Concorde announced by Aeroplane Heaven

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, scianoir said:

The One-Eleven developed by Aeroplane Heaven and published by Just Flight, albeit a few years ago, left a bit to be desired systemwise and even their more recent C46 with its much more basic systems fell a little short of the mark. This is slightly worrying when you consider that the system complexity in these aircraft pales in comparison to that of the Concorde

To be fair however, having recently read a couple of wartime novels where the Hawker Hurricane featured, I purchased the newly released Aeroplane Heaven version of this aircraft, having first looked at the reviews some and I have to say it is superb! Although I accept that it is not valid to compare the systems on a fighter developed in the 1930s with those on an aircraft which arguably was the pinnacle of airliner development, perhaps Aeroplane Heaven have managed to up their game of late. However I think I will still be waiting for some trusted reviews before giving AH my money for something as complex as Concorde!

Bill

Yup, stuff from AH can be a bit of a mixed bag sometimes, even considering they generally build stuff 'to a price' in terms of development time and features, it's occasionally a bit of a dice roll as to whether one of their products is one of the good ones or one which is less so. As you say, their C-46 is one of the particularly bad examples of this; whilst superficially the C-46 is a bit like a DC-3, performance-wise and systems-wise, they are quite different. Unfortunately the AH C-46's flight model was pretty much a copy-paste job of a DC-3's air file, so it was hardly surprising that the thing ended up with the aerodynamic qualities of a grand piano with lead weights tied to it.

Having said that, of course air files, like textures, are one of the things which people can fiddle with for themselves and this is often the saving grace for many of the less costly add-on aeroplanes for flight simulators. In being aware that this is so, it would be I think, pragmatic to accept that a Concorde product which exists and which one can work with, is better than not having one at all, and even more so if one can offer one's services to the company to assist in this when the product is being made. I am sure that AH would welcome the assistance of someone knowledgeable to work on their Concorde and help get it done.

With regard to the Hurricane, that is of course and aeroplane which is comparatively easier to create. Quite apart from the fact that it has no particularly unusual parameters which need to be replicated that FSX and P3D could not readily emulate since it is a fairly basic aeroplane, there are at least 17 flying examples in existence (not all the same mark granted, but close enough to one another in most respects), and many more in preserved condition in museums. And if you live in the UK in particular, it is fairly easy to see one flying. Beyond this, its flight performance characteristics are extremely well documented, such that you can pretty much find out all you need to know about it to create a decent flight model with a spare afternoon and a few Google searches.

And whilst it is true that much of Concorde's data and performance is also easily found, actually pulling that off in FSX or P3D is not quite such an easy proposition. This is why I would suggest that those who have some specialised knowledge and a desire to see a usable replica of Concorde in their flight sim, rather than folding their arms and stating they won't buy it like a sulking child, might be better off reaching out to AH and offering to help.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Chock

[Ray Proudfoot 8,960]

1 hour ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

I didn't say you did.  I'm just remembering the time I discovered someone had been on the FSLabs forum and copied all of the updated routes by one of our contributors and pasted them all on the X-Plane Concorde forum, without even having the common courtesy to ask the person who had taken the time to do all the work. 

We as customers of FSLabs aren't even meant to change those files, far less pass them on whether original or altered. If folk want an accurate model with correct fuel burn, they either need to find the data and create one or buy one that already exists - yes, I know you can't buy Concorde X at the moment but...  

I remember that incident too. They were out of order. I checked the Colimata Concorde forum recently (that was the site) and there isn't a great deal of discussion. It doesn't sound like the project is finished yet otherwise I'm sure we'd see the news posted.

[Chock 17,769]

Maybe Aeroplane Heaven could make a Tu-144 instead? That way if half the equipment on it did not function, it would be exactly like the real thing. 🤣

On the subject of which, here's a slightly weird coincidental fact concerning Concorde and the Tu-144: A Tu-144 famously crashed at the Paris Air Show in 1973, coming down North East of Paris. Many years later of course, a Concorde also crashed. Out of all the places in the world where these incidents might have occurred, the crash sites of both aeroplanes, are within five miles of one another. Kind of spooky.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Chock

[Ray Proudfoot 8,960]

@scianoir, it sounds very much the simpler the aircraft the more accurately the systems can be modelled by AH. They must realise what an enormous task they have set themselves with Concorde. So much of the aircraft has features not found elsewhere...

• No elevator (thus no elevator trim, hence fuel movement emulates trim)
• No flaps. If you want to slow down just point her up more and the delta wing acts as an enormous brake.
• No LNAV or VNAV. A CIVA INS system that accepts data for up to 9 waypoints.
• An autopilot that features MAX CLB & MAX CRUISE. That is tricky to program.

I could go on but I’m sure you get my drift.

[Afterburner 374]

As Ray mentioned, I am the one who modified the .air and fuelburn.ini-file for Concorde-X to improve the accuracy of fuel consumption.

