western_JPN Posted August 13, 2023 Posted August 13, 2023 Hi. I found Tel Nof AFB's spots 44 - 96 have "detour" taxi routes for both Takeoff / Landing. Especially spots 85 - 89 have bigger trouble. My report and suggestion is based on "Not to use Runway 15R / 33L as a taxiway, keep it clear for future parallel takeoff / landing runway use". If Runway 15R / 33L is planned as a taxiway (not a functional runway) in the DCS terrain module, I'll change my thought to follow it. Please tell me your plan. RW 18 Takeoff from spots 85 - 89. This case has two different troubles. One is the route drawing big U with crossing the active RW 18. Another is taxing on RW 33L / 18R and only one aircraft can enter the RW 33L / 18R area. The second a/c (taxi-out from spots 85 - 89) has to wait on the end of RW 33L until the first a/c exits the end of RW 15R. A long time waiting occurs about each a/c. The taxi routes to be : RW 18 Takeoff from other spots (44 - 96) have a similar problem crossing RW 18, and "detour U" about spots 44 - 64. My suggestion into simple and shorter --- RW 18 Landing taxi routes are only troubled with spots 85 - 89. They are also use RW 15R / 33L. But not to wait one another, less waiting time. RW 36 Takeoff "detour" taxi routes is also only caused with spots 85 - 89 and RW 15R / 33L. They have to wait the previous a/c exiting the runway. Same to RW 18 Takeoff issue. RW 36 Landing shows the inverted routes of RW 18 Takeoff like --- About Spots 85 - 89 : Other spots 44 - 96 after RW 36 Landing show also inverted from Takeoff RW 18 routes (shown above) --- crossing the active runway and detour "U". Suggested new routes are also the inverted ones of Takeoff RW 18. RW 15L Takeoff has only spots 85 - 89 trouble. Second - Fifth a/c have to wait the clearance of RW 15R / 33L. Same to RW 18 takeoff. If RW 15R / 33L is planned as taxiway, the current route is the shortest and not to change, but occupied decision has to be got rid. To avoid taxing RW 15R / 33L , the route to be : RW 33R has almost no problems about taxi. Its Landing with spots 95 - 99 are allowed to taxi on RW 15R / 33L or not. (Inverted from RW 15L Takeoff.) 1 Modules: A-10C/II, F-4E, F-5E(Re), F-14A/B, F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18C, AV-8B, FC3, Ka-50-2/3, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, SA342, Mi-24P, AH-64D, CH-47F, P-51D Maps: Nevada, PG, Syria, SA, Sinai, Kola, Afghanistan, Iraq, CW Germany, Channel, Normandy2.0 Assets etc.: CA, Sc, WW2AP Mods and Skins in User Files: files/filter/user-is-western0221/
western_JPN Posted August 13, 2023 Author Posted August 13, 2023 (edited) I don't know historical fixed-wing a/c taxi routes of Tel Nof around helicopters apron (spots H18 - H27). I think fixed-wing a/c doesn't enter the apron to avoid ground staff / helo pilots injury. More research about historical taxi operation in Tel Nof is needed. When my thought is fitted IRL .... those fixed-wing a/c taxi routes "short cut" the helicopters apron H18 - H27 in current Sinai module have to be changed. Edited August 13, 2023 by western_JPN 1 Modules: A-10C/II, F-4E, F-5E(Re), F-14A/B, F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18C, AV-8B, FC3, Ka-50-2/3, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, SA342, Mi-24P, AH-64D, CH-47F, P-51D Maps: Nevada, PG, Syria, SA, Sinai, Kola, Afghanistan, Iraq, CW Germany, Channel, Normandy2.0 Assets etc.: CA, Sc, WW2AP Mods and Skins in User Files: files/filter/user-is-western0221/
OnReTech Posted August 13, 2023 Posted August 13, 2023 Thanks, added to the bug list. Priority - medium 2
Recommended Posts