Surface Base Lone Star 2060 - Earth Terrain & Aerospace Infrastructure

[C3PO]

Sometimes I use the localizer to line up, but usually I don't bother. The range is so short that you can see the VASI/PAPI long before you get the ILS signal.

 

[Carmen A]

Speaking of PAPIs I am starting to like them a lot. I'll just need to experiment to get it to display a correct 3 degree glideslope (it's set a bit too high now).

Next update I'll either extend terrain coverage to Matagorda or towards the north of Houston to give some more eyecandy. There are also quite a few more little airfields between Galveston and Houston although I may not add all of the little air parks, or else we end up with too many airfields in the same area.

 

[C3PO]

I use it for final, I drop towards the beginning of the runway lights at 20°-30° and then pull up to get on the ILS glide slope. Usually this ensures a pretty smooth landing (Regardless which winged vessel I use).

Except for the XR5 :lol:
I've tried to make a HAC for XR5s, but the glide ratio is quite horrible. The drag is huge! Below 2k alt you need a 45° slope to keep it from slowing down. Most parachutes have a better glide.
So I just dive for the runway and it will slow down enough for the landing. I guess the XR5s weren't made for dead-stick landings. :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

Would be interesting if you could land a spacecraft by ILS and other navigation functions, without having a view outside...quasi the ultimative IFR challenge. I think I have the right vehicle for this... it just needs some updates to 2010.

---------- Post added at 12:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

Except for the XR5 :lol:
I've tried to make a HAC for XR5s, but the glide ratio is quite horrible. The drag is huge! Below 2k alt you need a 45° slope to keep it from slowing down. Most parachutes have a better glide.
So I just dive for the runway and it will slow down enough for the landing. I guess the XR5s weren't made for dead-stick landings. :thumbup:

Works also if you simply descend fast and steep enough. You loose speed in a hellish way, but if you have experienced the drag once, it will not surprise you a second time.

 

[C3PO]

Speaking of PAPIs I am starting to like them a lot. I'll just need to experiment to get it to display a correct 3 degree glideslope (it's set a bit too high now).

VASI is more accurate, but you can make the approach cone smaller (the first number)

 

[Carmen A]

Except for the XR5 :lol:
I've tried to make a HAC for XR5s, but the glide ratio is quite horrible. The drag is huge! Below 2k alt you need a 45° slope to keep it from slowing down. Most parachutes have a better glide.
So I just dive for the runway and it will slow down enough for the landing. I guess the XR5s weren't made for dead-stick landings. :thumbup:

Having 600 tons of cargo to land at the destination makes it even more fun. I just fly it in on auto descent with some hover thrust.

I just imagine I am flying my house around from the front porch

 

[C3PO]

Works also if you simply descend fast and steep enough. You loose speed in a hellish way, but if you have experienced the drag once, it will not surprise you a second time.

Exactly. You don't really need to manage the energy during final approach. Just make sure you're high enough over the RWY, point the XR5 towards the ground, and it will slow down in time. It's the only thing that I don't like about the XR fleet.

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------

Having 600 tons of cargo to land at the destination makes it even more fun.

That 1 to 1 glide ratio is for an empty XR5. The drag is so high that fuel and cargo doesn't make that much difference.

 

[Carmen A]

But to be fair the XRs as high performance SSTO spaceplanes don't really call for efficient gliding airfoils. The takeoff speed of an XR2 fully loaded and fuelled was something like 0.5 Mach today.

It reminds me of those Tu154 supersonic airliners that don't have flaps for landing. The approach speed is scary. I'm okay with that as the little highly swept wings would be optimised for Mach 6 to 20 anyway. Anything below that speed is takeoff (pretty much vertical) and landing.

I can glide the XR2 pretty well but the 5 I think has so much drag from the SuperGuppy style airframe it just drops like a brick.

Which isn't far fetched to me, as various high performance jets or large airliners today aren't really known as good gliders.

 

[C3PO]

I can glide the XR2 pretty well but the 5 I think has so much drag from the SuperGuppy style airframe it just drops like a brick.

Which isn't far fetched to me, as various high performance jets or large airliners today aren't really known as good gliders.

Wikipedia has some L/D numbers listed.

Lockheed U-2: ~28
Boeing 747: 17 (Cruise)
Concorde: 7.14 (2M Cruise)
Concorde: 4.35 (Approach)

 

[jangofett287]

Carmen, heres my attempt at making norwich international

 

[C3PO]

Runway positioning is perfect, how did you do that?

I forgot to post this. :facepalm:
I place a VOR at (0,0) in the base cfg, and use the scenario editor to place a craft one the point that I need. RWY threshold for runways. Rotate the craft towards the center VOR (I have a tall cylinder at (0,0) too. Then you have a distance and direction to (0,0). Then it's easy to convert the polar vector into rectangular coordinates. I use an Excell sheet.
I've also made a simple craft that I use just for this. It's a bit time consuming this way, but very accurate. I can get the position of a single pixel this way.

For my HACs I use a radius of 5 km, and PAPIs are offset 1800 m in front with 22° slope. This helps me nail the landing in all Orbiter's winged craft except the XR5s.

 

[Carmen A]

Norwich tile in production, 80% complete.

 

[Carmen A]

To JF287:

Sample Norwich International terrain tile attached. You need to find out why the runway I put there doesn't appear.

 

[hribek]

Where do you get image data for your surface tiles, what application are you using for converting them to tile textures, how do you add transparency? Perhaps you could write a short tutorial.

 

[Hielor]

Speaking of PAPIs I am starting to like them a lot. I'll just need to experiment to get it to display a correct 3 degree glideslope (it's set a bit too high now).

I think the default PAPI in Orbiter is 20 degrees, for the shuttle.

VASI is more accurate, but you can make the approach cone smaller (the first number)

What do you mean, "VASI is more accurate?" There's a reason the PAPI is the "precision approach path indicator," it's more precise than a VASI...

 

[C3PO]

What do you mean, "VASI is more accurate?" There's a reason the PAPI is the "precision approach path indicator," it's more precise than a VASI...

Maybe in real life, but try it in Orbiter. PAPI just gives you a Yes/No if you're in the "cone". With VASI you can guesstimate how far you are from the "line" and how fast it's changing.

 

[Hielor]

Maybe in real life, but try it in Orbiter. PAPI just gives you a Yes/No if you're in the "cone". With VASI you can guesstimate how far you are from the "line" and how fast it's changing.

Which is which in Orbiter, can you give me a screenshot?

 

[C3PO]

Which is which in Orbiter, can you give me a screenshot?

See page 99 in ..\Doc\Orbiter.pdf

 

[Carmen A]

This here is the fixed Norfolk International airport, without deliberate errors (training purposes y'know :3)

Next target, San Francisco.

First post updated

 

[Carmen A]

San Francisco International

No release today as there is one AFB and one additional airport in the same terrain tile.

Initially intended to use jer10's airport mesh and buildings but they were over twice the actual size. I like realistically sized runways much better.

(Repositioning and rescaling the entire base takes more time than building from scratch as the facing and location was 45 degrees off.)