Not bad Ray, good job, if it pops up the 2D GTN, which is much easier to use any way.

 

Interesting reading the feedback so far.   I'm still not going to bite while I'm hearing stories of 60% N1 being used for take-off and climb, to get a realistic climbout.   I appreciate these are pocket rockets but fact is, no Lear 24 takes off with anywhere near a N1 as low as 60%.    And if the realistic 95-100% is used, I've heard about 6000-8000 FPM climbs being required to avoid overspeeding on the 250kts constraint.     Again, I know this is a powerful old jet but that still does not seem right.

I take it you have logged time in these jets. My experience is a little different than you describe here. They certainly were powerful powerplants and required you to think well ahead of the plane. I don't remember using more than 80% other than in the upper Flight Levels, certainly not for takeoffs in Florida at Sea Level.

 

This is only a simulator with an aircraft.cfg file that you can adjust and tweak until the gauges look correct to you. Whatever you do will not ever affect what happens in the real world.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

I dont really know anything about adding gauges but would it be possible to add a GPS to the center console? I just dragged the window GPS down here which is why it looks so bad.

 

I doubt very much that GPS will be retrofitted. It wasn't in the real aircraft. So learn to fly without relying on GPS. Have it if you may. Flying without GPS isn't difficult.

I doubt very much that GPS will be retrofitted. It wasn't in the real aircraft. So learn to fly without relying on GPS. Have it if you may. Flying without GPS isn't difficult.

I know how to fly without a GPS I'm a real world pilot so you have to learn how to. But its very rare these days to find anything larger than a piper cub without a gps.

I doubt very much that GPS will be retrofitted. It wasn't in the real aircraft. So learn to fly without relying on GPS. Have it if you may. Flying without GPS isn't difficult.

 

Actually, there aren't many legacy Lear models that are still flying that haven't been retrofitted.

I don't remember using more than 80% other than in the upper Flight Levels,

 

That's the whole point:  80%;   not 60%.

 

That's quite a difference in realism of operation;  to most simmers.

 

If you've logged time in a Lear 24, would you take off and climb at 60% N1 ?

 

Yet anything above that (at sensible weights) is resulting in a way over-powered aircraft, with this model.  

 

All I am saying is that it looks like this needs some attention.   It's not that unreasonable a point surely.......      

 

 

This is only a simulator with an aircraft.cfg file that you can adjust and tweak until the gauges look correct to you. Whatever you do will not ever affect what happens in the real world.

 

I've no idea what this comment even means.    But hey ho.   Judging by your signature, you're happy, that's all that matters.

I love how this thing climbs I hate slow climbing planes like a gross weight 737NG too slow for me to be happy

Watching this video and videos like this are what gives me my view on how it flies.  You can see that the power was advanced to 100 percent on the RPM gauge for take off.  On climb out power was reduced to 90 percent on the RPM gauge.  I cannot see what the VSI says for climb rate but you can see that he has climbing out at 90 percent N1 and maintaining what appears to be 180 KIAS. I don't see this aircraft spinning the altimeter dial around at break neck speed.  I do not see the IAS accellerating at break neck speed to 250.  Is this not how the actual aircraft performs?  Obviously I do not know how much fuel was on board, but it was on a test flight as indicated by the description of the video.

 

That's the whole point:  80%;   not 60%.

 

That's quite a difference in realism of operation;  to most simmers.

 If you've logged time in a Lear 24, would you take off and climb at 60% N1 ?

 

 

raymar, on 04 Sept 2014 - 2:18 PM, said:

 

This is only a simulator with an aircraft.cfg file that you can adjust and tweak until the gauges look correct to you. Whatever you do will not ever affect what happens in the real world.

 

 I've no idea what this comment even means.    But hey ho.   Judging by your signature, you're happy, that's all that matters.

First, it depends on whether I have a 10,000 foot SL runway or a 4,000 foot runway and whether I am nearly empty and paying for the fuel or whether I am grossed out with a client that is in a hurry to be someplace else.

 

I was flying these things when they were new and a dollar was worth a dollar. I don't remember everyone being in a hurry or trying to peg all the needles. We were a little more laid back back then. We even used only one engine to taxi, we usually started the second engine as we were getting close to our designated runway.

 

I do remember that I couldn't believe how slick the Lear was when flying. We seldom got anywhere near max cruise become it took so damn long to slow down. We also did not make many long runs.

