Jump to content


Photo

Landing On Glideslope,.. Then Cr@xx#p


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#11 TonyP

TonyP

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 14 June 2010 - 11:44 PM

The original download includes a folder named Users Manual. In there is the Easy flight dynamics. Give it a try.

I cant comment on the other parts. I can ask our guys to look at it.


Albert, I don't have a problem with take-offs, cruising, navigation, etc., except for landing. I tried landing at Orlando (KMCO) at Runway 18R -- ILS 111.9 today, told by ATC to fly at 5000 til capturing the localizer, I've got the localizer captured, APP active, NAV/GPS switch set to NAV (in the up position), the plane turns to the runway heading, but instead of descending as indicated by the glideslope, it increases altitude????  I fly over the airport at 20,000 ft. ??? Nowhere am I instructing the plane to increase altitude. What's going on?

If I try the "Easy flight dynamics" does that dumb-down everything when flying this plane?  My only problem is landing, I have no problems with take-off, navigation, etc., only landings.  This is a really nice plane, I wish it could land like it should.  Am I the only one that can't land this thing?  Is there anyone that I can call?

Tony

#12 Albert_Bouwman

Albert_Bouwman

    StarCaptain

  • Root Admin
  • 6368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Holland
  • Interests:Aviation

Posted 15 June 2010 - 02:37 PM

Hey Tony,

I see your point. I simply dont know why the landings dont go well for you so I cant really provide an alternative solution. Unless you can make a video so the guys can take a look at your approach / landing.
Cheers,

Albert Bouwman
Commercial Level Simulations
Posted Image

#13 TonyP

TonyP

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 16 June 2010 - 07:49 PM

Hey Tony,

I see your point. I simply dont know why the landings dont go well for you so I cant really provide an alternative solution. Unless you can make a video so the guys can take a look at your approach / landing.


Albert I went and bought FRAPS and made a movie of my flight on another landing at Orlando (KMCO).  But I'm not going to send you the movie for a couple of reasons; first it's too big to send via email and second, a surprise,... I made a successful ILS landing  on Runway 35L ILS Freq. 110.5 . !!!!  :D   After reviewing the movie of my landing, the one problem that I may have had was activating the APP (approach button) a little too early and not capturing the glide-slope, I'll need to look at the HSI to see the needles adjusting before activating the APP button and switching the NAV/GPS toggle to NAV at the appropriate time.  Well now I'm finally happy that I can land this fine looking & handling plane.

Tony

#14 ILEllis

ILEllis

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 05:32 PM

Hi,

Recently selected my 767 for a flight from Auckland New Zealand to Sydney Australia using FS9. After a nice preflight the take-off was uneventful in rain and low visibility. A few minutes later I was on top at FL330 and clear skies. The rest of the flight also was uneventful, but then...

I started preparing for the approach and landing. Pulled out the approach plate for Sydney and selected the 34R ILS approach using vectors. Tuned all the necessary NAV radios and selected the proper OBS settings for the ILS. Took note of the glideslope intercept altitude (1900 ft). I would make my initial approach at 3000 ft per the approach plate. I used the autopilot HDG mode to get within about 30 degrees of the approach path then swapped back to the GPS mode and activated the approach. Everything so far is going smooth as silk. I'm flying level at 3000 ft.

I flipped the GPS/NAV switch to see if the localizer was available and when within range (about 20nm) switched the autopilot to APR mode. The autopilot picked up on the localizer and started tracking it. The HSI still showed the glideslope as inactive (as it was still centered). At about 15nm the glideslope indicator went to the top showing it was being received. I continued the approach.

During this approach I set my flaps to full (35 degrees) for the landing while keeping the airspeed at 170 knots until on the glideslope (then 165 knots down the slope). My view (from the 2D cockpit) was abnormal (with no zoom adjustment my view was to steep downward). I could not see the runway environment normally from the 2D cockpit. It seemed as though the 767 was to much nose down for full flaps? I had to adjust the view (to about .50 zoom) to see the runway environment properly. It was hard to judge the flare point making a smooth landing difficult. On subsequent approaches I had to flare early and use the speedbrakes to keep the aircraft from bouncing wildly.

On the second approach I used only 20 degrees of flap keeping the speed as before. My view was now normal. I also noticed compared to the first approach, looking at the approach from an external view that the aircraft was at a more normal "angle-of-attack" for the approach. With the aircraft using full flaps the angle-of-attack seemed to steep. This may be why I also got the "feel" that I was going to fast when crossing the threshold.

I also noticed that if on a long approach and descending (as from cruising altitude) that speed management was difficult. Using speedbrakes tended to have no effect.

I agree that some tweaking is in order. Someone at CLS needs to do some serious short flights from altitude and test approaches as this will be the only way to corner this. I love my other CLS aircraft (the JustFlight Lite Series) and went with the CLS 767 in lieu of the Captain Sim 767. There is enough discussion here that hopefully someone at CLS will take a look at this. I for one will be looking for a patch, thanks...

ILEllis

#15 sg38

sg38

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 22 June 2010 - 11:33 AM

>The autopilot picked up on the localizer and started tracking it. The HSI still showed the glideslope as inactive (as it was still centered).

That's strange. If there no active glideslope there shouldn't ANY GS indication and it should certainly not be centered!

>During this approach I set my flaps to full (35 degrees) for the landing while keeping the airspeed at 170 knots until on the glideslope (then 165 knots down the slope).

