Around the World in 80 Flights Review

[Chock 17,769]

By default there is no transponder on the radio because it is an old aircraft, but you can easily add a different radio to the aircraft by tweaking the config file yourself, as you can with any other FS aircraft. It's releatively simple to add any gauge you like to an aircraft and there are plenty of tutorials kicking about on the net which explain how to do that if you are unsure of how to do it, there are even some in the panel designer's forums on Avsim in fact. But if you get stuck, PM me and I'll tell you how to go about it.Al

[Paperino60 0]

I just read the review of this package and found it helpful. Thanks Alan. I would love if the developper of this addon would consider correcting that one plane that has cables attached to the DF loop antenna. I would also like to know if someone has repainted this plane to look like the plane that Amelia Earhart flew in 1937. I believe the edge of the wings were painted red and the plane itself was all bare metal. I really like that color scheme and was wondeing why it was not included. Regardless of what this package was intended to represent, you title something "Around The World..." and include an L-10 Electra, people are obviously going to associate this package with the ill-fated flight in 1937. That's just common sense.Anyway, I think I'm going to get the package anyway. I think I will enjoy flying the Electra. I just hope that someone with some skills will take the time to do an "Amelia" version. I wish I had the know-how myself. Unfortunately, I am lucky if I find the "on" button on my conputer, let alone messing around with paint programs...Gianluca

[Chock 17,769]

Well, if you take a look in the tutorials section of AVSIM's forums, there is a tutorial by me on how to repaint FS aircraft. :( Glad you liked the review. It's a very good product, and if you are looking for a challenge that will last a long time, then I can guarantee you that flying around the world in a plane that does well to average 170 miles per hour when you have realistic weather settings on is certainly one of those! Took me ages to complete it, but I finally managed to do so, and it was good fun as well as being pretty educational. Have a good sleep before you attempt the Pacific legs!Al

[Kumara 0]

Greetings Ladies and Gents! This is my first message on this forum, but I haven't registered just to post on this thread: since sometime now I was lurking in the dark collecting useful information, as I'm quite a new virtual pilot using FSX Acceleration since just a couple of weeks! I come from b]IL-2 Sturmovik[/b], as my foremost interest in Aviation is about those WWII era screwdrivers prop aircraft, but of course I'm very much fascinated by all kind of kites, and even in that exciting and very challenging FS I spend most of the time exploring places and maps around the world, more than fighting; so my switch to the FSX world was easy and enjoyable, so far. As I wrote, I'm quite a rookie, but I already collected about 100 hours flying time (almost half of them by night), and I'm flying almost exclusively VFR, since I'm not much interested in becoming a train driver myself: I admit I'm surely challenged by the complexity of IFR flying those huge airliners, but in the end I get bored fast, and prefer to switch back to a F4U Corsair or even to the Goose, and fly around as I please... As a discovery of FSX I started from a nearby Mil Base (LIMN) in Northern Italy one night with a Mooney Bravo, and islands hopped down to Malta, and then from Istambul I reached Gibraltar, collecting almost all of my flying hours exploring many places and islands I know since my land and sea travels in the real world, and loved it. I find most amazing to compare the airfields depicted in the forties of IL-2 how they got transformed as they are depicted in FSX: one glaring example comes to mind when flying the Hawaii Islands from Dillingham airfield as I compared it to the excellent and accurate map made by modders in IL-2. Apologies for the lengthy introduction, but this is my first message here, so bear with me. I resurrected this thread since this is the first Addon I installed on FSX, as I was much excited at the idea to expand my first clumsy attempt I mentioned (the Mediterranean Tour) to a World Wide raid and discovery: I've just made my first flight and feel somewhat deluded. As noted already, it would be difficult to appreciate the places from 20000', if you ever reach that height (I know the good Alan did!), but of my grumblings later. The first thing in this package I did not liked is that install just free flights, and not Mission/Adventures where you could have briefings (with images) and eventual rewards/postcards as memento of your accomplishments! The second thing is the poorly manageable aircraft: Chock wrote in his review this is a choice made by the designers to simulate the difficulties those flyers had; that may be, but then why fly in the modern IFR world at impossible altitudes? At my first attempt, I lost so much time trying to reach the proper IFR required altitude, and delving with that buggy AP, I run out of fuel short of Paris and glided down safely in a field in the NW area! No doubt my combat training in IL-2 came to fruition! I love to crashland in that FS after an hot mission, as the damage depiction and management is excellent there, and even if your aircraft falls literally apart, you would in the end know if you survived your adventure. That is missing in FSX... On my second attempt, I just went to the fuel pump and filled all the tanks: taking off was a nightmare, but I switched to a VFR plan to 7500' and managed to land safely in Paris, without the ATC continuous and annoying calls to speed up my climb! As a revenge flight I took off the same night with a fast and beautiful Mosquito Intruder, and without using any radio I just took off and landed back at Farnborough flying at 4000', mostly with nav lights off too! The points about the Electra are: the AP switches are inverted in the VC and in the panel too, so you'll need some fiddling around trying to figure out the correct positions for GPS or Nav, and even using the keyboard shortcuts, sometimes create a whole mess; you cannot load a full amount of fuel anyway: I had somewhat 50% of fuel at Orly starting for my second flight, so instead of roaming that huge airport to find a fuel pump I called the fuel track. It came in due course and imagine what? As I selected for a 100% load in the panel, it was noticed it was above my maximum weight: I chose to lower my quantity by some amount and fill up as much as possible, and when the truck left my tanks were empty! Alan, please, if you have any useful information on how to tweak the Electra .cfg, please PM me! I need a true Pratt&Whitney R-1340-49 power, a larger amount of fuel, and possibly a better AP too. I confess I checked all the Electra around, but they wouldn't load properly in FSX Acceleration; I even attempted to use parts of their .cfg pasting them in the ATW Electra, but I ended up with a total mess, or an altogether missing plane. I'm seriously thinking to switch to a modern twin engine aircraft, even to the Grumman Intruder I love to fly, but that would mean a different set of challenges. Over. S! PS: As this is my first message I noticed the direct editing is not working using Mozilla Firefox, and I had to edit all manually in html... Is there any chance the direct functions will be upgraded and made more compliant in the near future? I surely hope so! PPS: I cannot actually edit my message but just in html directly, and that is a bit... boring!

