Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Previous Topic | Next Topic
VPC Forums FSFORUM
Original message

RobertVA Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: "Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Multiplayer" 02-08-04, 17:53z  I'm thinking a flight from the north might be a nice change.  Moffett Federal AFLD to San Luis Co Regional  Lockheed P-38M-6-L O Lightning Waypoint Facility Name Type Frequency Altitude Heading Distance Est. Ground Speed ETE KNUQ Moffett Apt.   34         SNS Salinas VOR DME 117.30   138 50 273 0:11 ROM Priest VOR 110.00   109 55 300 0:11 KSBP San Luis Apt.   209 163 55 174 0:19 Total           159   0:41 Departure Airport Information KNUQ Moffett Federal AFLD ST/CO: CA Unicom: 122.9 CTAF: 119.55 LAT: N37 24.89 LON: W122 2.97 Elevation: 34     14L/32R 9208 14L ILS 110.35 32R ILS 110.35 14R/32L 8126             Destination Airport Information KSBP San Luis Co Regl ST/CO: CA Unicom: 122.9 CTAF: 124.00 LAT: N35 14.21 LON W120 38.51 Elevation: 209     11/29 5325 11 ILS 109.7       7/25 3175             Does this look interesting to the others? Robert Near KORF Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Table of Contents

Subject      Author      Message Date     ID      RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... vgbaron 02-08-04 1    RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... RobertVA 02-09-04 3         RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... vgbaron 02-10-04 4              RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... RobertVA 02-10-04 5                   RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... Ben_Chiu 02-10-04 6                   RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... vgbaron 02-11-04 7                        RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... tb 02-11-04 8                             RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... RobertVA 02-13-04 17                   RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... PL965Melo 02-12-04 9                        RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... RobertVA 02-12-04 10                             RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... Ben_Chiu 02-12-04 11                                  RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... Ben_Chiu 02-12-04 12                                       RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... PL965Melo 02-13-04 15                                            RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... Ben_Chiu 02-13-04 18                                                 RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... PL965Melo 02-15-04 22                                                      RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... Ben_Chiu 02-15-04 24                                                           RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... PL965Melo 02-19-04 26                                                                RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... Ben_Chiu 02-20-04 28                                       RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... RobertVA 02-13-04 16                                            RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... Ben_Chiu 02-13-04 19                             RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... PL965Melo 02-13-04 14                                  RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... Ben_Chiu 02-13-04 20                                       RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... PL965Melo 02-15-04 23                                            RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... Ben_Chiu 02-15-04 25                                                 RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... PL965Melo 02-19-04 27   RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... andor 02-09-04 2   RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... tb 02-13-04 13   RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... andor 02-14-04 21    RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul... DylanK 02-24-04 29

Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

vgbaron Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 1. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Multiplayer" 02-08-04, 23:44z  Robert - OK by me but you might also want to look at a slightly longer flight - KTVL -> KSBP KTVL -> HYP 176 13500 325 103sm HYP -> PXN 196 13500 325 35.3 PXN -> ROM 156 13500 325 34.9 ROM -> PRB 161 9600 250 28.1 PRB -> CREPE 197 3900 150 21.8 CREPE -> KSBP 110 210 105 13.3 total: 235mi :45 min Either way is ok by me. Vic Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RobertVA Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 3. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Multiplayer" 02-09-04, 19:16z  Does that estimated time enroute allow for: Limited to 250 knots from 6268 ft to 10,000 ft after departure Reduced speed during remainder of climb Not cruising at 100% throttle so other planes can catch up with the lead plane instead of being strung out in a line so far apart the trailing plane can't even see the multiplayer tag for the lead plane At 300 kt cruise speed that might take almost a full hour, not allowing the additional time between different planes takeoffs and landings. Is tha PRB waypoint part of a published approach? If a plane is flying VFR would there be any reason not to fly directly to CREPE from ROM? And if runway 29 is the active runway at KSBP wouldn't we substitute an intersection ESE of KSBP for CREPE too? Is it normal in the real world to include aproach waypoints in the filed plight plan, or to refer to the onboard plates once the controler assigns the flight to an destination airport runway? With the new GPS units in FS 2004 we now have approach procedures available during flight, although I'm not sure to what extent the autopilot will respond to a procedure selected during the flight. Sounds like some interesting scenery though. Robert Near KORF Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

