Tail Strike Penalty?

[Quantas]

If upon takeoff you rotate too quickly and strike the tail on the runway and damage it, will that show up on the flight report and/or will you
have to pay for those damages and would the insurance rate increase?

Thanks!

[JaWood]

I know the program is able to detect gear damage when you land too hard. You get penalized for it, and have to repair the damamged gear. I don't see
why this wouldn't be the same for a tail strike . . . am I right?

Forgive me for intruding on your own question, Quantas, but now that I think about it, does anyone know if the program will simulate tire blowouts? I know that in real life, blowouts upon landing are quite common. A 747 (18 wheels in all) can have a tire blow out on touchdown and think nothing of it. The tire gets replaced at the gate and it's ready for its next flight.



Post Edited ( 05-12-05 08:35 )

[fruitfly]

I guess it's not as straightforward as it may seem. The tail strike can be detected only if there is a contact point at the tail. And I believe the
placement of the contact points depends on the particular plane.
However, I think I've seen a tool or something in the avsim or flightsim libtrary that allows to add and place such points....?if that may be of
any interest in the future?

[DanSteph]

Right...

what I would be able to do anyway is to set a max pitch angle at take off...
there must be a value that NO aircraft outpass or they tail touch !??
This should detect at least the worse case...

Dan

[georak]

Talking about errors and faults, the following has just got into my mind: If I experience some failure envoked by FsP in a comlex aircraft
model (such as Dreamfleet 727), and this model happenes to have system A and system B hydraulic pumps included (on top of it, both
are doubled), can they be failed independently (so that backup system can take over in such case), or if - for instance - a hydraulic faliure
occures in FsP, than the whole hyd. system will go down and that is the end of it?
I could have taken up elecrical faliures too as an example, as the electrical system is also operated quite comlexly in DF 727, relative to the
default aircraft models in MSFS.

Thanks in advance ...

GEO

[fruitfly]

... or maybe if you could add a slider so we could individualy set the max allowable nose up angle depending on the plane we fly (according to the POH) and
prior to the departure?



Post Edited ( 05-12-05 14:51 )

[DanSteph]

Mhhhh that would not do the job, most people don't have a clue of this value
and also it would look uggly to ask such things...

Anyway a fixed value can at least avoid the biggest pitch error (I must see what is this value for most aircraft )

Dan

[pagir]

The pitch could be included in the aircraft database or in the payload model?

If nothing is specified, it could be a default value...

I know that some longer Airbus should by "handdle with care" at takeoff for this reason...

Pagir

[djsebx]

As well Boeing as 737-900, you shouldn't exceed +9° as pitch angle for takeoff on such long aircrafts.

[DanSteph]

With a rape sound if you exceed pitch ? that could be a neat feature where the request can be put *where you know* (hint hint

If someone have somes numbers for somes aicraft that may help...

Dan



Post Edited ( 05-12-05 18:17 )

[Deacon]

Umm, that'd be "rap" sound I think, Dan. Unless, of course, someone's "pitching" the cutest flight attendant in the rear of the aircraft!!

Also, and this is my personal opinion, you can build all the reality into a program you want...but 80% of the people will only use 20% of it. It's the
80-20 rule in custom programming. The quickest way to turn people OFF about a program add-on is to make it's learning curve/complexity of
design/reality coefficient too steep for the average user.

My 2 euros.

[DanSteph]

your right of course anyway flying right and earning point in FsP is not that hard unless you do really dumb things...
the most boring penality are the "light" and "altimeter" penality and you can turn them off...

I think FsP will be a a good teacher because a lot of people are not really aware of comon flight restriction,
I had the case were a tester reported a bug in flap detection.. after scratching my head on this I finally
found the cause.. the guy made all his take-off since years with flaps up and lowered them only at
past V1 at 80kts-100 kts before take off... (to gain speed he said) this is stricly forbiden in airliner.

I repeat again... you will get penality for really dumb things that really are outside of common senses,
you don't have 30 pages of rules to learn... the end flight report will told you in most case what was wrong
so you can correct it.

This said if someone want to deal with light and altimeter penality of course they can use it (I find them
personnaly boring because I always forget them LOL)

I just finished my "data mining" for tail strike, it happen that most airliner have a tail strike limit
of about 11.5°... again making somes test it appeared to me that at that pitch I'm usually already
at 50 feet from ground.... so one have to make a big mistake to reach this pitch angle.. again
it will teach peoples something while looking the end-flight report...

Dan



Post Edited ( 05-13-05 02:53 )

[DanSteph]

Deacon wrote:
Umm, that'd be "rap" sound I think, Dan. Unless, of course, someone's "pitching" the cutest flight attendant in the
rear of the aircraft!!

Ah ? I wasn't aware of the difference thanks I learned something

Dan

[DanSteph]

Done,

There is a rasp sound when the tail hit ground, the passengers complain in the report because they "heard a loud sound coming from behind", your copilot announce that sometime later, there is an incident report, the hull is damaged, you get pilot penality point and... well that's all

To hit the ground with your tail you must really insist at take off or do a bad landing.. (pitch to high)
It's a "common" incident in reality but sometime it ended very bad, see google about "tail strike"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tail+strike%22 (4180 answers)


Dan



Post Edited ( 05-13-05 15:33 )

[fruitfly]

Dan, you're the greatest!
You finished that feature sooner than I managed to provide you a piece of the info you asked for:
http://atr.flight1.net/forums/forum_post...=2013&PN=1
Shame on me!