767 vs L1011 climb power

[Guest]

767 vs L1011 climb power [/p] [/p]Earlier this year, popular models were moderately loaded (fuel and payload) and subjected to climb tests. This is a systematic observation and recording of FS data every 2,000 feet as the models climb to high altitude. In each case, IAS was set at 250 kts below 10,000 feet and 285 kts above 10,000 feet. [/p] [/p]Loss of airspeed at constant IAS holdhttp://www.edwinn.com/flightsim/chart-02.gif [/p] [/p]Climb rate reductionhttp://www.edwinn.com/flightsim/chart-01.gif [/p] [/p]Tracking N1 during climbhttp://www.edwinn.com/flightsim/chart-03.gif [/p] [/p]Typical N1 vs Mach number profilehttp://www.edwinn.com/flightsim/chart-04.gif [/p] [/p] [/p]SummarySome models have power vs altitude characteristics that match real aircraft. There are some which: a) Have insufficient power at higher altitudes, :( Have thrust scalar increased to compensate for lack of high-altitude thrust, often making for unrealistic operation at lower altitudes. [/p] [/p] [/p]Note: content is for general review and subject to change. Climb profiles may not represent actual procedures, for model comparison only. [/p] [/p]Gregory Abbey - Edwinnengineering

[Guest]

How realistic are these models when compared to the real thing? Also, how does the 767PIC compare?Thanks,Robbie