vgbaron Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 4. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-10-04, 06:14z  > Does that estimated time enroute allow for: > > > 1 Limited to 250 knots from 6268 ft to 10,000 ft after departure > At 250kts the P-38 can climb at 2000 fpm > 2 Reduced speed during remainder of climb see above > > 3 Not cruising at 100% throttle so other planes can catch up with the > lead plane instead of being strung out in a line so far apart the > trailing plane can't even see the multiplayer tag for the lead plane > If takeoff spacing is right - shouldn't be a problem assuming the pilot knows how to get the max out of the a/c - should easily cruise at 325kts > At 300 kt cruise speed that might take almost a full hour, not allowing > the additional time between different planes takeoffs and landings. > About same as last flight - should take about an hour with no problems > Is tha PRB waypoint part of a published approach? If a plane is flying > VFR would there be any reason not to fly directly to CREPE from ROM? And > if runway 29 is the active runway at KSBP wouldn't we substitute an > intersection ESE of KSBP for CREPE too? > No, PRB was snuck in there to make it easier for tb to find his way <G>. For our flights, I am not concerned with the active rwy - time dictates we use 11. > Is it normal in the real world to include aproach waypoints in the filed > plight plan, or to refer to the onboard plates once the controler > assigns the flight to an destination airport runway? With the new GPS > units in FS 2004 we now have approach procedures available during > flight, although I'm not sure to what extent the autopilot will respond > to a procedure selected during the flight. > Might be fun to setup a flight sometime with the GPS but tb would have a problem. I've set up approaches in flight on the GPS and the AP has handled it fine. As I said, I don't care which one we fly - Vic -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Vic Baron -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RobertVA Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 5. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-10-04, 18:50z  Both Routes are interesting to me. Let's fly one February 15 and the other February 22! Lets get some other opinions as to which flight we do which week. Maybe later on we could start at Catalina! I can do a nice table of the Lake Tahoe route similar to the one I did for Moffett. I'm thinking the ATIS frequency might be a good addition after the field elevation, although the format I modeled the table after had Magnetic Variation in that location. FS 2004 doesn't seem to offer Mag. Var. in the map view popups, and the ones on the old Sublogic maps I have is probably out of date. I'm not familliar with all the tweaks involving things like fuel mixture and calculating the flights fuel burn to the point of having only a reasonable margin of safety reaching the destination. Both probably keep my speed down a bit. I would much prefer cruising at 85 to 95 percent and having a bit of throttle range so I can catch up if I start to fall behind. Being 5 miles from the tiny dot representing anouther plane isn't nearly as much fun as being about half a mile away and being able to see the shape of the plane and it bank turning at a waypoint. Using the Simulator rate or CTRL-SHIFT-F feels a bit like cheating. CTRL-SHIFT-F tends to result in a collision to often too. Robert Near KORF Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Ben_Chiu Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 6. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-10-04, 22:00z  > Both Routes are interesting to me. Let's fly one February 15 and the > other February 22! Lets get some other opinions as to which flight we do > which week. I propose we go with your Feb 15th plan and then Vic's on the 22nd. Any seconds? > Maybe later on we could start at Catalina! Sounds like fun! > I can do a nice > table of the Lake Tahoe route similar to the one I did for Moffett. I'm > thinking the ATIS frequency might be a good addition after the field > elevation, although the format I modeled the table after had Magnetic > Variation in that location. FS 2004 doesn't seem to offer Mag. Var. in > the map view popups, and the ones on the old Sublogic maps I have is > probably out of date. All that's really required is magnetic course or better yet, VOR radial. Once you have either of those magnetic variation is only of academic value. > I'm not familliar with all the tweaks involving things like fuel mixture > and calculating the flights fuel burn to the point of having only a > reasonable margin of safety reaching the destination. Without cruise charts, it's too much work trying to come up with good numbers. > Both probably keep > my speed down a bit. I would much prefer cruising at 85 to 95 percent > and having a bit of throttle range so I can catch up if I start to fall > behind. Being 5 miles from the tiny dot representing anouther plane > isn't nearly as much fun as being about half a mile away and being able > to see the shape of the plane and it bank turning at a waypoint. Using > the Simulator rate or CTRL-SHIFT-F feels a bit like cheating. > CTRL-SHIFT-F tends to result in a collision to often too. I flew the P-38 with the drop tanks last Sat and boy-o-boy, do those things create a lot of drag. I resorted to bypassing waypoints and flying direct to "keep up" with you guys! Ben -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Ben Chiu -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

