Thomas_Kenobi

Another great video! Thanks for making this!

Thanks that's extremely useful!

Seemed very nice to me. I particularly liked the touchdown. I think it was spot on, not too hard, but neither trying to hard to grease it which would likely result in floating.

London City by far! Doing that steep approach using the HUGS with flaps 40 and the SFP you feel like you are plummeting towards the ground. I've also heard of another interesting approach that I'm itching to try: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/%C3%8Dsafj%C3%B6r%C3%B0ur I don't remember who first posted this vid and where unfortunately. It might have been here.

Hmm, now there's an interesting home experiment Okay seriously now. I used the vertical plane to better dispel any confusion stemming from using a unit of mass to describe weight. From experience this is often present with this issue so I thought it best to put the two on the same axis (like a rocket) to simplify the thought experiment and make the difference (and the connection between the two) perfectly clear.

I use cost index 25 as well. I think I too got it from one of the AoA videos that came out shortly before NGX release. It has worked out fine so far.

Main 50" screen... <stares at the screen blankly for a moment>I want that! :( Seriously now, don't take my word for it because I fly VC exclusively and only use a single monitor, but as far as I know the only panel that doesn't have a 2D equivalent is the throttle area and the starter switches so you should have no problem doing what you describe with the other panels.

Ah right, now I see what you mean. We are talking about things 90 degrees apart (literally ).I was talking about thrust applied on an opposite vector to weight (i.e. vertical), in which case weight and thrust counteract each other (thus a=0ms-2) whereas you were talking about horizontal thrust in an ideal setting with no resistance present. Confusion fixed

That's funny! Me on the other hand I've been itching for a flight where things start going 'wrong'. :PI've had many flights with things going according to plan and because I've been using VNAV and have around mostly good weather, it was starting to get a touch boring. I'm thinking of turning on service based failures for the sim to start throwing things my way :)

Back to the OP question:I've found using a measure of mass to indicate thrust irritating since it first came up in high school physics, exactly because it leads to confusion such as here. I'll try too do my small part to clarify this: Warning: Math (): Lbs. (or kgs in the sane parts of worlds ) (symbol m) is a measure of mass. Weight (symbol W) on the other hand is the force exerted by the Earth (or any other large body) to another body and according to Newton's 2nd law is directly proportional to mass:W=m*g [*]Weight can also be calculated by Newton's law of universal gravitation: W = G*M*m/r2, where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of one object (in this case Earth) and r the distance between the centres of the two Equating the two we have g=G*M/r2 Now since we consider Earth to be roughly uniform in shape and composition and assuming we are at water level, acceleration (symbol g) is approximately 9.81 metres/second2. This is not entirely accurate as neither assumptions are correct but the error is small enough for the purposes of a thought experiment. So on the surface of the Earth, if we accept a small error, a specific mass will always correspond to a specific gravitational force. e.g. 1 kg of mass is pulled by the Earth with 9.81 Newtons of force Practical:For the more practical explanation now. Since 1 kg of mass is pulled by the Earth with a force of 9.81 Newtons, if you apply 9.81 Newtons of force in an opposite vector (i.e. upwards) the mass will hover (not climb! You need more force to start accelerating upwards). Those 9.81 Newtons of force are called 1 kg of thrust. Same thing for lbs, just convert lbs to kg and use the same formulas. Thus 4.45 Newtons of force is called 1 lbs of thrust. So if you strapped one of those 26k lbs rated engines to an object weighing 26k (incl. the weight of the engine itself) it would be enough to make that object hover. The plane weighs a lot more of course but it doesn't matter because the force that counteracts weight is lift and that is produced by the wings not the engines. The engines provide forward motion which is needed to create lift. As to how that happens, that's an issue of aerodynamics and another matter altogether. Hope that has helped :) @Ronan: Sorry but what you say is wrong. A 23600kg thrust would not cause a 1ms-2 acceleration of a 23600kg object. It would in fact provide 0ms-2. It's like having two people pulling a rope at opposite ends with an equal amount of force. The rope wouldn't go anywhere.That if said thrust were pointing up. If it were pointing horizontally as in the case of the plane then it doesn't interact with weight at all as it would be at a 90 degree angle to it (while on the ground or at 0 degrees angle of attack).

How did it go yesterday guys? I was exhausted and fell asleep really early so I missed it.

I had the same problem. It takes a while before the files appear on the library.

That looks like a nice short flight! Long-TAF indicates possible rain for EGCC tonight and thunderstorms for EHAM during the night followed by fog in the early morning, but looks pretty clear after that.That chart link is the from the official Dutch AIP website, yes?

Advice to those who are not used to flying around the UK, EGKK-Gatwick is usually very well staffed so if you are looking for a short hop you could start there. They have several Iron Mic awards from VATSIM. I expect on a Sunday night it will have every ATC position manned.

I'll try to be there as well, but I can't be sure due to study load. I'll spread the word to Virtual Pilots Association.