Concorde announced by Aeroplane Heaven

[JasonD210 0]

I bought FSL Concorde for FSX ages back. Basically everything is right there in that sim. I'm surprised FSL haven't updated it all yet. As for AH, I bought their Boxcar C-119 a while back and it's easily one of my favourites for P3D. I held off their DC-3 because it lacked any special features and was pricey, especially when one considers that there are already two decent DC-3s available, one of which is free.

Concorde? It would have to be at least at the level of Just Flight's L1011 for me to even go near it.

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

10 minutes ago, Chock said:

This is what I'm suggesting. Now I know that the FSL A320 genuinely does actually simulate the fuel sloshing about in the tanks and simulates the electrical loads on the wires and that is cool and a very detailed simulation of the real thing, but if there is no possibility of that level of simulation, then it can still be 'blagged', because even in the FSL A320, at the end of the day it is just a program 'pretending' to do stuff.

With this I agree and in fact when I fly the A320 series I occasionally wonder whether that particular level of detail was worth the time, as I rarely see any effects of it.  I should say though it is an excellent simulation.  However, the fuel system has a drastic effect on Concorde, moving the CG by 6 feet does have an effect on handling by quite a lot.  I know what you mean but I suspect the number of instances/switches would still be prohibitive for AH to simulate. 

They still have to develop it like that though, and it doesn't sound like they will.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

53 minutes ago, JasonD210 said:

I bought FSL Concorde for FSX ages back. Basically everything is right there in that sim. I'm surprised FSL haven't updated it all yet.

Concorde? It would have to be at least at the level of Just Flight's L1011 for me to even go near it.

When FSL redid it for P3D the modelling such as fuel burn was made even better as P3D had refinements lacking in FSX.

Do I take it from your last sentence that you’d buy a reference level Concorde but not a simplified version ignoring the cost? There’s only one show in town who can deliver. 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

This is where I get burned at the stake for spouting such heresy : 

Where’s my stake and matches? 😄 Frazz has explained far better than I why your proposal wouldn’t work but marks for thinking about an alternative. 👍

From memory the CG moves backward by up to 10 feet and then forward by as much, perhaps more for landing. 53% for take-off, then at Mach 0.7 rearward movement started until the two front tanks (9 & 10) were empty. CG was then 59% where it stayed until decel and descent when it was pumped forward to 9 for landing with the excess going to the wings to feed the four engines.

Phew! And that’s just a quick ‘n dirty explanation! 😁 Can’t see how you could emulate moving CG by any other means.

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

34 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Where’s my stake and matches? 😄 Frazz has explained far better than I why your proposal wouldn’t work but marks for thinking about an alternative. 👍

From memory the CG moves backward by up to 10 feet and then forward by as much, perhaps more for landing. 53% for take-off, then at Mach 0.7 rearward movement started until the two front tanks (9 & 10) were empty. CG was then 59% where it stayed until decel and descent when it was pumped forward to 9 for landing with the excess going to the wings to feed the four engines.

Phew! And that’s just a quick ‘n dirty explanation! 😁 Can’t see how you could emulate moving CG by any other means.

I think it's more like 6ft Ray but it isn't a measurement that can be worked out easily from documents we have.  The centre of pressure moves aft of 60% and if it wasn't for the dips and cambers on the wing that delay the shockwave formations on the wing it would move even further aft. 

53.5% for takeoff unless below 140T all up weight in which case 53%, if extra fuel needed 54%. 

It wasn't pumped into tank 9 for landing unless the CG was going to be aft of 53.5% in which case a small amount would be put in 9 to achieve that.  Always into 5 & 7 to make it usable. 

[Chock 17,769]

So, although there is no elevator trim, it would I assume, be entirely possible to create an FS add-on, or even a panel which you could add to an aeroplane, which when you pressed a button to 'move some fuel', made it so that doing this altered the elevator trim function in the background of the sim, so that it effectively made the aeroplane nose or tail heavy, emulating the effect of having move some fuel. 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

Frazz, I was just generalising with the numbers but you’re right about the tank 9 bit. Sometimes CPS-X calculates a small amount is needed in 9 to bring the CG forward to 53.1% for landing.

It’s remarkable when you think about it. Such a short distance of fuel movement to fine tune the centre of gravity. Which reminds me of the ramps. Those will need some control on any Concorde to slow the air. I’d better stop now. 🤣

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

10 hours ago, Chock said:

So, although there is no elevator trim, it would I assume, be entirely possible to create an FS add-on, or even a panel which you could add to an aeroplane, which when you pressed a button to 'move some fuel', made it so that doing this altered the elevator trim function in the background of the sim, so that it effectively made the aeroplane nose or tail heavy, emulating the effect of having move some fuel. 