vgbaron Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 7. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-11-04, 00:13z  I agree with Ben's post - lets fly yours this week and mine next. I wanted to go from Tahoe but it's just a bit too long for our time. Since this is a sim, the easiest way in this a/c to select the correct mixture is by ear. Start leaning out the mixture until the rpm just starts to drop, then increase a smidge. In a decent model, this will give you the best fuel consumption and the most power. This does not take into account any prop settings. You should easily get 325kts out of the P-38 night model. If you want to get a wee bit more, fly with half the fuel load. You can always use WEP ( war emergency power ) for a few minutes to speed up. I think that part of the fun of the P-38 model is tweaking the mixture, etc to get the best out of it. I flew my route the other night, with real world weather ( relatively clear ) and it took me 41 minutes t/o to touchdown on rwy 11. Since this weekend is your flight, you get to lead <G>!! cya, Vic -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Vic Baron -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

tb Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 8. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-11-04, 03:03z  I will await until Thurs. to get the "vitals" of from where to where and how......ok the flight plan. I too like the idea of going from place to place, who knows by June I might "sponcer" a flight! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RobertVA Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 17. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-13-04, 18:57z  TB: We're hoping whatever prevented you from joining the Thursday chat wasn't too serious. We saw you briefly in ACARS, but not on RW or in the chat itself. Do you know that if you start RW directly and click the "join" button it will often give you the oportunity to connect to the the same server you were last using? It looks like the Moffett Federal to KSBP route is a go for what in our time zone is the 10:00 PM February 14 flight. You should be able to click the "Printer Freindly" link at the top of the page and use your browser to print out the first page (or two) of this thread to obtain a hard copy of the route. You might need to use the Print command on your browser's File menu to get the option to print only the first part of the thread. Don't hesitate to ask here or at the Saturday chat if you need advice on entering the information into the Flight Simulator flight planner. Robert Near KORF Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