[Chock 17,769]

Hi Kumara,It is your lucky day in some ways, because if you take a look on the forums, you will see that Jane Rachel Whittaker, who is the deputy editor of PC Pilot magazine and also the writer of several FS product manuals, is a member of the Avsim forums, and Jane is actually the creator of Around the World in 80 Flights, too.If you look in the brand-new Addictive Simulations support forums right here on Avsim, you will find Jane there, and if you click on her name, you can of course PM her and talk to the person who no doubt knows more about Around the Worlds in 80 flights than any other person. Jane is extremely knowledgeable on aviation matters, not to mention a lovely person, and if you want to know how to fly a Boeing 737 properly, you can ask her about that too, because she can fly one.Of course one of the nice things about Around the World in 80 Flights, is that it works in both FS9 and FSX, but as nice as that is, it does mean that it was unfeasible to make it use the FSX mission system without cheating FS9 users out of much of the experience, so although the FS9 and FSX versions are different (i.e the routes differ to take advantage of the scenery high points of each sim to some extent), they are not so different as to end up shortchanging FS9 users.Around the World in 80 Flights is of course geared toward the user having the choice to make those flights in any aircraft they choose if the Electra does not appeal, so you might want to look at trying the Flight 1 Uiver DC-2, or the MAAM DC-3, or the Aerosoft PBY Catalina, maybe even the A2A B-17 if you want a few prop aircraft that go for full-on realism. The Electra which comes with it is pretty nice, but it was a deliberate choice to not make it totally hard-core realistic in terms of engine management, as that would have lessened the appeal of the product to a narrow field of hard-core simmers, thus the flexibility is one of its nicer features, but the inclusion of another three aircraft for your hangar added value to the package. I can recommend trying it in the Aerosoft Catalina - that really is a challenge with those tough to manage engines.There are one or two tweaks for the Electra listed in the Avsim review of Around the World in 80 Flights of course, so you can try those, but ultimately, the challenge of trying to get that Electra over the mountains and nurse the fuel over the Pacific is one that makes for a good deal of fun and some hard choices on what fuel you take and what you leave behind, which is of course something that makes it very engaging. Stick with it, there are some really tough choices on that front with some of the flights you make, especially if you turn on real world weather.And if you have any really tough questions, try giving Jane a PM, she's probably forgotten more about navigating aircraft in the modern world than most of us will ever know.Al