The problem is that even if you download the files, there is not much usable information from the files themselves, since I modified the numbers through testing, trial & error, meaning that I conducted countless test flights and changed the parameters after each run to bring the fuelburn closer to the real-world pendant. The numbers that I am talking about are by no means direct fuel flow values (with some exceptions), but arbitrary coefficients in comma-separated rows and columns. The files are read by Concorde-X within P3D/FSX, which "understands" the coefficients. However, if you use the files with another sim, how does the sim or the Concorde for that sim know how to interpret the numbers?

[Chock 17,769]

Incidentally, if anyone wants a Tu-144 'Concordski' which works in P3D V5, there is one out there which is free. It has a pretty good VC, although brush up on your Russian if you want to fly it.

Another fun fact about the Tu-144 you may not know, is that the Tu-144 was briefly operated by US pilots as part of a joint Russian-US project conducting research into supersonic flight in the late '90s. Boeing, Rockwell and NASA were involved in this research which used a low-hours Tu-144 that was brought out of storage, then had approximately $350 Million spent on it to get it ready for the research flights which had been planned. The aeroplane flew a total of 27 research flights, all in Russian airspace, but some US pilots were at the controls on occasion. Unfortunately, the Russian Government would not allow the export of the aeroplane because it used engines which were designated as military hardware. This prevented the aircraft from being used for further research elsewhere, so the program closed down after those 27 research flights had been completed.

 

 

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

4 hours ago, Chock said:

This is why I would suggest that those who have some specialised knowledge and a desire to see a usable replica of Concorde in their flight sim, rather than folding their arms and stating they won't buy it like a sulking child, might be better off reaching out to AH and offering to help.

Assuming this is aimed at me, there are many reason I wouldn't purchase it and quite frankly, I wasn't being personal about anyone in the way that you just have been, so I think you ought to be careful as to how you phrase your responses on here thanks.  I can easily take my knowledge elsewhere - @Ray Proudfoot if you think I should stop posting, let me know please.

As far as I'm concerned, a company who have experience in developing a product, who announce they are going to create a new one, clearly think they already have the knowledge and the people to create it. To "reach out" to them would seem a strange thing to do, with their most probable reaction being "and you are....?". 

 They have told Ray the limits of their product, hence not one for me. 

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,960]

30 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

Assuming this is aimed at me, there are many reason I wouldn't purchase it and quite frankly, I wasn't being personal about anyone in the way that you just have been, so I think you ought to be careful as to how you phrase your responses on here thanks.  I can easily take my knowledge elsewhere - @Ray Proudfoot if you think I should stop posting, let me know please.

Neither you or Chock have overstepped the mark but it’s probably a good time to draw the line under this kind of discussion. Each of you knows how the other feels.

Your contributions are welcome Frazz because you have such a huge amount of Concorde knowledge which would be helpful to any Concorde developer. It’s pity that AH don’t want to develop a full blown aircraft but that’s their choice and yours not to be interested in it.

[Chock 17,769]

53 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

Assuming this is aimed at me, there are many reason I wouldn't purchase it and quite frankly, I wasn't being personal about anyone in the way that you just have been, so I think you ought to be careful as to how you phrase your responses on here thanks.  I can easily take my knowledge elsewhere - @Ray Proudfoot if you think I should stop posting, let me know please.

As far as I'm concerned, a company who have experience in developing a product, who announce they are going to create a new one, clearly think they already have the knowledge and the people to create it. To "reach out" to them would seem a strange thing to do, with their most probable reaction being "and you are....?". 

 They have told Ray the limits of their product, hence not one for me. 

 

Actually it wasn't aimed at anyone specific, it was referring to the fact that people are often far too keen to criticise stuff from developers who make the 'lite' products for flight sims, when that really is the only practical way any model of a particular aeroplane is ever going to be covered and still be a financially viable proposition, and that they could quite easily reach out to those developers and offer help, or do so after the product is released and improve it further. Aeroplane Heaven have on several occasions actually said they'd appreciate people doing this. For example, they fairly recently asked if anyone had any pics of a certain area of the Heinkel He-111's cockpit to help them model it as accurately as they could.

Not being particularly knowledgeable about the Concorde, I am not in a position to be able to offer any assistance, but I certainly would if I did have that knowledge, especially if it would help get me something closer to what I wanted in terms of an add-on aeroplane. I certainly have done that with other products.

[HighBypass 2,339]

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

• No elevator (thus no elevator trim, hence fuel movement emulates trim)

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

Perhaps the "fudge" for the fuel system not being modelled would be the simulator elevator trim code being used to emulate the fuel transfer trimming. The trim up/down button/key allocation in the sim are disabled, you see the CG gauge changing in the cockpit as it should per the different stages of flight... she carries on flying with no upset..

This wouldn't win over any study level buyers, but it might be enough to let some simmers know in a basic fashion that this is how the real airliner used to do things...

