Concorde announced by Aeroplane Heaven

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I was never going to switch to XP even for Concorde. The rate of progress seems painfully slow. Not sure why that is the case.

Regarding that speed / climb rate problem the reheats (depending on weight) would be cancelled between 40-80 seconds after throttles forward. If there was an automated process to cancel them and the throttles retarded to around 93% then the speed should then be controlled by pitch.

If left to the user then manual action to do that is required. Only then can you judge how well the flight model operates.

The FS Labs Concorde benefitted from a program called CPS-X created by a very clever Frenchman and that calculated reheat time based on weight. There needs to be an equivalent for XP.

It's a shame as I offered the developer help last year but they seemed to think they were fine.  I must say that the majority of people using that version don't seem to be the most informed about the finer details anyway, so it probably doesn't matter for them - not being negative about them by the way!

My basic programs that I shared on FSL a while back calculate noise times and the benefit of them is they are independent of the sim, so they work regardless so no CPS isn't a show stopper.  Mine are based on BA values though and the French had a slightly different way of calculating the values - BA simplified it for non-standard runways so there was less room for error. 

[John JF 98]

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I was never going to switch to XP even for Concorde. The rate of progress seems painfully slow. Not sure why that is the case.

Regarding that speed / climb rate problem the reheats (depending on weight) would be cancelled between 40-80 seconds after throttles forward. If there was an automated process to cancel them and the throttles retarded to around 93% then the speed should then be controlled by pitch.

If left to the user then manual action to do that is required. Only then can you judge how well the flight model operates.

The FS Labs Concorde benefitted from a program called CPS-X created by a very clever Frenchman and that calculated reheat time based on weight. There needs to be an equivalent for XP.

Apologies I didn’t explain clearly. You have to bring the You bust 250 knots well before 40 seconds at MTOW. You have to cut the afterburners well before the FSlabs Concorde so it’s defiantly not correct. 
I was told that the people at brooklands offered the developer a hand, but this was declined. 

We really need these knowledgeable people to work on the next project if it’s going to be decent! 

John

Edited May 22, 2020 by jonsonwonson

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

32 minutes ago, jonsonwonson said:

Apologies I didn’t explain clearly. You have to bring the You bust 250 knots well before 40 seconds at MTOW. You have to cut the afterburners well before the FSlabs Concorde so it’s defiantly not correct. 
I was told that the people at brooklands offered the developer a hand, but this was declined. 

We really need these knowledgeable people to work on the next project if it’s going to be decent! 

John

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to be turned down - maybe they think they know it all anyway!

[Ray Proudfoot 9,074]

50 minutes ago, jonsonwonson said:

Apologies I didn’t explain clearly. You have to bring the You bust 250 knots well before 40 seconds at MTOW. You have to cut the afterburners well before the FSlabs Concorde so it’s defiantly not correct. 
I was told that the people at brooklands offered the developer a hand, but this was declined. 

We really need these knowledgeable people to work on the next project if it’s going to be decent! 

John

No worries John. It sounds as though things haven’t really improved since a video I watched last year which clearly showed far too much power being applied with silly speeds at relatively low altitude.

[John JF 98]

It’s worth giving this a watch. The guy seems knowledgeable of the correct procedures and goes through the shortfalls. I hope I don’t sound too harsh to the developer, I think the external model is great in most parts especially the overall shape and the cockpit is better than anything we’ve seen in a sim. 
 

1 hour ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to be turned down - maybe they think they know it all anyway!

I think some people just like to work in certain ways. It’s a shame though. 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,074]

@jonsonwonson, at over 2 hours I'll watch that on my main TV but even watching just the first 5 mins it's obvious he's a seasoned simmer and has plenty of experience flying Concorde.

The interface is clearly simplfied as a lot of the startup procedures were initiated on the Flight Engineer's panel. Worth a watch all the same.

[John JF 98]

Do let us know what you think. 

 

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@jonsonwonson, at over 2 hours I'll watch that on my main TV but even watching just the first 5 mins it's obvious he's a seasoned simmer and has plenty of experience flying Concorde.

The interface is clearly simplfied as a lot of the startup procedures were initiated on the Flight Engineer's panel. Worth a watch all the same.

I would never only take 85T going LHR - JFK! Trip fuel alone is between 75 and 77T depending on weight, then you need reserves so even with everything going for you minimum would be 90T with 80% break-even load.  The way he seems to think that the amount of fuel he burns is less because he's experienced on the route just doesn't add up. If the fuel burn is anything like real life he will arrive with the absolute minimum the way he's going and he clearly never ends up in a holding pattern....

He certainly sounds confident....