[Kumara 0]

Hello Alan,thanks for your considerations and suggestions: I've just landed the Electra at Provence Marseilles, flying VFR at 7500'! It was an uneventful flight, except above Clermont Ferrand and the Puy du Dome: as I recall that area is one of the most beautiful site I visited in my life... I'm starting to understand how to fly properly in this aircraft, and I agree it may be a fine challenge: I put my mixture at 21% and purr my course all the way at the fast pace of 120 Mph, and parked her with the fuel manometer about the 60 marks (I still have to understand what it really indicates, since the maximum scale goes only up to 200 below F): I loaded 600 gallons just to be sure! The fuel truck bug came out again, so it's a sure thing, at least in Orly: if you like to add some gallons, the truck will come and depart, living you completely dry! :( 'If you can't make it with this fuel quantity, you'd better don't go!'I also thought about the Dakota as a suitable replacement, maybe less elegant than the Electra; the Cat is so much fun to fly, and it is amphibious, so besides the growling wonderful radials, you also get land/water/air in one stroke, and can always hijack one of those tanker ships in the middle of the Pacific Ocean if you got short on fuel! But let's see how the Lockheed kite will fare in the next few hops.I've just downloaded a nice freeware Rewards file that will give you some 200 postcards for places you'd happen to visit in the USA: a nice and funny idea, since the author wouldn't say which places will give you a postcard (or a couple): as yet I already got 5, but i cannot recall how I got two of them, since sometime I just decide for a surprise free flight from anywhere in the World; anyway this may be a very good idea to add to this package, if I would only know how to assemble such kind of data. Is the Jane you're talking about the same one who flew with the Chevaliers Du Ciel on her pages at Jenny Air? I'm still convinced the Engines should be a little more powerful so I may contact her; in the meantime I will try the tweak of the fuel selectors, and possibly try a repaint following your suggestion above to go to the tutorials section...Cheers!PS: with the Quick Reply all the text editing functions work as they should, but not so if I try the full Reply! I'm puzzled...

[JaneRachel 515]

Hi Kumara,Thank you for taking the time to constructively comment. I genuinely appreciate it. Unfortunately, I have no control over the fuel truck bug, that is actually an FSX issue :(You are quite right in that full fuel tanks push the aircraft over the official gross weight, that is deliberate, as this aircraft has been modified with long range tanks that did just that. You would not normally want full tanks except for the few very long legs. This is in fact, realistic, and was the fuel set up used by ace adventurer Amelia Earhart. Yes, she took off on some flights over the official maximum weight of the aircraft. It is do-able but adds a real challenge to take-off. This is a realism that I wanted to recreate. These days the aviation authorities would not be best impressed, but this was actually done with the Electra by Earhart. In fact, nearly all of the long legs in this trip actually replicate her journey with the fuel load she would carry! You will find that many of the legs deliberately mirror her fateful journey around the world in which she went missing.There are some systems in the aircraft that you might consider "crude" by modern standards. Again, this was a deliberate policy to provide people looking for the ultimate challenge with avionics and gauges that matched the real aircraft.As for your other points, Al hit the nail on the head. There was a huge demand that the product remain compatible with FS2004 so it was designed that way. A specific FSX version would have doubled the development time (although I did add in some updated flights that offer better scenery in FSX) This extra development time would have raised the product price significantly and we did not want to charge you more.Thank you again!

