Gents,

 

What is not modelled please....

Is it possible for PMDG to let us know what is is NOT modelled in this Sim?

It is by far the most in-depth acft so far for XPlane and has raised the bar significantly.

My aim is to operate this acft without the aid of the AFE.  But it seems a little pointless to go through the (excellent) included checklist if a number of items are not actually modelled.

I refer to your Introduction doc....

"In some cases we have removed information that does not apply to the simulation, and in other cases we have left information that doesn’t directly apply to the simulation in order to provide completeness of information on operating procedures and environment."

This is fine, but I'd like to know which items in the checklist I can safely ignore...  waste of my time in other words. Clicking on buttons or switches that have no effect on the Sim is simply eye candy. Adds nothing to the actual operation of the aircraft, apart from those people that like clicking switches!    

Specific areas that interest me are the Heater controls and Pressurisation. Which bits of these are actually modelled?

Also.......... Checklist item "Cabin pressure change limit control…...set to 600 feet UP, 300 feet DOWN"
Sorry, but what does that actually mean?  Doesn't make sense to me.   

I have more issues, but will leave those for a later post......

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm loving this aircraft....

... just want to come to terms with it.........   

 

Just want to fly it with max reality............ which I'm sure is your objective as well...

 

cheers

 

chris from oz

 

Also.......... Checklist item "Cabin pressure change limit control…...set to 600 feet UP, 300 feet DOWN"

Sorry, but what does that actually mean?  Doesn't make sense to me. 

Cabin Pressure rate of change. When climbing the cabin pressure reduces to the pressure set by 600 feet per minute. When descending you increase the cabin pressure to the required setting by 300 fpm.

Most of what was removed from the POH concerned options not applicable to this aircraft such as different props, different engines, that kind of thing.

 

I can't speak to the pressurization, heating and burnt coffee but everything that relates to flying the airplane that I can think of is modeled as expected.  In fact, the line pilots often mentioned how each DC-6B they fly is very different in how they trim and the reliability of the old Sperry AP is very poor and these things that pilots think important are missing from the model.

What's not modelled is the cabin, fuel heater and fuel crossfeed heater switches, the old style nav and com switches (they've implemented more modern bendix king GPS and nav+adf selectors like the real one has nowadays) and fuel burning cabin heater.

Also no toilet, no coffee maker and I wasn't able to turn on the aft cockpit flood lights over the forward entrance. Also no female welcome girl. 

 

Also no toilet,

For a study aircraft that is a serious omission :-)

Hi gnomegemini.

The circuit breakers and rear entrance flood light switch is on the overhead panel number 2 , switch is top left.

regards alan cottrill.

No 10 tank variant either. Would love to see it as an expansion so that transcontinental US flight will be possible, or flights from the west coast to Hawaii as well as transatlanic flights from west coast Europe to east coast US. Even better, a DC-7 expansion pack. :-P

13 minutes ago, kityatyi said:

Even better, a DC-7 expansion pack. :-P

I have coffee from time to time with guys who flew the DC-6 and the DC-7 and not one of them liked the DC-7.  

Their favorite saying "The DC-6 is a four engine airplane with a three blade prop, and the DC-7  is a three engine airplane with a four blade prop."  None of them smile when they tell it. 

One of the guys flew the DC-6 in the Andes and tells stories about taxing at El Alto using High Blower. 

blaustern

On 6/9/2016 at 0:29 PM, gnomegemini said:

Also no toilet, no coffee maker and I wasn't able to turn on the aft cockpit flood lights over the forward entrance

“That’s a dealbreaker for me, sorry”

On 12/18/2017 at 4:42 PM, Bluestar said:

I have coffee from time to time with guys who flew the DC-6 and the DC-7 and not one of them liked the DC-7.  

Their favorite saying "The DC-6 is a four engine airplane with a three blade prop, and the DC-7  is a three engine airplane with a four blade prop."  None of them smile when they tell it. 

One of the guys flew the DC-6 in the Andes and tells stories about taxing at El Alto using High Blower. 

blaustern

Willhelm,

I knew a fellow who flew the DC-6 and DC-7 at PAA "back in the day."  He used to describe the DC-7 as "the best three engined airplane ever made, except when you sometimes wound up on two engines."

He was not a fan.

LOVED the DC-6 however.

 

"Chris from Oz"

(Is your middle name From and your last name Oz?  If not- please do sign your full name here in the PMDG forum.  We require it!  )

I think you may have misunderstood what was intended by stating that we have removed from documentation items that we felt were not relevant to your operation of our simulation.  The items removed primarily have to do with equipment not installed on the airplane that we modeled.  Examples would be different brands of ignition systems, alternative propeller styles, different engine carbs, different engine dash numbers, etc.

We decided what to include for the most part by simply evaluating our "base airplane" which is the world famous DC-6 operated by NCA out of Windhoek, Namibia.  We sent a team there to survey the airplane, conduct recordings, photographic surveys, measurements and interview the operators to make certain we had everything "just so" in creating this simulation.

We took some liberties in order to give customers some options in terms of navigators located up front- but for the most part that is just a matter of swapping out one GPS nav/com for another and doesn't really affect the airplane itself all that much.

So take your time and go through the checklists in detail.  I think you will find it to be incredibly rewarding when you do!

 

10 hours ago, rsrandazzo said:

Willhelm,

I knew a fellow who flew the DC-6 and DC-7 at PAA "back in the day."  He used to describe the DC-7 as "the best three engined airplane ever made, except when you sometimes wound up on two engines."

He was not a fan.

LOVED the DC-6 however.

 

Same applied to the late model Lockheed Super Connies and Starliners with the juiced up turbo-compound R3350's, I heard. Guess reliability was a tradeoff for more power back in the day.

Same with Lufthansa's Super Connies and Starliners. LH first preferred the DC-6B, but chose the Connies in the end. On every third flight or so, one engine failed.

Christian, yes. That's what I wrote one post above.

Hi Robert!

I recently finished a 7.2 hour KLAX-KCLE leg and still love this aircraft. It's a shame that I couldn't carry enough fuel to reach KBOS (my first idea), but I hear that is being addressed.

16 hours ago, rsrandazzo said:

We decided what to include for the most part by simply evaluating our "base airplane" which is the world famous DC-6 operated by NCA out of Windhoek, Namibia.

I can't help but ponder those magnificent Autofeather switches on the overhead panel... was that system deactivated on the NCA study aircraft? That would also explain why we can't use the full 103,800lb takeoff weight with CB-16 engines..

Thanks!

On 12/18/2017 at 4:21 PM, kityatyi said:

No 10 tank variant either.

More fuel tanks = more fuel tanks =/= more fuel. The highest fuel capacity configuration uses 8 fuel tanks, not 10. There's reason to believe that the study aircraft has the highest fuel capacity offered for the DC-6B line.

Robert Toten