There's no flap 35 on the 767. Either 25 or 30. Furthermore at 170 the flaps shouldn't even extend to 30deg due to the flap relief system.
165 is VERY close to the flap relief speed. What's your weight as you don't even come close to 165kts even at maximum landing weight.

>It seemed as though the 767 was to much nose down for full flaps? I had to adjust the view (to about .50 zoom) to see the runway environment properly.

Even at max landing weight with the heaviest 300ER the ref speed isn't more than 145kts. The normal approach attitude is around 1deg nose up. It looks as if you are WAY too fast.

>On subsequent approaches I had to flare early and use the speedbrakes to keep the aircraft from bouncing wildly.

The speedbrakes should be armed during the approach so they extend automatically on touchdown. (the real 767 doesn't bounce at all, even without speedbrakes)

>With the aircraft using full flaps the angle-of-attack seemed to steep. This may be why I also got the "feel" that I was going to fast when crossing the threshold.

Again, what's your weight? The FMC computes the correct Vref, check that.

>I agree that some tweaking is in order. There is enough discussion here that hopefully someone at CLS will take a look at this. I for one will be looking for a patch, thanks...

Suggest you confirm that you are using the correct speeds first

#16 ILEllis

ILEllis

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 June 2010 - 06:43 PM

Hi sg38,

1 - Your right, the glideslope should be active when picking up the localizer (at least in the sim) but thats the point, it isn't. With a system working correctly that would be the case but I'm discussing a system that isn't. I don't have any means to post a video (which I did make) which clearly shows the glideslope going active AFTER picking up the localizer.

2 - My bad on the flap setting, I meant to say 30 degrees not 35 (just misread the gauge). As far as the speeds that is the nice thing about the Lite Series, it's forgiving. Even at the speeds I used what I described was still extreme. I went back and tried the same approach (which I had saved) again at speeds like you mentioned but still got the same results. As far as WAY to fast, again as I stated it seemed exactly that. I can not examine whether the airspeed indicator is calibrated correctly to what we really view, I'll leave that to the dudes that do the modeling.

3 - As a real pilot I know the speedbrakes should be armed (and they were in most test flights), in just a few of the test flights I manually extended the speedbrakes to see how it would effect the landing (and of course it did). Again, I can not examine the configuration but feel that some tweaking might be necessary. As in other posts in this thread others have mentioned the obvious landing problems (even bouncing), I just found the same results as others. As with my original flight everything worked fine except for the landing. As far as I know none of my other CLS aircraft have this problem (and I own quite a few of them).

4 - On the flight from Auckland to Sydney I carried a very light load of fuel. If I remember correctly I only had about 10,000 gallons more than what the flight called for because the weather at Sydney for this flight was VFR. I might try the entire flight again and also take into account the exact speeds that the FMC calculates but again I've never experienced a significant difference (at least not to the degree described) with the parameters I used. I'm just trying to reinforce what others have already described in hopes of getting a 767 second to none (even if it is a Lite version :-)

ILEllis

#17 TonyP

TonyP

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 26 June 2010 - 11:00 AM

Another factor that seems to aide in landings is keeping your approach speed about 20 knots above the VREF speed as indicated on the FMS (when calculating approach speed).  In many instances where I couldn't seem to capture the localizer, my speed was well over the VREF speed shown on the FMS.  Kinda keep your speed around 160-170 when flying level, just before the glideslope ILS and the reduce the speed to the VREF when descending to the runway threshold.  Keeping the speed around 160-170 seems to make the localizer capturable, going faster seems to be a hit or miss.  Too bad that I'm not seeing anything on the instruments that shows the localizer is in range, the best assist that I have is viewing the GPS which shows the "green range" on the localizer from the runway, hopefully you're viewing the correct runway.

#18 sg38

sg38

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 04:32 PM

Normally there's a DME associated with the ILS and reliable range is about 18NM. IRL ATC puts you on a 10-15NM final.
On the 767 you should have flaps 5 already extended when on the glideslope.
With flaps 1 it can be impossible to reduce the speed any further(without extending the gear or speedbrakes)
You should be doing approximately 200kts on a 15NM final with flaps 5.
Speed should never drop below Vref +5 until the final stages of the flare.
IRL I normally fly with a 1deg nose up attitude on the ILS (with flaps 30) which results in a speed of approximately Vref 10.
Check your CLS 767 how far she disagrees with the above ballpark values.

#19 robwilco2

robwilco2

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:01 PM

They won't admit that there is a problem with this aircraft. It flies beautifully, lands like crap. There is a definate problem with trim that CLS simply will not address.



I agree,I have been trying to land the 767 softly and can't, it's a hard landing and when I add speed it climbs.
Just got 747-200 and it's easy to land.

#20 Eric

Eric

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 24 March 2013 - 07:36 PM

I realize this post is somewhat old but I just bought the 767 the other day and have learned a lot about its personality.

 

First, the FMC is high by about 12 knots in calculating vRef speeds and the lot. Second, the speed brakes are severely ineffective slowing the airplane. Instead of using reverse thrust to slow the airplane after landing, try throwing out an anchor or use a drag chute. Even with maximum autobrakes it doesn't want to stop very well.

 

Finally, FSX doesn't seem to have a clue about fuel calculations but using a number of 21.0 lb/nm seems to work.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users