[Kumara 0]

Hi Jane, and thanks for answering here!From what I understood reading Alan's review the L10E had more powerful engines than the standard versions: I still have to check the other two Electra present in the package, but as hinted by the reviewer there shouldn't be any relevant difference between them and the Amelia Earhart's version. Actually I would be willing as I wrote to tweak a bit into the .cfg file to have a more realistic power curve for those P&W radials. If you have any data I can look into and test fly it, I would be more than willing; I'm not an expert about Earhart historic flight, but from the little I could understand, she had the Electra modified to have a lot more fuel while removing all passengers' seats and consequently required some more powerful engines: it seems odd to me this plane has so much difficulties in climbing, even without a full fuel load, but I may be wrong.I also can understand why the developer wanted to keep the sense of challenge in doing so, but even then it takes away the spirit of exploring the globe, while you have to wrestle with the AP switches, or always be anxious about your fuel and even worse trying to keep the IFR for High Altitudes commercial flights. I'm convinced it would be fun enough to accomplish the whole trip at low altitudes and VFR where you can enjoy more of the landscapes, or implement a more manageable climb rate: to reach 20000' as a challenge I can always check out a glider, without worrying about the fuel, as it appears to be at present in this aircraft. As a rookie FS pilot I decided just to take off in the Mooney to make a tour of the Mediterranean: I didn't know how to use the AP or the Radio, and I had no flight plan at all! I just wandered above places I traveled, and landed as I pleased (a true air pirate already registered in the black book of GA, if you ask me! :( ) when I needed fuel, or wanted to have a close look at the places I knew; in doing so I started to fiddle with all these modern procedures and instruments, and find it's even added fun to the experience...As I wrote I downloaded a fine freeware postcard Rewards dispenser (just a few MBs): I cannot believe that would be such a difficult task to accomplish and include it in the FSX install. If you cannot have a detailed briefing before taking off, at least you get a reward when you accomplish it, and IMO that would also increment the will of the virtual pilot to go on in this long flight. Of course this is my 2 cents.S!

[Chock 17,769]

Earhart's Electra was so overloaded on most departures that it could barely fly properly. Keep in mind that to get funding for the flight, she had to gain sponsorship from a University and have the aircraft equipped as a 'flying laboratory' in order that her trip was of some scientific merit. It also had some very heavy radio navigational equipment on board, in addition to the extra fuel tanks.She actually crashed it on her first attempt at departing for her ill-fated attempt to circumnavigate the globe, severely damaging the landing gear and bashing the fuselage up a bit, making it necessary for her circumnavigation attempt to be delayed whilst the Electra was repaired by Lockheed.Earhart claimed that a tire blew on the take off run and caused it to ground loop, but several pilots, including the legendary Paul Mantz saw the crash happen and were adamant that it was her fault in trying to haul it off the deck too early. She also had Harry Manning on board when she crashed it on that occasion, as well as Noonan, but when the Electra was repaired and she set off successfully, she only had Noonan on board accompanying her for that second take off, which gives you some idea of how critical she regarded the weight as being.Al

[Kumara 0]

I see. But even that given I find the behavior in flight somewhat unrealistic: I've just landed at Sion, again converting to a VFR flight plan at 17500' (useless, if you ask me): after an eternity I was able to reach that altitude, set the AP to keep it and the master AP on GPS to keep the nav straight and relax; the plane was barely exceeding 100 Mph at max throttle, 20% mixture and about half the fuel load with which I took off; the aircraft was oscillating continuously governed by the AP both in pitch and in roll directions; I was fed up and disengaged all AP to level it, and I lost some 1000' in the procedure; possibly it was windy, I cannot say, but this started from took off until I decided I had enough and flew it manually into the valley to Sion in a relatively fast dive. I have the impression this kite can barely fly at all, sometime. In my previous flight from Paris, it was much more stable at 7500'... I wonder if this is correct, but I doubt it, since this plane was an advanced airliner in her age, and I doubt the VIPs using it were so hazardous minded.

[Chock 17,769]

The real Electra was known to be somewhat unstable at high altitudes, that's actually why it had twin tailfins, to try and solve the problem. Clarence Kelly Johnson, the designer who took over work on the prototype suggested these after he joined Lockheed and did extensive wind tunnel testing on it, since the Electra originally had a single tailfin. He almost got fired because of that, as he contradicted the opinions of a lot of people senior to him, but he was vindicated, as the Electra did fly better than it would have done with just a single fin.As advanced as it was in terms of aerodynamics and as skilled as Kelly was, this was a fairly new field in designing aircraft. You can see that if you look at many Boeing aircraft from that same era, notably the B-17, of which, the early variants had a tiny tailfin, the later ones gaining a massive tail fin and huge dorsal fillet as designers got more au fait with understanding that you need a lot of vertical surface up in thinner air. The early B17s could make it up just as high as the later ones could, but they were appallingly bad bombing platforms, as they would wallow around all over the place with little directional stability.The Electra could indeed make it up to 20,000 feet, but as a passenger craft it rarely did so, since anything over around 10,000 feet requires cabin pressurisation for passenger comfort. One Electra variant was pressurised, the XC-35, but most of them were not, which means anything over 10,000 feet would have been fairly rare for an Electra carrying passengers. This means that even on half fuel, the Electra is on the ragged edge climbing up to high altitudes, it was this which makes Earhart's trip the challenge it in fact was, since she had to fly through a lot of crappy weather simply because the Electra could not easily make it over it.It wasn't really until the Lockheed Constellation came along that an airliner truly capable of climbing over bad weather and flying comfortably at altitude existed, and you will note that the Connie has three tailfins. The Connie was so fast and capable that it could fly across the Atlantic in WW2 and outrun enemy aircraft.Al

[Kumara 0]

Thanks again Alan for your detailed and competent explanation! Give me a Lightning any day, then! It's a twin with twin tail fins, it has enough autonomy and can easily fly above the 20000' with superchargers too, and still it's a Lockheed! Even a Hudson will surely fly better around the globe than this... Electra! I don't know: maybe I'm not cut for challenges. Let's see: my first flight was problematic as I went along at full throttle all the time and 50% mixture or more, wrestling with the AP I lost so much time I end up gliding powerless some 50 miles from Paris; on the second attempt all went smoothly enough, but I switched altitude to 7500' and full tanks (the take off was hair raising, but it's ok); after an endless taxiing at Orly (you're right, it can taxy very nicely, except it's hard to see where you're going, but this is about all tail draggers), I then took off for another smooth flight to Marseilles, again at 7500' (more than enough); on my last flight I learned not to ask for more fuel from those pesky truckers and all went well, except I discovered the high altitude instability of this kite: now you have given some useful confirmations about this, and I'm back to the engine point; as I landed at Sion I still had plenty of fuel, so possibly I should try to use a richer mixture at high altitudes, if I can gain at least 10 Mph more, and being able to make it to my next landing... The tale goes on. Cheerio!

[Kumara 0]

I'm hooked by this long adventure, but I wasn't happy with the kite's colors, so while in Algiers before my next hop to Mallorca I rented the service of one indigenous painter for some bakshish and here are the results:I know it's a bit colorful and maybe I would get tired of it soon enough, but for the moment I enjoy flying her.If you like it, I've just uploaded it in the AVSIM Library: look for the Lockheed_L10E_ATW_Challenge archive!Cheers!

[Kumara 0]

