[jhb_airlines] Re: Fokker F70

  • From: gwinsk@xxxxxxx
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:48:36 -0000

It looks as though the figures permit weight as a tradeoff for range. In itself 
that's not 
unreasonable but eliminating cargo doesn't permit max fuel with max pax.

I got my figures from the FS9 Aircraft Fuel and Payload section. Although the 
fuel figures seem not to agree with the Menu data, if the US Gals are didided 
into the 
Menu max allowable fuel wt, then it uses an assumed 6.6 lbs per US Gal, which 
If I load the Swissair Tay-620, then the Default lods are as follows. I've put 
my revised 
figures alongside, in brackets.

Empty                      60631      (60631)
Payload                   21194      (14665)
Fuel                         22699      (22699)
Gross AUW           104524      (97995)
Max Gross               98000      (98000)
Max Allowable Fuel 16715      (22696)  

Pilot                      165      (165)
Co Pilot                165      (165)
Cabin Crew          495      (495)
Pax Wt               17922     (13600)
Cargo Wt             2447      (240)
Overload              6525       Nil   

Fiddling with the load is a small price to pay, for such a satisfying model.

Gery Winskill

On 24 Dec 2004 at 14:20, Bones wrote:

> 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: