic and feasible flight plan, we can cut 20 minutes out of the flight time. Especially shortening the flight plan in the early stages of flight when the plane is travelling slower saves lots of time, while we maintain enough boom clearance from Nantucket.

By using the Fall off the Wall descent procedure, you can save time. The FOTW desecent was so named because the plane came down so quickly!

Some bright spark thought that the drag at Mach 1.3 is much greater, so naturally if you descend at that speed, of course the rate of descent is going to be much better. ;) Hence the "Fall off the Wall" name it was given, although it is otherwise known as the Washington descent. Flying the approach at 380kts until VMO like Air France did also saves precious minutes.

By sticking to real world procedures, you give yourself a much easier time. You know what you have to do, when you have to do it and you can organise things well in advance.

You would get your clearance to go supersonic before push-back from the terminal, and then en-route confirm the clearance again after take-off and advise of an arrival time at the start of the North Atlantic Track you are using. Same when you have to slow down and descend. Controllers may like to know in advance that a plane 500Nm away from them will soon be with them and rejoining normal subsonic air-traffic at lower altitudes. It gives them a chance to be organised, and to vector other planes on to non-conflicting courses.

Planning ahead saves time and confusion, and leaves you with more time to go through your checklists without rushing or making mistakes. :)

I'm not sure if I'll end up going online in the race, but we've at least got what we think is the optimum procedures for anyone to use with Concorde SSTSim. There are other Concordes entered apparently, not just the SSTSim one (leaving just PSS and the Project Mach 2 freeware ones as alternatives I guess, or the old but still decent Altitude Concorde).

[Frank N. O.]

Fall of the wall, that sounds like one extrame tactic, has any real pilots replied to that theory?

I'm prining out another check-list from the main manual, this one has pictures and names of what is not in the sim-model, I just hope I can get the first 29 pages out before the printer runs out of toner.

Frank

[chris]

"Fall off the wall" was indeed devised by British Airways no less. :)

It was used on descent into Washington before the plane arrived over Robinsville. They would determine the descent point to achieve 325kts (about Mach 1.3) @ 52,500ft by 72°30'W.

At 72°30'W, full pitch down on the datum adjust would be selected for at least 3 seconds to achieve a pitch down attitude of 0 degrees.

The procedure states:


6. At 72°30'W:

(i) Select full 'pitch down' on datum adjust for at least 3 seconds to achieve a minimum pitch down aittude of 0°, and engage 'Mach Hold' on Autopilot.

(ii) Set 39,000ft on the altitude selector and prime "Alt acq".

(iii) DO NOT prime the auto-throttles.

NB: If high or fast at 72°30'W, the pitch down technique should still be followed, as described, but IDLE power is selected.

If you arrive at 325kts. and 52,000ft before 72°30'W anticipate by applying power to maintain 325kts. (M1.3), using auto-throttle if desired, but DO NOT delay the pitch over at 72°30'W - the aircraft is still travelling at one mile every 5 seconds.

7. 'Mach Hold' may not initially hold M1.3 - the speed may drop to M1.25 - but this is not vital. Continue to monitor the distance to Robbinsville and T.D. If T.D. drops significantly select idle. However, if at or above 45,000ft at 75 D.M.E. Robbinsville select Idle power.

8. Close monitoring by all three crew members throughout the entire manoeuvre is essential, but in particular ensure that:-

(i) 450kts. C.A.S. is not exceeded
(ii) 39,000ft is set on the Alt. Selector.
(iii) 'Alt Acq' is selected and 'the acquire' starts at about 43,000ft.
(iv) The auto-throttles are NOT primed.

9. At 39,000ft when the Acquire has been completed and deceleration to M0.95 has been achieved a standard M0.95 auto-throttle cruise should be adopted.

[Frank N. O.]

How did it go?

Frank

[chris]

(1) AERO 144 2:56 TU-144
(2) BAW002 3:02 SSTSim Concorde
(3) BAW001 3:11 SSTSim Concorde
(4) BAZ001 3:20 SSTSim Concorde
(5) CFVAN 3:30 PSS Concorde


Those are the final official results from http://www.westcoastatc.com/ forums.

The winner was a TU-144, who ran out of fuel just after landing. He got the prize of a nice new SSTSim Concorde for FS2004.

AERO_144 at one stage had a ground-speed registered at over 1200kts.

One Concorde recorded FL600 off Nova Scotia apparently, so we can consider that to be the PSS one.. ^_^ The SSTSim one getting to FL600 is extremely rare just as in real life, and will never happen in ISA +0 conditions of this record flight.

So what was the flight plane used by some Concordes?

Well, it sort of went like this:

New York (KFJK)
ZACHS
BETTE
HILRY
North Atlantic Track Sierra November
SL7 airway (turns south east towards Bay of Biscay and intercepts the SL1 airway)
SL1 airway (approach via English channel)
London (EGLL).

This is the much quicker flight plan, because you cut out the lengthy subsonic portion flying over Chivenor towards waypoint MALBY (somewhere between Filton and Bristol) and then towards London all at subsonic speed.

Sure, the distance might be a little longer going via English channel, but you can stay supersonic for longer, and the subsonic portion of flight at the end is smaller.

Best thing is that it is an entirely realistic and feasible flight plan. :) Another variation is:

New York (KFJK)
ZACHS
BETTE
HILRY
North Atlantic Track Sierra Oscar
OMOKO
SL1 airway (approach via English channel)
London (EGLL).

This one uses the bi-directional Sierra Oscar NAT and is marginally longer, but is more straight in the transition from NAT through OMOKO to SL1 airway.

I took Concorde online the other day on FSHost session organised by someone on RSC forums. Did a little flight demonstration up to Mach 2.0, and returned back to Dubai. Great fun. :) But previous to that, I achieved FL625 in the Concorde (62,510ft) proving that in the right conditions (very cold, low fuel load near the end of the flight) this plane can go very high while still keeping up Mach 2.01.