Here I am again: after the repaint I made some research about the L10E and I came to the conclusion this virtual model was underpowered indeed, so I delved into the aircraft.cfg and modified a few data regarding the engines; I've not touched anything about fuel load or consumption, so that may be still wrong...I've also added the option to select the fuel tanks as suggested by the good Alan in his review [number_of_tank_selectors = 2 ], so now I have the position Left and Aux, besides the Off: can someone explain how these works? I just use it on Aux presuming it will empty first the fuselage tanks: is this correct?After I implanted the more accurate Pratt & Whitney R-1830 configuration, I just made a relatively short flight in mission #22 Kilimanjaro - Mombasa HTKJ - HKMO, and now I was able to reach 20000' with a decent rate of climb, and just above the 100 Mph I was able to fly almost straight, so it seems the Electra can be more enjoyable for those who may like to give it a try I decided to post here the modified sections to the aircraft.cfg you can Copy/Paste into and replacing the relative sections and as usual I recommend to make a backup copy of the original, just to be sure; also keep in mind the red markers on the gauges are no more relevant:[General]atc_type=LOCKHEED atc_model=L10 editable=1 performance="Cruise speed\n185 mph 161 kts 298 km/hr\n\nEngines\nTwo Pratt & Whitney R-1830s\n\nMaximum range\n2800 mi 1,150 km\n\nService ceiling\n23,200 ft 7,071 m\n\nFuel capacity\n604 gal 2,286 L\n\nEmpty weight\n6,454 lb 2,930 kg\n\nMaximum gross weight\n10,500 lb 4,760 kg\n\nLength\n38.7 ft 11.8 m\n\nWingspan\n55 ft 16.8 m\n\nHeight\n10.1 ft 3.1 m\n\n" Category=airplane[Reference Speeds]flaps_up_stall_speed=65.000 //Knots True (KTAS)full_flaps_stall_speed=57.000 //Knots True (KTAS)cruise_speed= 168 //Knots True (KTAS)max_indicated_speed = 192.000 //Red line (KIAS)[GeneralEngineData]engine_type = 0 //0=Piston, 1=Jet, 2=None, 3=Helo-Turbine, 4=Rocket, 5=Turbopropengine.0 = 0, -6.89, 0,engine.1 = 0, 6.89, 0,fuel_flow_scalar= 1.15 //Fuel flow scalarmin_throttle_limit = 0.1; //Minimum percent throttle. Generally negative for turbine reverser[piston_engine]power_scalar = 1.000 //Piston power scalarcylinder_displacement= 130.71 //Cubic inches per cylindercompression_ratio= 6.7 //Compression rationumber_of_cylinders= 14 //Number of cylindersmax_rated_rpm= 2700.0 //Max rated RPMmax_rated_hp= 1200.0 //Max rated HPfuel_metering_type= 1 //0=Fuel Injected, 1=Gravity Carburetor, 2=Aerobatic Carburetorcooling_type= 0 //0=Cooling type Air, 1=Cooling type Liquidnormalized_starter_torque= 0.3 //Starter torque factorturbocharged= 1 //Is it turbocharged? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUEmax_design_mp= 47 //Max design manifold pressure, (inHg)min_design_mp= 1.0 //Min design manifold pressure, (inHg)critical_altitude= 7000.0 //Altitude to which the turbocharger will provide max design manifold pressure (feet)emergency_boost_type= 0 //0=None, 1=Water Injection, 2=Methanol/Water injection, 3=War Emergency Poweremergency_boost_mp_offset= 0.0 //Additional manifold pressure supplied by emergency boostemergency_boost_gain_offset= 0.0 //Multiplier on manifold pressure due to emergency boostfuel_air_auto_mixture= 0 //Automixture available? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUEauto_ignition= 0 //Auto-Ignition available? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUEmax_rpm_mechanical_efficiency_scalar= 1.0 //Scalar on maximum RPM mechanical efficiencyidle_rpm_mechanical_efficiency_scalar= 1.0 //Scalar on idle RPM mechanical efficiencymax_rpm_friction_scalar= 1.0 //Scalar on maximum RPM frictionidle_rpm_friction_scalar= 1.0 //Scalar on idle RPM frictionThese values IMO give the Lockheed a more realistic fly model, at least for the engines and climbing power, and from what I gathered these are the historical tech values related to that special E model.If i may go a bit off topic, I'm really disappointed by the scenery look you get in Africa: it seems all like the Sahara desert there, even around the Victoria lake: is there any addon to improve on this part of the World?I decided to take the flights at night, so not to get bored too much by the endless waste land, but there I also have the trouble of a very poor depiction of the ground, and a banded sky, both too light: it may be my LCD monitor as well, but over Europe or USA the night is not so moiré and blotched by false colors; I decided to give a try to the EMBserie and though it improves a lot on the looks of the day, in the night it's hard to find the right values (by default it's way too dark); in the readme of this hack it's suggested to use the video card driver to control Luminosity and Contrast instead (you can easily disable EMBserie using Shift+F12), but even so it changes dramatically from way to dark to way to coarse and psychedelic... This is a big trouble for me at the moment, so any good advice to improve on these aspects of FSX would be most welcomed! I'm using nVidia GTS250 1 TB VRAM.S!

[Guest jenfierbinget]

Whats new mate