PL965Melo Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 9. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-12-04, 00:59z  Hi Robert, >Both Routes are interesting to me. Let's fly one February >15 and the other February 22! Lets get some other opinions >as to which flight we do which week. Maybe later on we >could start at Catalina! Been reading along with interest recently, trying to get up the nerve to figure out the RW, flight rooms Etc and join in one of these weeks. I have actually been spending a lot of time in the last month or so looking for a suitable Spitfire to add to the VPC FS2004 Hangar for these flights. Still looking for the right one, for one reason or another, while PL965 vII is still in the engineering hangar. Is it right that you all are flying the P-38 on these Saturday flights? I gave it a few test flights last month and it is a good aircraft, fun to fly. The main reason why I chimed in was when you mentioned starting from Catalina. On a plan from Catalina, don't forget to incorporate the SFRA over LAX into the flight. I have piloted the SFRA both in Flight Simulator and the real world, and it adds a touch of class to any Flight Plan, in my opinion. Regards, Melo PL965 Spitfire pilot, Glendale, CA Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RobertVA Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 10. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-12-04, 17:11z  I am not familiar with what SFRA stands for I hadn't realy looked at the Catalina to San Luis route before today, but on the "poster" from the back of Ben's FS 2000 book the 310° radial outbound from Santa Catalina along victor airway V-37 looks like a good first leg. There are a lot of VOR labels in that part of the map, and I'm not completely sure which label goes with the other end of V-37 (Ventura?). I'll check in the FS 2004 flight planner later. From that VOR the route over Fellows then to San Luis looks promising. Of couse, since we know the controler we shouldn't have any problems getting clearance if we want a better look at Los Angeles I don't have a Los Angeles terminal area chart. Robert Near KORF Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Ben_Chiu Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 11. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-12-04, 22:01z  > I am not familiar with what SFRA stands for Special Flight Rules Area > I hadn't realy looked at the Catalina to San Luis route before today, > but on the "poster" from the back of Ben's FS 2000 book the 310° radial > outbound from Santa Catalina along victor airway V-37 looks like a good > first leg. I actually had a flight to and from Catalina originally for that book, but at the last minute, Microsoft made me pull it because the Catalina that shipped had a phantom runway there. > There are a lot of VOR labels in that part of the map, and > I'm not completely sure which label goes with the other end of V-37 > (Ventura?). Ventura is correct. > I'll check in the FS 2004 flight planner later. From that > VOR the route over Fellows then to San Luis looks promising. Flying a hi-perf multi-engine aircraft over V-37 seems OK. (I wouldn't try it in a single.) > Of couse, since we know the controler we shouldn't have any problems > getting clearance if we want a better look at Los Angeles > > I don't have a Los Angeles terminal area chart. You don't really need one if you have my book. The flight to Zamparini covers the (now termed the "LAX mini-route") procedures. Just reverse them to fly northbound and change the altitude to 4,500. Here's a picture of the latest LAX mini-route info: Ben -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Ben Chiu -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Ben_Chiu Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 12. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-12-04, 22:47z  Oops, 4,500' is the old SFRA altitude. The new mini-route altitide is 2,500'. The latest Letters to Airmen can be found here: http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/oprdoc/GetFile.CFM?File_ID=2077 Ben -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Ben Chiu -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

PL965Melo Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 15. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-13-04, 04:07z  Ben, >Oops, 4,500' is the old SFRA altitude. The new mini-route >altitide is 2,500'. > >The latest Letters to Airmen can be found here: > >http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/oprdoc/GetFile.CFM?File_ID=2077 Thanks for the update. I flew the route back when the altitudes were 3,500 and 4,500. Regards, Melo PL965 Spitfire pilot, Glendale, CA Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Ben_Chiu Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 18. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-13-04, 20:18z  Greetings Melo: > Thanks for the update. I flew the route back when the altitudes were > 3,500 and 4,500. Just FYI, on 9/11, all aircraft were grounded. The SFRA never returned, but became the mini-route a few months later. Ben -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Ben Chiu -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