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

22 minutes ago, Chock said:

Not being particularly knowledgeable about the Concorde, I am not in a position to be able to offer any assistance, but I certainly would if I did have that knowledge, especially if it would help get me something closer to what I wanted in terms of an add-on aeroplane. I certainly have done that with other products.

They have stated they are not making an in depth product therefore in my case I would be a major irritant to them, as I'd be pushing for realism and they'd be looking for simplicity in modelling.  I'm not the type of person who goes to a company and volunteers to help them do their job. If people ask a question and I know the answer or know where to find the answer, then that's fine and as @Ray Proudfoot can tell you I have been more than willing to help people on another forum. 

Incidentally Ray, after the aforementioned issue on the X-Plane forum, I too visit occasionally and I actually did offer to help the developer but was rebuffed.  It seems they have all the knowledge already....  

[Chock 17,769]

Fair enough. But, alluding to my post on this thread earlier, it might possibly be useful for people to suggest AH make the thing in such a way that it might more easily be 'editable' for those inclined to do so. Not knowing which bits would be helpful to have constructed in this way, I'm not in a position to know what would be best, but if I were to hazard a guess it would be the Flight Engineer's panel not being part of the 3D model, but rather a 2D gauge, so that it could be switched out. 

I was lucky enough to fly on an Air France Concorde once and I have, like many people, sat in the driving seat of G-BOAC. I am old enough to have had a toy of Concorde that actually was in BOAC colours, which was given to me when I was a little kid visiting Fairey Engineering in Heaton Norris, where my dad worked as an engineer. I do have that old VHS video of a BA Concorde making a trip to JFK which I've watched a lot of times too, so I  have an interest in the thing, but I'm by no means very knowledgeable about its systems.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Chock

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

6 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

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

Perhaps the "fudge" for the fuel system not being modelled would be the simulator elevator trim code being used to emulate the fuel transfer trimming. The trim up/down button/key allocation in the sim are disabled, you see the CG gauge changing in the cockpit as it should per the different stages of flight... she carries on flying with no upset..

This wouldn't win over any study level buyers, but it might be enough to let some simmers know in a basic fashion that this is how the real airliner used to do things...

There is still pitch trim via a switch on the control column as normal, but due to Concorde being "fly-by-wire" (the first commercial airline to be so, Airbus came 20 years later...) the pitch trim simply moves the central datum in the artificial feel jacks to remove control column load. 

The trim that Ray refers to is not needed on subsonic aircraft as they don't encounter such a rearward movement of the centre of pressure, as the movement is a function of forward speed.  Concorde moved fuel aft to move the aircraft centre of gravity aft to keep the centre of gravity close to the centre of pressure (lift) as it moved aft.  The wing camber also reduced the movement. 

There were also speed trim and Mach trim functions that were automatic and built in to the fly-by-wire system.  

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

2 minutes ago, Chock said:

Fair enough. But, alluding to my post on this thread earlier, it might possibly be useful for people to suggest AH make the thing in such a way that it might more easily be 'editable' for those inclined to do so. Not knowing which bits would be helpful to have constructed in this way, I'm not in a position to know what would be best, but if I were to hazard a guess it would be the Flight Engineer's panel not being part of the 3D model, but rather a 2D gauge, so that it could be switched out. 

I was lucky enough to fly on an Air France Concorde once and I have, like many people, sat in the driving seat of G-BOAC. I do have that old VHS video of a BA Concorde making a trip to JFK which I've watched a lot of times too, so I  have an interest in the thing, but I'm by no means very knowledgeable about its systems.

The issue is, all the systems other than the air intake system are ones found on subsonic aircraft, but every single one is far more complex.  It isn't really to do with the panels, it's what is behind them.  It is the reason the conversion courses were so long - crews couldn't just know the systems they had to know every bit of every one of them and there was a lot of bits to know!

[Chock 17,769]

6 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

It isn't really to do with the panels, it's what is behind them.

Yes, but the point I'm making is that just as when you flick the landing light switch on in any other simulated aeroplane, that isn't really doing what occurs on the real aeroplane, i.e. it isn't actually closing an electrical circuit and making electrons go down a wire to a light fitment on the wing of the aeroplane. It's just triggering an animation, and even in the case of an simulated aeroplane not having an animated landing light, there is still nothing stopping someone from flipping a switch as they pass 10,000 feet to operate the landing lights if they want to simulate 'doing things properly'.

So in the same way, it doesn't really matter if, when you flip a switch on a panel in a simulated Concorde, that it isn't really pumping 50 gallons of fuel to another fuel tank to trim the aircraft. If a panel can be made which, when you trip a switch, makes a fuel gauge read a different value as though it is pumping that fuel, then to all intents and purposes you are doing what might be done on the real aeroplane, even if it doesn't actually have a bearing on how it flies.

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.