I understand what you mean and in theory yes, it could be made to work like that.  However, this is only one element in a huge list of things that are needed to work.  Ray has just used this as one example. 

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

10 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Frazz, I was just generalising with the numbers but you’re right about the tank 9 bit. Sometimes CPS-X calculates a small amount is needed in 9 to bring the CG forward to 53.1% for landing.

It’s remarkable when you think about it. Such a short distance of fuel movement to fine tune the centre of gravity. Which reminds me of the ramps. Those will need some control on any Concorde to slow the air. I’d better stop now. 🤣

Is it always that exact for landing?  The real range is between 52% and 53.5% at landing weight, increasing to 52.5% and 53.5% at heavy weight. 

As the intakes provide the majority of thrust in cruise, due to shockwaves and con-di nozzle giving pressure recovery as well as speed reduction, no intake system = no Mach 2!

[Chock 17,769]

18 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

I understand what you mean and in theory yes, it could be made to work like that.  However, this is only one element in a huge list of things that are needed to work.  Ray has just used this as one example. 

And so there it is in a nutshell. If it is a huge list of things, then it's a lot of work, which has to be offset against potential sales to see if it is feasible, which it seems isn't, which, if that is not to be an impasse, takes us back to why it would be more feasible if someone was doing that work because they wanted to, rather than for financial remuneration. Which all comes back to why I was suggesting a way to go if somebody wanted a realistic one with detailed functionality and had the ability and will to do that work for themselves.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Chock

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

14 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

Is it always that exact for landing?  The real range is between 52% and 53.5% at landing weight, increasing to 52.5% and 53.5% at heavy weight. 

As the intakes provide the majority of thrust in cruise, due to shockwaves and con-di nozzle giving pressure recovery as well as speed reduction, no intake system = no Mach 2!

I don't think so. I just use the value calculated by CPS-X. Sometimes it's as low as 30Kg, other times 150 or so. If Pierre was around he could explain how he calculated it.

That intake system design was brilliant. So simple yet so effective. Air slowed from 1300mph to 500mph in 11 feet I believe.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

@Chock, Andrew Wilson - the brains behind Concorde coding - posted on the FSL forum that it has gone through three iterations already covering 15 years. No-one has more experience in Concorde than him. The Brooklands Museum also used his program - SSTSIM I believe - for the Concorde Simulator down there.

He does it for the love of the aircraft but with so many iterations it proves Concorde sells. I have no doubt a 64-bit version will also sell well.

[JasonD210 0]

12 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

When FSL redid it for P3D the modelling such as fuel burn was made even better as P3D had refinements lacking in FSX.

Do I take it from your last sentence that you’d buy a reference level Concorde but not a simplified version ignoring the cost? There’s only one show in town who can deliver. 

I missed out on the P3d version. I was rather hoping they'd redo it for 64-bit, but reading between the lines I think they are waiting to see how things pan out in the market when MSFS2020 arrives. At least that was the impression I got from their website.

There's simplified and simplified. I'm not bother for sims that simulate circuit breakers and all that, so long as the main instruments, systems and avionics are modelled.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

@JasonD210, that is precisely the reason development has paused on the 64-bit version. It was extremely frustrating to a lot of us when that announcement was made and also for Andrew Wilson I would imagine as he worked through the code changes.

But you can understand the logic. If they’d pressed ahead with a P3D version only for MFS to become the dominant simulator of choice all that work would have been in vain.

My only concern is how long it will take before it becomes clear which way they will go. Until then I’m sticking with v4.5 and 3.4 for Concorde.

[1123213 26]

I agree, I mean study level and all is nice, and what I would want, but realistically, I wouldn't have the time and persistance to learn a study level concorde, I'd be fine operating it like it is day by day. With something such as the FSLabs A320, I'm around A320s wherever I go on holiday, and I know the aircraft fairly well as a frequent flyer, so I really enjoy maximising it, and getting that nostalgia and realism feeling in aircraft I really like. I see A320s at the gate, I chat to the pilots, I visit the cockpit and I can (kindof) appreciate the detail and immersiveness of this aircraft much more than the Concorde, as I've only seen one (in a hangar) and watched some videos on it. It is easier to get from A to B than a Concorde as well, which means I can take it further whilst understanding it well.

But I think some people need to think whether they would maximise a study level Concorde to what it could be, or just operate it (realistically) as day by day operations (which I imagine the target of the Aeroplane Heaven one is). But obviously that room for true understanding of an aircraft is great, and I am sure there are many people that would really try to learn a Concorde to its fullest. 

Just for the Concorde in particular, it wouldn't be me. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Canine Crew
Grammar