PL965Melo Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 22. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-15-04, 03:21z  Hi Ben, >Just FYI, on 9/11, all aircraft were grounded. The SFRA >never returned, but became the mini-route a few months >later. That's curious. We flew the route in April of 2003, and flew at 3,500 ft going southbound, and 4,500 ft on the return from Catalina. I was the pilot on the northbound flight so I'm sure of the altitude. If the SFRA was already changed to the mini-route, our flight instructor did not tell us about it. And of course it seemed correct to me as it was the identical procedure that I had used previously in Flight Simulator. Regards, Melo PL965 Spitfire pilot, Glendale, CA Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Ben_Chiu Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 24. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-15-04, 20:09z  Hi Melo: > >Just FYI, on 9/11, all aircraft were grounded. The SFRA > >never returned, but became the mini-route a few months > >later. > > That's curious. We flew the route in April of 2003, and > flew at 3,500 ft going southbound, and 4,500 ft on the > return from Catalina. I was the pilot on the northbound > flight so I'm sure of the altitude. If the SFRA was > already changed to the mini-route, our flight instructor > did not tell us about it. Hmmm, that is curious. Here's the LTA that existed during that time period (issued June 4, 2002 and valid thru June 30, 2003): ======================================== FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION LOS ANGELES AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER 245 WORLD WAY NORTH LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045 ISSUED: June 4, 2002 EFFECTIVE: June 4, 2002 LOS ANGELES TOWER LETTER TO AIRMEN NO. 02-01 SUBJECT: LAX VFR "MINI-ROUTE" TRANSITION PROCEDURES CANCELLATION: June 30, 2003 A two-directional transition for light VFR aircraft has been developed - the "Mini Route." Fixed-wing, non-turbojet aircraft will transition via the Santa Monica 128 radial at 2500 feet in direct communication with Los Angeles Tower on 126.25. LAX must be in a west traffic configuration and reporting a ceiling of at least 3000 feet and visibility of at least three miles; Hawthorne and Santa Monica Airports must be VFR. Pilots should advise Santa Monica, Hawthorne, or Torrance Tower that they are requesting the Mini Route. Proceed to Loyola College (LMU) from the North or the TRW building from the South at 2500 feet, remain clear of Bravo airspace, and contact Los Angeles Tower on 126.25 for clearance. This procedure is available daily from 0830 to 1230 local, weather permitting. When staffing permits, the hours of operation will be increased. If you have questions regarding this procedure, please contact Frank Sweeney, Support Manager, Los Angeles Tower, at (310) 342-4912. /s/ Sherry Avery Air Traffic Manager Los Angeles Tower AWP-530.5:Tellier:x6568:7/10/01:530docs\530.5\LTAs\LAXminiLTA02-01.doc:File: ============================================= I don't know if the original TFR post 9/11 cancelling the SFRA is still available online (probably not), and I don't know if there were any LTA's rescinding the above LTA (I wouldn't think they ever rescinded it since the current LTA posted in my other message is nearly identical to the above). Maybe a quick phone call to the Support Manager at LAX can clarify what your CFI was doing on that date. Ben -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Ben Chiu -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

PL965Melo Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 26. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-19-04, 01:11z  Hi Ben, Problem solved. Here is the key phrase: >This procedure is available daily from 0830 to 1230 local, >weather >permitting. When staffing permits, the hours of operation >will be >increased. That day we were flying in the late afternoon so the Mini-route was already closed for the day. The previous SFRA rules were in effect for the non Mini-route times, I guess. I saw in the more recent Mini-route message that you posted, the hours of operation were increased to 24 hrs a day conditions permitting. So it was a transition phase between the two procedures. Regards, Melo PL965 Spitfire pilot, Glendale, CA Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Ben_Chiu Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 28. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-20-04, 23:45z  Hi Melo: > Problem solved. Here is the key phrase: > > >This procedure is available daily from 0830 to 1230 local, > >weather > >permitting. When staffing permits, the hours of operation > >will be > >increased. > > That day we were flying in the late afternoon so the Mini-route > was already closed for the day. The previous SFRA rules were > in effect for the non Mini-route times, I guess. > > I saw in the more recent Mini-route message that you posted, > the hours of operation were increased to 24 hrs a day conditions > permitting. So it was a transition phase between the two procedures. I think there's a bit of confusion here (easy to do). I contacted LAX Tower Support Specialist earlier to verify my information. We'll get back into this topic some more when we start discussing the flight, but the quick synopsis is SFRA disappeared after 9/11. It came back as the current LAX Special Air Traffic Rules Area at some unknown point (it's not Steve's airspace and I'm still searching for when). The mini-route was created in June 2002 and both (SATRA and mini-route) exist today. I seem to recall that the mini-route (before they called it as such) was the only way to VFR transition LAX Class B at one time, but can't recall when it was. Finally, there current LAX TAC is erroneously missing the SATRA freq (I posted a note about it in the Safety Forum). Hope this helps! Ben -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Ben Chiu -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RobertVA Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 16. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-13-04, 18:36z  So a plane could fly at 6500 along most of V21 from Catalina (KSXC) to Seal Beach (SLI), then at 2500 along V23 to the 308 (128+180) radial inbound to SMO (includes the mini route)? I see 100/80 (S of San Pedro)and 100/70 (W of Hunington Pier)notations in what appear to be the same airspace boundries most of V21 goes through. With single color printing in the book I'm not sure if any of the other airspace layer information applies in the imediate area of the Seal Beach VOR. Since I would be using the flight planner that comes with the simulator I would probably use Intersection VPCAR as a waypoint and advise pilots to intercept the 308 radial to SMO and use radio navigation for the leg from the vicinity of VPCAR to SMO. The whole exercise would be for sightseeing purposes, since the overwater V27 would be a shorter route towards KSBP. Would single engine planes normally go for as much altitude as clears the overhead airspace during the over water leg of such a flight, to give them more glide range in the event of engine failure? Robert Near KORF Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Ben_Chiu Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 19. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-13-04, 20:18z  > So a plane could fly at 6500 along most of V21 from Catalina (KSXC) to > Seal Beach (SLI), then at 2500 along V23 to the 308 (128+180) radial > inbound to SMO (includes the mini route)? Yes, you could do that. But let's not get too caught up in flight planning that we forget that we're flying VFR here. As such, you can simply fly a heading or SXC radial outbound to intercept the mini-route. > I see 100/80 (S of San > Pedro)and 100/70 (W of Hunington Pier)notations in what appear to be the > same airspace boundries most of V21 goes through. With single color > printing in the book I'm not sure if any of the other airspace layer > information applies in the imediate area of the Seal Beach VOR. Those indicate the LAX Class B airspace. So yes, you need to avoid these bits of airspace except for the portion that the mini-route crosses. > Since I would be using the flight planner that comes with the simulator > I would probably use Intersection VPCAR as a waypoint and advise pilots > to intercept the 308 radial to SMO and use radio navigation for the leg > from the vicinity of VPCAR to SMO. The whole exercise would be for > sightseeing purposes, since the overwater V27 would be a shorter route > towards KSBP. Understood. > Would single engine planes normally go for as much altitude as clears > the overhead airspace during the over water leg of such a flight, to > give them more glide range in the event of engine failure? Let's look at this in two parts: The first and most important issue is safety. When overflying water, you should plan your cruise altitude to give you as chance to gliding to land in case of an engine failure as you can. So the cruise altitude would vary based on the glide performance of the aircraft. (My good friend and first flight instructor was lost over V-27 in the area we're talking about, so this subject hits close to home for me.) The second issue is airspace. If you're on an IFR flight plan, crossing Class B is not an issue. Conversely, if you're VFR, then yes, you'd need to cross above 10,000'. However, V-27 + V-25 is outside of LAX Class B, so any VFR cruise altitude would be acceptable, but not necessarily safe. We should probably break this out into another thread is there is more to discuss. Hope this helps! Ben -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Ben Chiu -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

PL965Melo Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 14. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-13-04, 04:05z  >I am not familiar with what SFRA stands for Ben described it well below. When the group flies, does everyone fly the same aircraft? Or do the guys fly a variety of aircraft? Regards, Melo PL965 Spitfire pilot, Glendale, CA Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Ben_Chiu Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 20. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-13-04, 20:18z  > When the group flies, does everyone fly the same aircraft? Or do the > guys fly a variety of aircraft? Usually not, and we usually all don't from in from the same departure point, but that seems to be the trend recently. I don't think it's a bad thing because I'm getting the feeling that it's helping everyone learn a little more about aviation flight planning and procedures. Ben -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Ben Chiu -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

PL965Melo Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 23. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-15-04, 03:40z  Hi Ben, >Usually not, and we usually all don't from in from the >same departure point, but that seems to be the trend >recently. I don't think it's a bad thing because I'm >getting the feeling that it's helping everyone learn a >little more about aviation flight planning and procedures. It actually sounds like fun to fly along in relatively close formation. One question I had about flying together. How close can the aircraft get in your flight room without a Flight Sim collision. In Fs2004, is it possible to be tucked in behind the flight leader on his wings without problems. I would hate to get too close and cause a problem for one of the other pilots. I remember flying in close formation in FS2002 with Kit Spackman once over Switzerland. I was in a Lockheed Super Constellation and he was in a Lockheed Starliner. We never got close enough to have wings overlapping, but we flew side by side for a while and it was great fun. I agree that the flight planning info is helpful. I'm learning useful stuff just from reading this one thread. Because I usually fly a Spitfire on simulated missions, I am used to flying wherever I want, (and not holding a steady course for more than 30 seconds in some situations ) Learning about the correct flight plan procedures and routes is fun. Lots of good stuff to learn. Regards, Melo PL965 Spitfire pilot, Glendale, CA Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Ben_Chiu Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 25. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-15-04, 20:09z  Greetings Melo: > It actually sounds like fun to fly along in relatively > close formation. One question I had about flying > together. How close can the aircraft get in your flight > room without a Flight Sim collision. You have to turn off the collisions with other aircraft option in FS. Due to lag and unpredictable crash boxes of the various aircraft, we had found that we'd get crash errors when we were as far as .2 miles away from the others. > In Fs2004, is it > possible to be tucked in behind the flight leader on his > wings without problems. I would hate to get too close and > cause a problem for one of the other pilots. Not a problem if you turn off the crash into other aircraft option. > I agree that the flight planning info is helpful. I'm > learning useful stuff just from reading this one thread. > Because I usually fly a Spitfire on simulated missions, I > am used to flying wherever I want, (and not holding a > steady course for more than 30 seconds in some situations ) > > Learning about the correct flight plan procedures and > routes is fun. Lots of good stuff to learn. Well, I hope you're able to join us sometime. Ben -= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =- Registered to: Ben Chiu -OLR.PL v1.83- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

PL965Melo Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 27. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Mul..." 02-19-04, 01:17z  Hi Ben, >You have to turn off the collisions with other aircraft >option in FS. Due to lag and unpredictable crash boxes of >the various aircraft, we had found that we'd get crash >errors when we were as far as .2 miles away from the >others. Thanks, I will be sure to set that option. >Well, I hope you're able to join us sometime. Definitely. I was going to shoot for this weekends flight but the other day I got an invitation to join a friend and some of his buddies in an online IVAO flight. I will try that flight this weekend and then join up with you guys the next weekend. Regards, Melo PL965 Spitfire pilot, Glendale, CA Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

andor Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 2. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Multiplayer" 02-09-04, 01:55z  G,day All, Firstly Robert.. I thank you for up-loading my route plan for last week, very amiss of me not thanking you during the flight. Now, this is more like it guys, flight plans coming in from everywhere. If we keep at it it must arouse some interest/support for VPC. I can just picture 20plus P.38,s arriving at KSBP. Sadly won,t be able to make the flight 15th, might be able to join on RW. See you all Tuesday chat, Regards, Andy Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

tb Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 13. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Multiplayer" 02-13-04, 03:05z  Got it . THX Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

andor Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 21. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Multiplayer" 02-14-04, 05:19z  G,da guys, Looks like I,m missing all the fun.... WOW look at this post... great to see AFLD - KSBP. Unfortunately still in Sydney so have to miss the flight.but hopfully might be able to listen in.. see how I go with this old "clunker" laptop. Really good to see all the discusion re the flights, it,s what we hope for I think, a keen interest in the flights and realistic planning of same. It is early days and I feel sure we will soon "close up" our formation flying with prior discussion of alt., positioning , speeds, etc. and practice Hope to at least chat with you all tomorrow. Have a good flight guys, Andy. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

DylanK Certificates/Ratings/Crew Stations: 29. "RE: Proposed Route Feb 15 0300z Multiplayer" 02-24-04, 09:33z  Speaking of Moffett, I have an actual flight plan from KSQL to San Luis Obispo that I've used a few times in R/L if anyone wants it I can scan it. Moffetts a very cool air field, I'm about 15 minutes from it, not very bussy anymore but you can't miss the two giant runways and the blimp hangars right off the freeway. -Dylan Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Select another Forum ===================== FlightAdventures Virtual Pilot Center™ (Forums)   |--FSFORUM   |--Aerobatics and Air Shows   |--The Future for GA   |--Airframes and Powerplants   |--Airlines and Airliners   |--Fighters and Warbirds   |--Flight Training   |--Aviation Safety   |--File Library - Upload, Search, and Download   |--VPC Tech