Ahhh one of the many flaws in FSX. A real Cessna would never be able to fly out of (or land for that matter) Lukla due to density altitude. Oh well, FSX is for fun though right?
@ levewe: You'd be surprised how many real world airports have unlevel runways/sloped runways. There are actually not many that are perfectly level, most have small hills and valleys in them, but you never notice that unless you're in the cockpit ;)
@AviatorAV8R I would not blame FSX but rather the model. Download a payware model of the Cessna to compare with real-life. You know for the sub-$100 that we pay for FSX, let's not expect too much from the default models. That's what payware is for. Like it or not, quality comes at a price...the more you pay, the better quality.
And if anyone is going to tout X-plane as better, be aware that it's only as good as the model. A good payware X-plane model will surpass the default ones.
@LMF5000 I'd have to look that up in my C172 POH. A safe altitude without supplemental oxygen is 10,000. A C172 can go higher, but the issue with a C172 at Lukla is aircraft performance/density altitude. Simply put, the air density influences aircraft engines at higher altitudes because they can't compensate for the loss in air density.
@AviatorAV8R I've heard of the 10,000 ft legal limit, but I thought service ceiling takes into account everything including engine performance loss and loss of wing lift?
@LMF5000 For just flying it does. To understand, you really need to read up on density altitude. A C172 won't take off at an airport that has an elevation of 8,000 ft such as Lukla like it would take of at an airport with a 400 ft elevation. The less dense the air is, the worse an aircraft performs. Again, just read up on density altitude. I'm a real world pilot and know what I'm saying isn't wrong.
@AviatorAV8R I agree with you, don't worry. I understand exactly what you're saying. I work in the operations department of an airline and I've seen my fair share of performance tables in POHs hehe :). What I'm trying to say is, that if it can just about barely fly at 14,000 feet, then given a long enough runway at 10,000 feet, it should be able to take off. I've consulted a 172 POH and it says that the takeoff run will be 1805 feet at 8000ft altitude, 20 deg. C temp. No values for 10k ft though
@LMF5000 Without looking at a C172 POH I really can't say. I do think that given a long enough runway, it would be possible to take off at an 8,000 ft airport elevation, but I don't think Lukla's runway is long enough for that. Twin Otters barely have enough runway length there. If you have a C172 POH available to look at, then you can look it up and I'll take your word for it. Lukla's runway length is 1,500 ft as far as I know and I'm pretty sure that is too short for a C172 to depart.
@AviatorAV8R Ouch. I've checked the 172's POH. They don't have takeoff roll values that go up to 10,000 feet, but at 8000 feet and 20 deg C it takes 1805 feet to takeoff. Lukla is 1500ft long and therefore you were right all along - the 172 can't take off from there (unless falling off the edge of the runway and getting it up to takeoff speed on the way down counts lol). Sorry for doubting your very first comment :)
@LMF5000 No worries. Pilots should always error on the safe side. Even if Lukla's RWY were 2000 ft (giving extra room per the POH) the OAT needs to be just right too. I doubt that any real world pilot would take a chance with a C172 at Lukla. 172's are just not made for airports like Lukla. Perhaps a different single engine (that's turbo charged/more HP) such as a Cirrus would be able to do it, but I'm really not sure. Good chat though!
@AviatorAV8R Well said! Maybe that's also part of the reason why there are practically zero commercial single-engined piston aircraft. Everybody loves the extra power of turboprops. Although a turbonormalised engine like the mooney's would make as much power at 8,000 ft as it makes at sea level so it would be much better than any naturally aspirated one could possibly be.
how do you get planes that you downloaded in to planes that are there all the time but your not flying them
52outbound 6 months ago
where did you get this scenery?? please :(
TheFlyingpigy 1 year ago
Ahhh one of the many flaws in FSX. A real Cessna would never be able to fly out of (or land for that matter) Lukla due to density altitude. Oh well, FSX is for fun though right?
