a noobs VFR learning progress...

[krigl]

I'm a casual simmer, previously screenshot-focused, just starting out with learning to sim properly. Progress report for anyone who cares:

I'm trying out all the stuff I've been learning from the Flight Sim Handbook by Stern and picking up tips from the course in this forum.

Today I flew from King Salmon to Iliamna, Alaska in the 182 RG. 1 leg, no navaids like VOR etc used this time (checked occasionally with the map in-sim and with the charts from SkyVector vs what I could see from the cabin) - I wanted to focus on flight calculations - fuel burn, and wind and compass correction, as well as get to know the plane a bit better.

Short hop - only 83 NM, flight time about 35-40 min. Did the full checklist for the first time for this plane, took a while to find everything especially as some terms are not clear.

Using Carenado performance data for 2000ft = 4000ft I calculated fuel burn at 13 gallons. Got 14 - the plane cruised slower than I expected with 2300 rpm and 22 manifold pressure. Maybe I misunderstood the perf data...I expected KTAS 145 ish  and I got more like 120.  :-?

Course 18 degrees (39 true) according to SkyVector, and I set wind 12 at 120. Wasn't sure but I read that wind is expressed according to true north so I took 39 as the direction for calculating my course alteration due to wind, found this to be +5 degrees... and then added +5 degrees to my magnetic course, making it 23 degrees. Flew that heading all the way from King Salmon to Iliamna and it was right on the money so I guess I did it right. Right?

I was satisfied with my calculations today and had a great little VFR flight. I didn't allow enough clearance height for obstacles though - a mountain at 2600 I think about 5 or 10 miles to the right of my course would have called for a higher flight path, right? And I think it's odd thousands for VFR on headings of 0 - 179 so I suppose 5000ft would have been best - particularly as Iliamna actually requires you to approach at 5000 for the runway 17 appch.

Next time I'm going to do another simple 1 leg fllight but plan a proper approach at the end, get more clearance height (and fly the correct altitude) on the way and track to a navaid at the destination.

Any comments on how I'm doing, suggestions etc are welcome...

Krigl

[Brett_Henderson]

Fun stuff, hu ?

I can't account for someone else's model's accuracy as far as performance goes.. but from my real 182 eperience, 22" of manifold pressure would be on the "economy" side of cruise settings. To get 145KTAS out of a 182 at say 3,000msl, you'd probably be looking at 24/2400, but that's from memory.

I'm sure you know the difference between indicate and true airspeed, so I'll only "hint" that

[Mobius]

As far as the mountain goes - anyone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have any mountain flying experience - but I believe you can get as close as you want if there are no buildings or anything around (things that you would damage if you got too close).  For the sake of safety though, it's a good idea to stay as far away from anything you wouldn't want to land on as you can, but I would say you were plenty far away from it.

Also, for approaches, in VFR flight, all you really need is to plan for a comfortable descent (500 fpm is quite comfortable) so you get to your desired altitude without having to dive bomb once you get to your destination (unless of course you are a dive bomber).

[krigl]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

Mobius - I guess you're right about the mountain, in VFR conditions it wouldn't be such a worry and of course you often see light aircraft flying quite close to such terrain features. Stupid question, but again I need to clarify - does flying VFR mean I can always ignore the approach plates to an airport and just enter the pattern about 1000 ft above airport elevation on the downwind leg and land (after announcing my intentions of course) dodging any obstructions I see etc. Or are there special VFR plates? Is using approach plates based on instrument approaches even allowed if you're filed VFR??

Well, if I do need to, or can at least choose to use approach plates during VFR I will use 5500 as a cruising height on the same trip to Iliamna...
...thanks Brett, forgot the rule. And - I forgot about true airspeed - d'oh!

The E6B emulator calculates 120 at 3000 as 127.200 ktas, so still nowhere near 145. But then the emulator wants me to put in MSL which I understood to be the real height above sea level. Is/can MSL mean pressure altitude instead, or density altitude?

Stern's book and newly-found common sense tells me that true airspeed should be based on density altitude i.e. pressure altitude corrected for non-standard pressures and temperatures.

http://www.flightsimbooks.com/flightsim ... icator.php

So is the emulator oversimplifying or can MSL mean density altitude?

Well, the density altitude (3000ft, 14 degrees C (20 at sea level)0 was 3580 and if I put that into the emulator I get the exact same result as for 3000ft...127.200 ktas. Hmmm. Maybe at such low altitudes the difference between pressure altitude, real altitude and density altitude are not worth worrying about??

[Brett_Henderson]

does flying VFR mean I can always ignore the approach plates to an airport and just enter the pattern about 1000 ft above airport elevation on the downwind leg and land (after announcing my intentions of course) dodging any obstructions I see etc. Or are there special VFR plates? Is using approach plates based on instrument approaches even allowed if you're filed VFR??

Yes..

[beaky]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

Mobius - I guess you're right about the mountain, in VFR conditions it wouldn't be such a worry and of course you often see light aircraft flying quite close to such terrain features. Stupid question, but again I need to clarify - does flying VFR mean I can always ignore the approach plates to an airport and just enter the pattern about 1000 ft above airport elevation on the downwind leg and land (after announcing my intentions of course) dodging any obstructions I see etc. Or are there special VFR plates? Is using approach plates based on instrument approaches even allowed if you're filed VFR??

Well, if I do need to, or can at least choose to use approach plates during VFR I will use 5500 as a cruising height on the same trip to Iliamna...

You can shoot an IFR approach under VFR if you want, but generally you enter the pattern at the appropriate altitude as you described. If you want more realism, try to find the specific pattern altitude and pattern directions for the airport in question (it ain't always 1000 AGL and left-hand!).

Is/can MSL mean pressure altitude instead, or density altitude?

No. Density altitude is pressure altitude corrected for (nonstandard) temperature. MSL is based  on standard temperature (15 degrees Celsius).
Wait, you answer your own question below...

Stern's book and newly-found common sense tells me that true airspeed should be based on density altitude i.e. pressure altitude corrected for non-standard pressures and temperatures.

So is the emulator oversimplifying or can MSL mean density altitude?

Only if temps are standard, from the surface to the high FLs.
For flying light aircraft, generally DA is not worth worrying about for the cruise profile- as Brett said, you shouldn't be calculating performance to the last drop of fuel.

Personally, for that kind of flying in the sim and RL, I only give a damn about my groundspeed while in cruise. Why fuss with calculating true airspeed when all you need to do is time your progress to determine groundspeed?
But density altitude  critical for takeoff and landing performance, so temps on the surface are an important factor... and under some conditions, time-to-climb numbers may be so affected by DA that you need to consider that for flight planning (like if you're taking a 150 up to 10,000 on a hot day, LOL).

Enroute, DA vs. pressure altitude can affect the altimeter setting, but of course one should be getting altimeter corrections from ATC or automated stations. I never use any calculation for that, other than the simple rule of "high to low, look out below" (as you pass from a high pressure area to a low pressure area, your true altitude will be lower than indicated... and vice-versa). Watching the weather, or knowing from a report or forecast what lies ahead, can help you at least watch out for misleading altimeter readings if you can't get an update on the radio. If it's critical, say on a flight over mountains in poor vis or at night, it could be wise to land somewhere and just set the altimeter to the field elevation there.

And one more aside: VFR cruise altitudes (odd/even thousands plus 500) start at 3000 AGL. So if you're flying over terrain that is 1000 MSL on average, you can fly any altitude you want up to 4000 MSL.

[Brett_Henderson]

Another note to help as these discussions progress:

Know these terms well:

-Course
-Heading
-Track
-Bearing
-Relative-Bearing

[krigl]

Great stuff guys, thanks a lot for your patience and time!!

