Sorry, I don't have the guts for this Airport

That poor gear...
 
I soooo want to get checked out at that airport! :yes: :goofy:

I figure the EU trip that's slowly being planned is going to be spendy anyway so why not plan for a little extra and do some fun flying. That airport is just too much fun to pass up.
 
F-that! I thought the London City approach looked harsh, that's rediculous.
 
I really don't see what the big deal is. You aim for the numbers just like you normally would. It's not like you're landing at night without runway lights.
 
What a great video!! Here's another video of planes arriving at that airport. I'd like to know if anybody here knows what the first plane they show landing there is... it's a taildragger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSAOoicFxMg&NR=1

EDIT: Google search on the registration number F-NBIR shows it's a Jodel D.140 Mousquetaire IV.

Is that French for "Musketeer"?
 
EdFred said:
I really don't see what the big deal is. You aim for the numbers just like you normally would. It's not like you're landing at night without runway lights.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't really see anything that crazy, either. Other than a really bad landing, that is...

Why is that a controlled airport? I know nothing about aviation in Europe, but it seems strange to have ATC at such a small airport.

-Felix
 
EdFred said:
I really don't see what the big deal is. You aim for the numbers just like you normally would. It's not like you're landing at night without runway lights.
Click to expand...
I thought I heard the controller say there is no go around. That might explain why he slammed it down on the runway.
 
BFD. Lots of tiny strips where you don't go around. Didn't look any worse than some of the strips I've landed in W Virginia.
 
Good old Courchevel... it's peculiar, but it's just a runway.I'd love to try landing there sometime. Done it in FS9 a number of times, even got a DC-3 in there once without mishap.
The important factor would be of course that it's a high-altitude mountain airport- even if it were perfectly flat and the runway was longer, the site itself requires some mountain experience, IMHO.
 
Watching that I was grabbing my chair because those rocks are way too close!
 
mikea said:
Watching that I was grabbing my chair because those rocks are way too close!
Click to expand...
Nope. When flying in the mountains we had the mountain face just a few hundred feet from the wing. You get better lift from the upslope winds that way!
 
I am not terribly fond of the landing technique the pilot in the video used; I would have been a little higher at the threshold. But hey- Beech builds tough gear!
 
Kind of dodgy in the Baron, but I wouldn't mine trying it in the Navion. 1755' and a roller coaster isn't too bad, the real problem is it is at 6500' elevation and I bet there are some interesting mountain effects as well.
 
Landing there wouldn't bother me a bit.
The take off on the other hand freaks me out. It messes with my fear of heights.
 
deafsound said:
Landing there wouldn't bother me a bit.
The take off on the other hand freaks me out. It messes with my fear of heights.
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^
| | | | | | |

What he said.
 
looks like fun ...Telluride Colorado has one of those crazy non flat runways. You cant get on that guys landing that much. On those kind of runways the visuals can really screw w.you . pull the power and the plane just keeps sinking , imagine thinking you gonna get a greaser then you stall and sink 7 feet until she slams in.
 
rottydaddy said:
Good old Courchevel... it's peculiar, but it's just a runway.I'd love to try landing there sometime. Done it in FS9 a number of times, even got a DC-3 in there once without mishap.
The important factor would be of course that it's a high-altitude mountain airport- even if it were perfectly flat and the runway was longer, the site itself requires some mountain experience, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I just tried it in 2004 and it is not the same airport. Is it more realistic in FS9? 2004 is only 1700' and no slope, trees at one end hill on the other. no way to get over the trees but easy to get up the hill. LFLJ airport code.

Dan
 
stingray said:
I just tried it in 2004 and it is not the same airport. Is it more realistic in FS9? 2004 is only 1700' and no slope, trees at one end hill on the other. no way to get over the trees but easy to get up the hill. LFLJ airport code.

Dan
Click to expand...

You need to d/l a scenery add on. Go on to youtube, someone has a FS Vid of a 747 taking off from there, and linked out to a scenery add on so it has the slope and everything.
 
That is one of my favorite videos. With proper planning and training, I'd love to do that!
 
rottydaddy said:
Good old Courchevel... it's peculiar, but it's just a runway.I'd love to try landing there sometime. Done it in FS9 a number of times, even got a DC-3 in there once without mishap.
The important factor would be of course that it's a high-altitude mountain airport- even if it were perfectly flat and the runway was longer, the site itself requires some mountain experience, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Courchevel is similar to Soldier Bar in Idaho with respect to elevation, profile and length, except it's smooth paved instead of gravel and has no pair of ski jump humps in the middle to temporarily re-launch landings with too much speed and no dog leg.

Both need to be done right the first try, like right on the numbers the way nearly everybody has practiced so much, plus adding major power after touchdown to supplement the plane's kinetic energy and keep it from stalling to a stop on the sloped part of the runway until the top out is assured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top