[Ray Proudfoot 9,074]

11 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

I would never only take 85T going LHR - JFK! Trip fuel alone is between 75 and 77T depending on weight, then you need reserves so even with everything going for you minimum would be 90T with 80% break-even load.  The way he seems to think that the amount of fuel he burns is less because he's experienced on the route just doesn't add up. If the fuel burn is anything like real life he will arrive with the absolute minimum the way he's going and he clearly never ends up in a holding pattern....

He certainly sounds confident....

Maybe the fuel burn in this version allows for 85T. Not realistic I grant you but I'm guessing he doesn't run out of fuel as that would make him look a little silly.

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

He's clearly an experienced simmer, although not sticking to real world operations at every step of the way.  Quite a lot of bugs in the model, especially the TO monitor circuit which seems to tell you everything is great even before opening the throttles!

[Ray Proudfoot 9,074]

2 hours ago, jonsonwonson said:

Do let us know what you think.

Just finished watching it up to when he exited 13L. He's got plenty of Concorde experience I would say and worked well around the limitations in the open beta which has no MAX CLB / MAX CRS which is essential for correct flight.

Pro mode is essential to get close to Concorde's performance but as he pointed out there is too much engine power. You don't climb at 1000-2000fpm at Mach 1.7 with reheats off.

Very competent with ATC too and I admire his skill at flying a visual approach to 13L. He should be able to assist the developer if help is required.

On a separate point the clouds in XP look rubbish!

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Just finished watching it up to when he exited 13L. He's got plenty of Concorde experience I would say and worked well around the limitations in the open beta which has no MAX CLB / MAX CRS which is essential for correct flight.

Pro mode is essential to get close to Concorde's performance but as he pointed out there is too much engine power. You don't climb at 1000-2000fpm at Mach 1.7 with reheats off.

Very competent with ATC too and I admire his skill at flying a visual approach to 13L. He should be able to assist the developer if help is required.

On a separate point the clouds in XP look rubbish!

My only beef with videos like this in general is that all the little errors add up and people watch them thinking it's the right way to do things when in fact it isn't.  If you are going to broadcast a "how to" video you really ought to make sure you have everything right yourself.  

I accept that some of the errors may be down to sim limitations, like he should have had both auto-throttles engaged in modes other than MAX CRZ, he should be using IAS hold on the autopilot if he has to do the 250kt speed restriction so that he transfers the energy from speed into a climb to do so quickly - again, maybe that mode is INOP.  He should be using the flight director before engaging the autopilot because it is a good check to see that the computers are not going to do something silly when you do engage them.  His power increases for noise abatement out of London should have been 2% at 7 DME, then the 2% progression up to FL80.  Don't know who wrote the checklists but there was never a "Noise Abatement" check and post Paris the brake fans were always switched off in the before take-off check. 

As I say, difficult to tell what is sim issues and what is not but he is clearly a competent pilot, but I wouldn't pass him to BA standards just yet......😁

Is it just me or do the dimensions of the visor assembly look wrong....?

[Ray Proudfoot 9,074]

@trumpetfrazz1, you could always post comments on the YT site. Yes, the visor did look a little strange and the cockpit lighting was far from ideal. Some instruments were difficult to read.

I suspect had the aircraft had a fully operational AFCS he would have flown it as it should have been flown. I'm guessing he's either had Concorde-X or SSTSIM previously.

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@trumpetfrazz1, you could always post comments on the YT site. Yes, the visor did look a little strange and the cockpit lighting was far from ideal. Some instruments were difficult to read.

I suspect had the aircraft had a fully operational AFCS he would have flown it as it should have been flown. I'm guessing he's either had Concorde-X or SSTSIM previously.

The IAS going through the acceleration phase is all wrong, the light on the IAS gauge is meant to warn that there is a difference in selected A/T speed and actual speed, it isn't meant to be an overspeed warning - I wouldn't have thought an experienced Concorde flyer would have mistaken that... or at least have pointed out the issue.  I would think he has had previous experience as you say but I reckon SSTSIM - don't think you would jump from FSL to that if you had a choice.  He was good at pointing out deficiencies so I think the other things I listed were his flying rather than the systems. 

The take-off monitor (which doesn't seem to monitor anything anyway) should de-latch when reheat is cancelled rather than needing pilot intervention. 

I don't think it would be welcomed if I started to comment on his YT.  As I say, partly because teaching is my profession for real, I don't like people thinking that these videos are accurate (and people do) because sooner or later one of the folk that have watched it will pop up on a forum and start arguing about procedure, quoting the video to prove their point.....

[Ray Proudfoot 9,074]

@trumpetfrazz1, you make valid points but really this is the wrong forum for discussion of the XP Concorde. It might be better if you post on the Concorde topic here.

This is the Aeroplane Heaven topic after all. We have got distracted.