So I won't be 'afraid' to practice IFR approaches at non-controlled airfields, and at controlled airports I should let the ATC vector me in. Stupid question again maybe, but what are approach plates and SIDS and STARS and so on for at controlled airports? In case the tower gets taken out by a meteorite?

3000 ft AGL is something which I missed! Not MSL! So if the mountains are at 10 000 then I can fly VFR up to 13 000 without worrying about odd and even thousands+500?? Wow. Well...doesn't that create conflicts with faster, heavier aircraft? Or other aircraft flying IFR in VFR conditions... :-? My guess: a. the heavies are no problem in controlled airspace, and outside they are too high, and b. flying by IFR will be at 4000 AGL minimum... right?

I'm worrying about all the niggly details, pressure vs density altitude etc because I want to train my brain to deal with these things, and because I want eventually to progress to higher flying stuff...
Once I've got my head round basic flying I'm going to try VFR at 12 000 ft too to get a feel for it.

Another note to help as these discussions progress:

Know these terms well:

-Course
-Heading
-Track
-Bearing
-Relative-Bearing

I think - course is the direction in which you are trying to go, heading is the direction your plane is actually facing while following that course, track is the 'path' your plane is following over the ground (ideally similar to the course), bearing is.... ah. Wait a minute. Erm. Dammit. Well... ...

[Brett_Henderson]

Stupid question again maybe, but what are approach plates and SIDS and STARS and so on for at controlled airports? In case the tower gets taken out by a meteorite?

This is one of the most

[krigl]

Alright Brett!  The SID/STAR explanation makes sense - keeping the airlines in place - and if I'm flying into a large controlled airport it's most realistic to just let ATC vector me in - though more interesting to ignore ATC and fly the whole approach myself and hope they let me land when I'm on final ...and that there's nothing on the runway...

I was trying to get to grips with approach plates before I decided to go back to square 1 and VFR. When explained it all makes sense - but looking at an approach plate with no explanation makes my head hurt...

I hope you will find time to do that instrument training course - the question is how many people need it. Hard to tell - everyone's like 'I flew my PMDG 747 from LA to Hong Kong last night' and you just don't know if they are really seriously simming the whole flight or just doing it 'seat of the pants' with GPS and taking screenshots - my usual approach.  ;D  And if they can't really 'fly' properly - do they want to learn?  :-?

Anyway, I've got to get to grips with the basics before working through your VFR stuff, so I'm off to plan a flight now.

Cheers

Roger

[BigTruck]

[quote]

I hope you will find time to do that instrument training course - the question is how many people need it. Hard to tell - everyone's like 'I flew my PMDG 747 from LA to Hong Kong last night' and you just don't know if they are really seriously simming the whole flight or just doing it 'seat of the pants' with GPS and taking screenshots - my usual approach.

[krigl]

Here comes another long, probably boring progress report - I've been away for a short break and bought a new gaming console, but had at least some time to thoroughly plan a flight between Homer and Iliamna, Alaska. I spent about 2 hours making the flight plan from scratch, trying to figure out what information I needed to put on it, and in what order, with help from the FS Handbook, SkyVector, E6B emulator and Carenado's performance guide.

I flew the Victor airway that heads west from Homer then doglegs (at Nosky) up to Iliamna. It was about 110 NM if I remember. There was what I think is called a fix (Walus) midway between Homer and the dogleg bit. I flew at 6500 as we were heading west, VFR, and the minimum altitude for the airway was 6000. I set up a nice crosswind for the first 2 thirds of the flight, then changed it and the visibility at Nosky dogleg.

Question - does the distance from Homer to the fix count as a 'leg' in flight planning? I had 3 legs - Homer to Walus fix, Walus to Nosky fix, Nosky to Iliamna. There was no change of direction at Walus.

For each flight I do I'm giving myself aims and checking my success.

Aim 1 - make a detailed flightplan and consider all variables. I was fairly successful there - I found there was little info I wanted that wasn't in it during the flight.