 

What I meant with my remark is that absolutely everyone is not going to be pleased with every aspect of a $35 simulation. Especially, the experts that know exactly how it is supposed to be because they watched a takeoff on YouTube. Just about any parameter can be adjusted by moving a decimal or adding a digit in the aircraft config file and no doubt within a week or so we will have some posts offering us a better envelope for free. These things are suppose to be fun. Relax a little and enjoy it.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

Watching this video and videos like this are what gives me my view on how it flies.  You can see that the power was advanced to 100 percent on the RPM gauge for take off.  On climb out power was reduced to 90 percent on the RPM gauge.  I cannot see what the VSI says for climb rate but you can see that he has climbing out at 90 percent N1 and maintaining what appears to be 180 KIAS. I don't see this aircraft spinning the altimeter dial around at break neck speed.  I do not see the IAS accellerating at break neck speed to 250.  Is this not how the actual aircraft performs?  Obviously I do not know how much fuel was on board, but it was on a test flight as indicated by the description of the video.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

You did notice he was cleared for a touch and go with a six mile final. Under 10,000 feet in a traffic pattern is a little different than a cross country climbout to alitiude. 180 Kts would be about right for a traffic pattern and also 2,000 AGL so you might need to find another video to make your point. I'm couldn't read the gauges, but I did see the power reduction just prior to turning on the crosswind leg of the pattern.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

My only point is that I have seen several videos and read several articles from pilots experiences and I have always seen them taking off at 95-100 percent and climbing out between 85 percent and 100 percent. I did not hear that he was doing a pattern, but that still does not change the performance of the aircraft on the take off and initial climb portion of the flight. 

 

Those of us like me who were not as fortunate as you fly the real thing would love to sit at our computers and feel like we are really there. I have just never seen a video of the real thing look like what I am seeing behind the controls of my simulation.  I know things can be tweaked and we will make as many adjustments as we can but for those who want to know what they are going to be paying for, that's why we look at these add-ons with this "critical eye".

Ray did you notice my compare pics on page 5? I'm wondering if this is not the difference you see on your end. All my settings are in game I do not have an NI profile setup

My only point is that I have seen several videos and read several articles from pilots experiences and I have always seen them taking off at 95-100 percent and climbing out between 85 percent and 100 percent. I

So, what does the flight manual say?

Well just had an interesting experience, I was flying along at 44,000 when the left engine quit I didn't notice this until a spin had developed(watching tv) I recovered at 30,000 (and tried a restart no luck) and headed for the closest airport with an ILS approach which was about 50 miles away shot the ILS in a 25 knot winds ,heavy snow and 3/4 mile vis on one engine, I feel accomplished lol. Upon further inspection the left tip tank was dry while the right still had fuel but for some reason the left engine never started burning out of the left wing tank. Early in the flight I had noticed a fuel in balance in the tip tanks as the right wing was heavy but hit the autopilot and forgot about it. I wonder what happened? The spin I'm guessing was caused by the autopilot trying to maintain 44,000 on one engine I didnt see what happened as by the time I looked over the jet was already in a spin.

So, what does the flight manual say?

 

http://www.airplanedriver.net/study/lr20.htm

 

Gives engine limitations but not actually recommended %N1 for takeoff and climb...

I'm sure there is a LJ 24B flight manual out there somewhere :rolleyes:

At any rate it is a really cool add on.  By far the best Lear 20 series for FSX.  External model is really nicely textured and the VC is really nicely done as well.  The sounds are pretty decent too and definitely the best out there representing the CJ610 in my opinion.

 

I feel like there are some discrepancies in the performance from the real thing, but I sure cannot do better.  All I can do is try to offer up information that can perhaps lead to improvements in those areas if in fact they are off from the real thing.

Been doing some reading from pilots who used to fly these. They say they used to be able to get cleared to upper ALTs easy, as even in the 30s they could maintain 2k-3k FPM.

That to me sounds like a rocket. Also these engines are pure stage 2 turbo jet engines, while not good on fuel, they have fighter jet performance and this little bird has two of them. They used to call this plane the "Lawn Dart with Little Wings".

 

While I am still a little unsure about the ability to take this particular addon off with 60% N1, I will keep reading as this debate has actually taught me a lot about a plane I knew little of. People speak about this model like it was the Rolls Royce of aviation in its time. A lot of fighter jet pilots actually make comparisons between this plane and the ones they used to fly....

These two videos show that it is indeed a fighter jet. If these climbs are realistic with full power, I can imagine taking off from a longer runway with 60-70%.