VC-10 VS on landing..

VA Crew Room and general forum area.

Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry

Post Reply
User avatar
SamRo
Comet
Comet
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 17:27
Location: Now that would be telling would it not?

VC-10 VS on landing..

Post by SamRo »

Evening all.
What’s an “acceptable” Vertical speed on touch down…
Last thing I want is some angry chap coming at me with a spanner or worse damaging the aircraft!! I had a VS of 70fpm… sound ok? About 15% fuel onboard a Super..

Cheers Sam.
Image

User avatar
DaveB
The Ministry
Posts: 30457
Joined: 17 Jun 2004, 20:46
Location: Pelsall, West Mids, UK
Contact:

Re: VC-10 VS on landing..

Post by DaveB »

Hi Sam :hello:

Just noticed you've zapped those flights off in the '10 so I've upgraded your rating to full on both types. ;)

What's an acceptable V/S for a 10?? Obviously, the lower you get the better it helps airframe life and I don't think a V/S of -70 for an aircraft of this size is bad at all. My last 2 'Super' flights recorded -7 and -40 yet I've just done what I thought was a greaser at GCI in a Herald and FSA recorded it as -121! :-O You can't win em all :lol:

Fuel wise.. we try and keep to RW figures as close as possible so you need to be looking at around 7000kg or more for landing. Longhaul.. especially doing the RTW run, it's not always possible to make a profit as everyone who's done it will confirm (1 leg in particular is a cow!) but for the most part, the old girl brings a decent return and looks might good while you're doing it. You already have around 100hrs on the type so you know this already ;)

ATB

DaveB B)smk
ImageImage
Old sailors never die.. they just smell that way!

User avatar
SamRo
Comet
Comet
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 17:27
Location: Now that would be telling would it not?

Re: VC-10 VS on landing..

Post by SamRo »

Thanks! I should beable to get a flight or to in to night with a bit of luck!
My 100hrs, is a bit deceptive, as it was on a payware vc10 witch was not as realistic as DM's, also it was only 20 odd takeoffs and landings as they were long flights ;-p.
finaly it was back in the days of "Flynet" in 2007!!
I do totaly love the VC10 mind! just had a look though all the routes you have! should be fun, flying to lots of new places!! and the opertunity to fly a Standard 10, not done that in FSA yet!
7000kg, check, Finaly regarding "divertion" and "holding" fuel, how mutch should I put in over the "average" needed for a given route? around 4k?

Sorry for all the questions.
Sam.
Image

User avatar
NigelC
Concorde
Concorde
Posts: 1047
Joined: 02 Oct 2007, 11:20
Location: Hednesford, Staffordshire, UK

Re: VC-10 VS on landing..

Post by NigelC »

Re Fuel Planning.

Below is an extract from EU-OPS, the requirements to which all EU airlines Operations Manuals must be in compliance.

(ii) For A to B Flights – An operator shall ensure that the pre-flight calculation of usable fuel required for a flight includes;

(A) Taxi fuel - Fuel consumed before take-off, if significant; and

(B) Trip fuel (Fuel to reach the destination); and

(C) Reserve fuel –

(1) Contingency fuel –
Fuel that is not less than 5% of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, 5% of the trip fuel for the remainder of the flight; and

(2) Final reserve fuel –
Fuel to fly for an additional period of 45 minutes (piston engines) or 30 minutes (turbine engines); and

(D) Alternate fuel –
Fuel to reach the destination alternate via the destination, if a destination alternate is required; and

(E) Extra fuel –
Fuel that the commander may require in addition to that required under subparagraphs (A) – (D) above.

As for landing, positive landing in the touchdown zone. (leaves maximum stopping distance available, passengers will complain less about a firm touchdown than going off the other end!)

Nige
Image

"Speed building both sides.....passing one hundred knots.....V1..rotate...oh sh*t..."

User avatar
DaveB
The Ministry
Posts: 30457
Joined: 17 Jun 2004, 20:46
Location: Pelsall, West Mids, UK
Contact:

Re: VC-10 VS on landing..

Post by DaveB »

:lol: :lol:

I love that.. passengers will complain less about a firm landing than going off the other end :lol:

Sam..
I see you've found the 10's routes but in case that was over at FSA, check out the Stats thread in the upper section of this forum.. select Route Enquiry.. EGLL and finally VC10 (to show both sets of routes). This will give you a reasonable handle on fuel burn for any given route though with the caveat 'weather' as we have no way of knowing if the route was flown in still air or with 'real' weather. Also, it doesn't indicate FS9 or FSX and I'm not sure what the 10's drag is like in FSX. There's bound to be some difference but whether it's significant, I honestly couldn't say ;)

ATB

DaveB B)smk
ImageImage
Old sailors never die.. they just smell that way!

User avatar
SamRo
Comet
Comet
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 17:27
Location: Now that would be telling would it not?

Re: VC-10 VS on landing..

Post by SamRo »

Right done a few more flights, it seems to be going ok.
However,im haveing a problem with the Auto land on DM's VC-10, I suspect the problem is between the chair and the joystick.....

It seem to flare late first time I had a V speed of over 200fpm... then well I though it was going to smash the thing!! 500fpm!!!!!!!! im going to stop useing autoland till some one can help me sort out what im doing wrong... G-ASGG may need the gear looking at, fortunutly the aircraft had only 9k of fuel it it...

Thanks for any help.
Image

User avatar
SamRo
Comet
Comet
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 17:27
Location: Now that would be telling would it not?

Re: VC-10 VS on landing..

Post by SamRo »

ok been reading and seems 500fpm is not as bad as I thought.. seemed very hard mind.. thoughts?
Image

User avatar
DaveB
The Ministry
Posts: 30457
Joined: 17 Jun 2004, 20:46
Location: Pelsall, West Mids, UK
Contact:

Re: VC-10 VS on landing..

Post by DaveB »

Hiya Sam :hello:

The VC10 does land comparatively heavy on autoland and to be honest, getting -500fpm is gonna cut your in-service time down considerably. RW use of autoland on the '10.. well, I don't think it was used to anywhere near the same degree as the Triplex system on the Tridents and for a number of reasons.. not least of all serviceability!
By way of comparison, I 'believe' the Trident model manages between -120 and -150 if left to it's own devices on autoland :) Of course.. you'd only want to be using full autoland on either if you're flying into a pea-souper otherwise a standard coupled ILS approach or even flying manually down the wires would suffice. I don't think -120 to -150 is at all bad in the grand scale of things but -500 could definitely be considered 'firm'. :cpu:

ATB

DaveB B)smk
ImageImage
Old sailors never die.. they just smell that way!

Benedettini
Meteor
Meteor
Posts: 81
Joined: 07 Apr 2010, 16:42

Re: VC-10 VS on landing..

Post by Benedettini »

LOL -70fpm??? Visual land or Autoland?

With B722 my best usual landings are -150 :D but you land it manually :bandit:
Rust and dust, is a must...
Image

Post Reply