Aim 2 - calculate flightpath with magnetic and wind variation. Here I was not so successful and kept moving off course. If I hadn't referred regularly to my terrain map, and the in-sim map I would have got lost. I think I input the temperature at 2 degrees higher than I calculated for when setting up the flight, not sure if this would make a big difference. If I didn't make that mistake - looks like the perf. figures and the results of the E6B... or perhaps the simulator itself - can't be completely trusted for flying 'by the numbers'. I guess that, like in real life, the use of instruments to check your position regularly is very important for getting from A to B - and that's why VFR only pilots are not allowed to stray far from base, right?

Aim 3 - track outwards from Homer NDB, and at the dogleg Nosky, intercept the Iliamna NDB. On my first flight I failed to do this utterly, because the ADF just would not work! I tried doing it in FSX as well and it wouldn't work there either.

[BFMF]

Question - how does one go about seriously planning a flight in a plane you don't have the performance data for? Estimate, based on something similar that you do have data for, or know well? Rely on the FS in-sim planner? Such in-depth data as comes with my Carenado planes is very rarely seen.

I'll admit that when I do a cross country flight in FS, I usually don't sit down and plan out fuel consumption to the gallon, airspeed to the knot, time between checkpoints down to the minute, wind variation, magnetic variation/deviation and figure the heading to the compass degree, ect. I probably should practice, but I don't feel like taking the time.

If you fly an unfamiliar aircraft without performance data, you could fly a short-medium cross country flight while watching fuel consumption, your airspeed at different altitudes, and at various power settings. I do it all the time. I'll quickly plan a cross country flight, guesstimate, and start figuring out my aircraft's performance while flying. After a few cross country flights in the aircraft, you will start to get a feel for it's speed, range, fuel consumption, ect

Sometimes, i'll install a fuel gauge in my panel that allows me to precisely monitor fuel consumption, TTE, ect while in-flight

[Brett_Henderson]

My reply here might be a little out of order... I'm answering in order of significance..lol

[krigl]

Thanks Brett and Esselbach!!

Taking up an unfamiliar plane and just trying it out, maybe making charts, comparing it to what you already know - it's what I thought. Hard graft... Wouldn't that be even harder the more passengers the plane can carry - must be quite a difference in performance between empty and full in a 20 seater for example!!

I just do not understand that NDB glitch - especially as it also occurred in different planes, and in both FS9 and FSX, at different NDBs. Totally mental. I'm just glad it sorted itself out.

I've read your lessons on NDB nav, and some by other people too, and am practising, practising, practising these skills along with VOR nav in VFR conditions and checking how I'm doing and 'what happens when I do this'... same with wind and magnetic variation. When I get things together a bit more in a couple of weeks I'll post a serious attempt at a flight plan ala your Lesson 1 and you can check it out if you like. Maybe I miscalculated the winds too...

I was thinking of the Recreational Pilot's License when saying VFR pilots can't stray far from base. This is true if you only have an RPL, isn't it?

So I guessed right about the fix/waypoint thing - doesn't need to be 2 legs if no change of heading. However, I'm trying to get as exact and detailed as I can as I hope to start working on 'proper' IFR next month.

The mountain flight I'm planning is all about getting to know my C182RG a bit better, and seeing if I can feel the difference between it and another, or use it as a reference to guesstimate how they will behave. As there's no skyvector outside America, I also want to see if using google maps for terrain maps as well as the FS Navlog I can knock up a semi-decent plan for VFR which I can follow by looking out of the window and checking my 'chart'.

Then I'm going to spend a few weeks practicing patterns and basic pilotage, as well as flying VFR via terrain and instruments till I find that I don't need to check the map in FS, and generally try to cover all aspects of your VFR course. Next month I shall begin to increase the cloud coverage more and more and try to get about just using instruments, as well as get those approaches right. Perhaps by next month you might have some IFR tutorials going Brett.... :-?

...If not, no worries - there are a good few tutes out there...

Cheers and THANKS!!

Roger