NJT916 From United States, joined Oct 2001, 47 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
Greetings All!
After a few years of flying domestic in FS2002, tonight I decided to take my show across the Pacific. Since I live near SFO, I flew San Francisco to Hong Kong in the default 747-400.
A few observations:
1. My biggest concern throughout the trip was fuel. I climbed out at about 250kts below 10K, then took it up to about 350kts for my climb. Once at FL450 (published as max cruising alt in manual on FS2002), I cruised at mach .085 (also, the max cruise speed in FS2002).
I chose to do GPS direct since it was my first trip, and once I got "feet dry" over Japan, my Fuel Warning light came on. To make a long story short, I did not make it into VHHH, I needed to make an emergency landing somewhere in mainland China..not fun. What am I doing wrong here with fuel management? I am guessing that it has something to do with my cruise speed and alt, but would love to get some thoughts from others. Could it be the headwind? I was using Real WX. I can only imagine that if I had not done GPS direct, I would have run out of fuel long before Japan.
2. Is there anyway to really see what the winds aloft are once you are over the Pacific when using Real WX? Maybe this was just the wrong night to fly to Hong Kong.
3. How much effect does ice on the wing have in FS2002? I kept looking at the de-ice button throughout my flight, and wondered what in the world it would do in FS2002.
Sorry is these questions sound basic, but I am starting to push the boundaries of FS2002. There are only so many times you can fly SFO-LAS.
I would appreciate anyone's advise or tips for long hauls.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6315 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 925 times:
Help if I can, Nick.
My guess is you were too high. Apart from the fuel you'd use getting up to that height (maybe 15% of the total load) you'd be using a lot just to stay up there.
I thought at first that the 747 might not have the range, but if you look at the list of flights, under 'Cargo Pilot (Hard)', FS2002 actually has a pre-arranged flight in a 747 from Hong Kong to SFO.
The climb-out speeds and cruise speed (0.85) seem right - except maybe only 330 KIAS in the climb, 350 Indicated might be 'overspeed' low down. I set up the same flightplan and, theoretically, you should have needed only about 47,000 gallons out of 57,000.
I would try it again at say 37,000 (the height set for the 'Cargo Pilot' scenario) and I reckon you'll make it.
About the winds, if you press 'Shift-Z', you will get the winds (strength and direction) and your speed, fuel state etc. in red print across the top of the screen. To clear it, keep pressing 'Shift-Z'. One point, though, 'Real Weather' doesn't download the high winds unless you tell it to (click 'World', then 'Weather', make sure the 'download winds aloft' box is ticked).
To get your exact fuel state in gallons, click on 'Aircraft', then 'Fuel'. On long flights I check the fuel state every 100 miles or so - with 'Shift-Z' it's fairly easy, if you get say 50% of the way with 60% of the fuel left, things are OK! if you DO find you are running short, reduce power - say slow down to Mach .075 - and it should be fine.
Come to think of it, it's a good idea to check the fuel before you take off - make sure she's full to start with.
I've had to use the pitot head de-icing gear and 'carburettor heat' in the Dakota on FS2004, but I have never known it to be a problem on the big jets. I wouldn't worry about it.
Do you actually like the 747? I find the 737 is a much nicer aeroplane all round - landing the 747 bugs me especially, a bit like landing a cathedral!
Hope this helps and it goes well next time.
Tony
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Spotterboy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 818 times:
Yes, you were way too high!
Fully loaded flights normally do not climb up that high on longhaul.
They first climb to lower levels, like 270..... when about 70% of fuel left, up to 350, and around 40% fuel up to 410 or similar..... So when flying that high the whole time you'll burn way too much fuel.
Hoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1902 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 808 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Isn't FL430 the maximum flight level for the 747 in real life ?
I wouldn't go higher than FL410... That's the highest I've used.. Also.. do not use the default 747-400... very unrealistic compared to other addons out there. I recommend the Posky 747-300/400V3.
"Operator. Give me the number for 911." - Homer J. Simpson
Zak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1981 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 796 times:
were you using the default 747? if so i cant help you :/
but incase you used the pss747 panel, you should set up the fmc properly and the CI to something in the range of 10-30. the cruising speed will incrementally be increased as the plane gets lighter. also follow step climb procedures as the plane gets lighter and work around the optimum cruise alt and you should be able to get max range.
without these procedures it will not be easy just as in real life, as they contribute alot to fuel efficiency.
Phatfarmlines From United States, joined Sep 2001, 951 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 792 times:
Like Hoons90 said, consider using POSKY's 744. You'll be very pleased.
But if that cannot do, the default 744 should be able to make it from SFO to HKG. Try these things:
1) Taxi and Takeoff: Fuel is burned faster taxiing than flying. Try minimizing your taxi to the runway (Even if it means "towing" yourself to the hold short point). When taking off, try not to use full throttle. Instead, place it near the full throttle point. Hopefully a more technical pilot here can elaborate on appropriate throttle and flap settings for takeoff.
2) As Flo stated, your initial altitude was too high. Be careful where you set it, you could easily stall with that much fuel onboard at that level of cruise.
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 1947 posts, RR: 31 Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 786 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
One thing also, Mach 0.85 is a little fast. Economy cruise is about Mach 0.82. I've flown SFO-HKG a few times in FS, flying the default 744, MelJet 744 and most of all POSKy 744 and 744F. I recently flew ATL-CPT with the POSky 744 (RR powered), full fuel load (~360k lbs), had 92.6k lbs of fuel after landing, over a quarter. Thats after a 14:10 flight at Mach 0.82 after passing JAX (290-320KIAS before, wasnt to alt yet, 235kias below 10000), cruising at FL330 the whole way. Longest flight ive done in the 747 to date in FS. (Flightplan KATL-MCN-JAX-MLB-UL696-UL375-MIV-FACT). SFO-HKG should be no problem, just slow it down a little and lower FL.
CanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3093 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 766 times:
max cruise at max alt will certainly put a dint in yer range. Slow down and fly a little lower and you should be able to get i donno maybe another half n hour out of the tanks atleast?
NJT916 From United States, joined Oct 2001, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 744 times:
Greetings All!
Let me start by saying thanks for the quick informative responses.
This morning I put all your advice to good use, and made it from VHHH-SFO GPS direct with tons of fuel to spare. I followed Spotterboys good advice and staggered my cruise based on my fuel already consumed. I also did not use full power on the take off and climb which saved a good amount of fuel. Only problem was once I got to SFO, it had poor visibility and rain (should have known that since I love just south of there) so my landing in the 747 was less than perfect.
I'd love to get everyone's thoughts on other good "long hauls" flight from SFO.
Flymia From United States, joined Jun 2001, 3500 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 733 times:
Yes i remember my first Real Long Haul. MIA Stockhoml. I actully went to sleep a little. But had plenty of fuel. Yes i would go to FL 270 then two hours later up to FL320. I am not the familiar with the 747 though.
Also Alot of the time i fly i cant the plane up to 330 KIAS. realy that only happens at FL310 or higher in 737-400 and 777.
It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6315 posts, RR: 23 Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 698 times:
The classic run - SFO-Hawaii - is worth trying. Honolulu looks terrific from the air. Depending on the wind, you either get a very scenic ILS approach from the west, over Pearl Harbor, or a 'back course' visual approach over the mountains which is a bit hair-raising. Suggest you try the 737 for a change.
Nick, if you really fancy 'longhaul', did you know that the 747 will go round the world in three hops? I did Melbourne-Baghdad-LAX-Melbourne. But SFO would fit in just as well.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Oct 2001, 47 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6315 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1902 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1981 posts, 
Printer friendly format
