[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 =
OK.
I had the same problem approaching FL250 with decaying airspeed so =
reduced
the ROC gradually to compensate. It's a shame in a way because this is =
the
first time I've encountered the problem since FS98 days - but it does =
keep
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 =
been
airborne a good bit I'd say it was probably overweight when I took off =
but
not severely so.

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

bones

-----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 =
deg
flap, it gets=20
off at Belfast City with no runway left, which doesn't sound too =
realistic.
To get it to=20
maintain list climb speed, before the change in load, I'd had to apply =
about
1.4 Thrust=20
Scalar. Before that the climb speed would fall to about 145 kias. With =
the
revised load=20
it's OK up to about FL 250, after which I have to reduce to 1500 fpm; =
speed
is still a bit=20
low. At FL290, at listed cruise of m=3D0.70, it's using N2=3D93%, which, =
again,
seems a bit=20
high. Overall, it's probably still a bit underpowered for its =
aerodynamics.
What N2 would=20
be reasonable, for listed cruise speed?
 F70 and F100 use the same panel and the inbuilt wind gauge seems to =
agree
with=20
FSNav and Shift Z for direction but not speed. On, or near, the ground =
they
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 =
the
more common=20
convention of displaying a separate gauge, within it. Since I can't =
identify
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 =
handled
and=20
anticipated.=20

Gerry Winskill
gwinsk@xxxxxxx


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.
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> HC@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://fsaviation.net
>=20
>=20




Other related posts: