Greetings Robert:> Say waypoint 1 is 30 nm North of the departure airport.
>
> Waypoint 2 is 50 nm East of waypoint 1.
>
> The Navigation Log in Flight Simulator would display (and print) no
> frequency, heading, distance (along leg), speed or time enroute (for
> leg) on the line with the departure airport. It would display heading,
> distance, speed, and ETE for the firat leg on the line with the ID for
> waypoint 1. Heading, distance, speed and ETE information for the leg
> between Waypoint 1 and Waypoint 2 would appear on the line with Waypoint
> 2. Speed is displayed as ground speed. Thus(lines showing TOTAL
> remaining distance and time Enroute omited):
>
>
> DEP APT
> WPT1 VOR xxx.5x 5,000 360 030 90 0:20
> WPT2 VOR xxx.7x 5,000 090 050 90 0:33
> DST APT 1,200 180 060 90 0:40
>
>
> This is also consistant with the BAO Flight Shop planner that predates
> the Microsoft planner.
>
> But for the same route some plans from other sources would show:
>
>
> DEP APT xxx.5x x,xxx 360 030 90 0:20
> WPT1 VOR xxx.5x x,xxx 090 050 90 0:33
> WPT2 VOR xxx.7x x,xxx 180 060 90 0:40
> DST APT xxx.xx 1,200 5/23 0 0 0:00
Thanks for taking the time to fill in the details. I understand what you're getting at. I can tell you that the latter is what I use and most flight plans in the real world will show. The reason is many departures (and all IFR departures) require at least a heading from the departure airport (and some NAVAID is more common). So unless WP1 on the former flight plan is the departure airport, well, you'd be in trouble. Even on an VFR flight plan, there should be some sort of navigation (even if heading and altitude) to WP1.
> Switching back and forth it gets a bit frustrating figuring out which
> system is in use. Since everybody has the default planner can we be
> consistant with it and set up the table generator that way? Pilots with
> other planners could import their plans into the simulator and type
> their plans up from that display or its hard copy.
I'd propose that we didn't adopt the MSFP and use the real world planners (or charts) because the MS format is not what you'll see in the real world. I think that although many of the guys have no intentions of seriously flying for real anytime soon, I don't think that learning to use the right tools can be bad for you.
> To calculate ETE you have to go through (estimated) groundspeed anyway.
> You wouldn't even be able to calculate time enroute from IAS or true
> airspeed without wind information anyway, and the first "E" does stand
> for "Estimated". With estimated groundspeed you at least know what the
> ETE was calculated from.
We run into this in the real world. No one knows winds aloft (even then, they're just forecasts) until close to flight time. So we use the next best thing for preliminary flight planning--TAS numbers from cruise charts. As I stated in my previous message, at the altitudes, speeds and distances we fly at, IAS is pretty darn close to what TAS is (not enough to make a big difference in time and fuel--in the neighborhood of 3-6 minutes or miles at most) and perfectly acceptable.
In the end, all that matters is that you don't run out of fuel before you reach your destination, and that you land within 1/2 hour of when your filed flight plan says you will arrive. So unless you're stretching fuel to the last drop (even then, real flight requires you have 1/2 hour reserve and 45 min reserve at night at cruise), calculating exact minutes or exact fuel left in your tanks when you land isn't really necessary.
Anyway, for those wanting to take the calculations that far, we have POH's for most GA aircraft here, so we can look up TAS's for a given altitude and temperature and provide that for your flight plans. But again, unless you know winds aloft at the time of the flight, you'll have a less accurate ETE and fuel burn.
Ben
-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.83-