@ levewe: You'd be surprised how many real world airports have unlevel runways/sloped runways. There are actually not many that are perfectly level, most have small hills and valleys in them, but you never notice that unless you're in the cockpit ;)
AviatorAV8R 2 years ago
@AviatorAV8R I would not blame FSX but rather the model. Download a payware model of the Cessna to compare with real-life. You know for the sub-$100 that we pay for FSX, let's not expect too much from the default models. That's what payware is for. Like it or not, quality comes at a price...the more you pay, the better quality.
And if anyone is going to tout X-plane as better, be aware that it's only as good as the model. A good payware X-plane model will surpass the default ones.
bigtwit 1 year ago
@AviatorAV8R Doesn't the Cessna 172 have a service ceiling of 14,000 feet?
LMF5000 1 year ago
@LMF5000 I'd have to look that up in my C172 POH. A safe altitude without supplemental oxygen is 10,000. A C172 can go higher, but the issue with a C172 at Lukla is aircraft performance/density altitude. Simply put, the air density influences aircraft engines at higher altitudes because they can't compensate for the loss in air density.
AviatorAV8R 1 year ago
@AviatorAV8R I've heard of the 10,000 ft legal limit, but I thought service ceiling takes into account everything including engine performance loss and loss of wing lift?
LMF5000 1 year ago
@LMF5000 For just flying it does. To understand, you really need to read up on density altitude. A C172 won't take off at an airport that has an elevation of 8,000 ft such as Lukla like it would take of at an airport with a 400 ft elevation. The less dense the air is, the worse an aircraft performs. Again, just read up on density altitude. I'm a real world pilot and know what I'm saying isn't wrong.
AviatorAV8R 1 year ago
@AviatorAV8R I agree with you, don't worry. I understand exactly what you're saying. I work in the operations department of an airline and I've seen my fair share of performance tables in POHs hehe :). What I'm trying to say is, that if it can just about barely fly at 14,000 feet, then given a long enough runway at 10,000 feet, it should be able to take off. I've consulted a 172 POH and it says that the takeoff run will be 1805 feet at 8000ft altitude, 20 deg. C temp. No values for 10k ft though
LMF5000 1 year ago
@LMF5000 Without looking at a C172 POH I really can't say. I do think that given a long enough runway, it would be possible to take off at an 8,000 ft airport elevation, but I don't think Lukla's runway is long enough for that. Twin Otters barely have enough runway length there. If you have a C172 POH available to look at, then you can look it up and I'll take your word for it. Lukla's runway length is 1,500 ft as far as I know and I'm pretty sure that is too short for a C172 to depart.
AviatorAV8R 1 year ago
@AviatorAV8R Ouch. I've checked the 172's POH. They don't have takeoff roll values that go up to 10,000 feet, but at 8000 feet and 20 deg C it takes 1805 feet to takeoff. Lukla is 1500ft long and therefore you were right all along - the 172 can't take off from there (unless falling off the edge of the runway and getting it up to takeoff speed on the way down counts lol). Sorry for doubting your very first comment :)
LMF5000 1 year ago
@LMF5000 No worries. Pilots should always error on the safe side. Even if Lukla's RWY were 2000 ft (giving extra room per the POH) the OAT needs to be just right too. I doubt that any real world pilot would take a chance with a C172 at Lukla. 172's are just not made for airports like Lukla. Perhaps a different single engine (that's turbo charged/more HP) such as a Cirrus would be able to do it, but I'm really not sure. Good chat though!
AviatorAV8R 1 year ago
@AviatorAV8R Well said! Maybe that's also part of the reason why there are practically zero commercial single-engined piston aircraft. Everybody loves the extra power of turboprops. Although a turbonormalised engine like the mooney's would make as much power at 8,000 ft as it makes at sea level so it would be much better than any naturally aspirated one could possibly be.
LMF5000 1 year ago
Great video, great song and everything, and the runway is supposed to be like that
patsmithj 2 years ago
yerp..helps pilots get speed for takeoff
bajesus666 2 years ago
unleveled runway.,,...........wtf......
levewe 2 years ago