[jhb_airlines] Re: Fokker F70

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:20:46 -0000

I forgot to check the aircraft on departure but it took off and climbed =
I had the same problem approaching FL250 with decaying airspeed so =
the ROC gradually to compensate. It's a shame in a way because this is =
first time I've encountered the problem since FS98 days - but it does =
you on your toes.

As to the actual weights my F100 is showing an empty weight of 27501kgs,
payload 9613kgs, fuel 5187kgs and gross of 42301kgs. The Max AUW is =
shown as
44452kgs so the aircraft is currently about 1100kgs below max. Having =
airborne a good bit I'd say it was probably overweight when I took off =
not severely so.

Looking at the figures for the F100-620 it has a total loadable weight =
37369lb (fuel and pax) and the F100 650 has 40369lb. Knocking off your =
and cargo weights of 13600 and 240 this still gives a viable fuel weight =
26529lb - much higher than the capacity of 16177lb shown in the =
file. I'll check the figures properly later but I'm puzzled by your


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of gwinsk@xxxxxxx
Sent: 24 December 2004 07:56
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Fokker F70

The same comments apply to the F100. I think the ROC priority is an FS9
fault. Did you check the weights, before T/O ? In the case of the F100 =
it is
grossly overloaded,=20
as standard. With full pax and fuel, I've had to reduce cargo weight to
240lbs and Pax=20
Wt to 13600 lbs, to get down to max AUW. At that wt, with the listed 8 =
flap, it gets=20
off at Belfast City with no runway left, which doesn't sound too =
To get it to=20
maintain list climb speed, before the change in load, I'd had to apply =
1.4 Thrust=20
Scalar. Before that the climb speed would fall to about 145 kias. With =
revised load=20
it's OK up to about FL 250, after which I have to reduce to 1500 fpm; =
is still a bit=20
low. At FL290, at listed cruise of m=3D0.70, it's using N2=3D93%, which, =
seems a bit=20
high. Overall, it's probably still a bit underpowered for its =
What N2 would=20
be reasonable, for listed cruise speed?
 F70 and F100 use the same panel and the inbuilt wind gauge seems to =
FSNav and Shift Z for direction but not speed. On, or near, the ground =
seem to=20
agree, so perhaps it's designed only for ground level windspeed. I can't
spot the integral=20
wind gauge so perhaps it's part of the display, rather than following =
more common=20
convention of displaying a separate gauge, within it. Since I can't =
and eliminate=20
it, I've placed my normal wind gauge to appear immediately to its left.
Overall, it's rapidly become my first choice medium range jet. I
particularly like it's=20
stabillity, on a manual ILS approach. On short finals the F100 is a bit
different to the=20
masses in that aeleron track corrections have to be more sensitively =

Gerry Winskill

On 24 Dec 2004 at 1:51, Bones wrote:

> Having just flown this aircraft from Barking Sands to Tern Island I=20
> can say that it is a lovely aircraft to fly. I have two observations=20
> though. First is that I had to be careful climbing above FL300 as the=20
> autopilot seems to give priority to rate of climb over airspeed.=20
> Passing through FL310 the speed started to creep down below 200kts and =

> I had to force the ROC down from 1800fpm to a more sensible 1000fpm. I =

> had to reduce this further approaching FL370.
> Most aircraft autopilot systems now seem to have some intelligence=20
> built in so that if the rate of climb at high levels begins to affect=20
> airspeed then they sacrifice the former for the latter - effectively=20
> they are speed priority rather than ROC priority (which was a bad=20
> feature of FS5).
> With a second test I actually left the aircraft to its own devices=20
> but, by FL330 the speed was down to 145kts and still dropping so I=20
> gave this up.
> Second observation is the wind readout on the HSI. This shows a wind=20
> velocity twice that of the FS2004 wind. I suspect this is carry over=20
> of the gauge used in FS2002 because the default wind in that sim was=20
> definitely wrong. Unfortunately this isn't an XML gauge or else I=20
> could have changed it. It is a standard GAU file written in C+ or=20
> something similar so it remains inviolate to me. I might drop PF an=20
> email about it.
> Other than that it's a very nice aircraft to fly and I just about got=20
> it into Tern Island - a 6000ft coral runway but with trees at each=20
> end.
> HC@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://fsaviation.net

Other related posts: