Posted: 01 May 2007, 09:59
i also just noticed that the plane only took 0.01% damage from a 270fpm landing. They really were built to last in those days.
Were we still back in the dark days.. you'd have lost .3, maybe .4% for a landing like that. No matter if you had a 0fpm landing.. FlyNET used to knock off .1% per flight.. very boring. However.. times change and the airframe calculations did too as it's now split between engine life/hours and landings making it much better
In reality, a 270fpm landing, while not exactly kissing the tarmac, is not heavy for an aircraft of that size and in this respect, the new calculations work very well Don't forget.. if you're gonna bail out.. do it before you hit the parking brake
While on the subject of landings.. certain aircraft (the way I fly em anyway) are prone to kiss the tarmac.. get airbourne again for a second and then settle again. Checking your landing figure when the flight is finished may reveal a nice low figure but.. FlyNET does take into account the first touch too and this is reflected in the aircraft percentage dropping a bit faster than you'd think. Nothing drastic but something to be aware of
As an example.. I took a DC3 into Portsmouth a few weeks back and managed to find an uneven bit on PeteP's scenery. This threw the DC3 into the air tossing and cartwheeling everywhere in one of Fsims lovely sporadic convultions.. bouncing off the deck then suddenly 200ft in the air!! It did this a couple of times and I wondered what the hell I should do. Rather than bug out.. I opened the throttles and got the DC3 stable then went in for another landing.. this time avoiding the scenery jump. The flight recorded a -15fpm landing but.. the airframe life had dropped by either .3 or .4!!! The moral of the story.. you hit anything and FlyNET will know about it
John.. Rgr on the failures.
ATB
DaveB :tab:
