Hello,I have a problem with my G550 that I'm Building/Working on. It flies great, the handling is fantastic at high altitudes. When I get I get it lower than (around) 7500 FT AGL on autopilot, the Engines Power up, and Power down (drastically) at speeds of 250 KIAS, and lower. Is there something that I can do to fix this problem? I've tried to bring the Thrust Levels down in the Aircraft.cfg, but when I do that, I can't get the plane to reach a High Speed Cruise of Mach 0.87. Right now when I do fly lower 0than 7,5000 FT/250 KIAS, I've been flying with my flaps down 10 Degrees just to keep the engines from Constantly Powering Up/Down. I know that this is an easy fix, but I know that it's not correct either; or is it? If anybody can help I would greatly Appreciate it. Thank You J.R. Duda

Give this a try... From page 42, AircraftContainerSDKFS2004.doc, part of the autopilot section.max_throttle_ratemax_throttle_rate=0.10This value sets the maximum rate at which the autothrottle will move the throttle position. In the example, the maximum rate is set to 10% of the total throttle range per second. Regards,Roman

Hello,Thanks for the reply, but the max throttle is already set at 0.10, but after doing some more tweaking it's starting too come along. However playing with the Max Throttle affects not only the misbehavior of the Autopilot engines power up/down, it also affects the time it takes for the autopilot to react to speed changes. Thanks again for the info, if I have any more questions problems I'll post it, or search the Forum for more solutions. J.R. Duda

Wow.. you got written permission from Gulfstream to make one if their jets?

He doesn't need GAC's permission to make his own Gulfstream. I use the LiderDesign model (now sold by BlueStar or something like that) with my own panel and FDE. Still struggling with the soundset, though.In answer to the original question, it sounds like the fuel_flow_gain in the aircraft.cfg is set too high for the autothrottle feedback loop timing, resulting in a neutral or even negative feedback situation due to the spool lag. Try reducing that value incrementally, but not so much that you end up with engines that spool like an F404.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

The Lider Design was freeware if I recall correctly.

>The Lider Design was freeware if I recall correctly.Yes, the original LiderDesign G-V was freeware.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

To my knowledge no one has a legal right to sell any Gulfstream models for FS. I hope for whomever's sake it is still freeware.Gulfstream has been rather adamant about their legal position regarding modelling any of their aircraft without written permission. Something that no one has been able to obtain thus far.

>To my knowledge no one has a legal right to sell any>Gulfstream models for FS. I hope for whomever's sake it is>still freeware.>>Gulfstream has been rather adamant about their legal position>regarding modelling any of their aircraft without written>permission. Something that no one has been able to obtain>thus far.This whole topic pains me, as I have type ratings and thousands of r/w hours flying those nice-looking jets.Bluestar does sell a G-V model. But they're not based in the USA. Thankfully, not everyone else in the world buys into the crazy notion that a model likeness of a plane, train, or automobile can be subject to copyright in its own right. GAC can be as adamant as they want, but I hope that folks, especially in the international community, will refuse to recognize this sort of ridiculous claim. I mean c'mon guys, what's next, will I have to get permission from BMW to send someone a pic of me standing next to my car??It's a stretch and a tough sell even in the Land-o-Lawyers...probably impossible to support or enforce from an international IPR perspective. We can only hope, anyway. Also, I know the model-building community has had a lot of success beating these sorts of ridiculous claims back...especially for models of US military aircraft given that the US taxpayer subsidized their design, production, and operation. Anyone recognize the C-20B, C-20H, or C-37A aircraft designations??Anyway, I am slowly but steadily working on some nice freeware panels for the G-III, IV, and V. What I have in mind is something of the quality of the TinMouse B732. What'll kick me into motion to make some world class freeware will be seeing somebody angling for an exclusive "right" to sell Gulfstream add-ons...that would be too reminiscent of our old buddy Peter Tishma's exclusionary antics for me.BTW, Shakespeare was right.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Hello,Thanks for the input on the Fuel Flow that did the trick, I had it way down low. Anyway I've had numerous requests to put my G550 on here, and a few other simulation sights...however I can't. The plane is based on a few G500's that I came across. After modifying the aircraft configuration files (drastically), and adding a few touches to the aircraft itself, I can honestly say that it's pretty close to the real thing. I've done a lot of research on this plane, and been to numerous websites to try to find as much data on this beast. I've even tried to get some input from any G550 Pilots, and as of this moment I've had no responses. I did find on the internet an actual account from a pilot that flew one. He detailed the plane as far the handling from takeoff to landing. I can't say the plane handles exactly like the real thing, (I've never been in one...or seen one up close for that matter) but from what I've read (and along with the other research data), it's probably not far off (maybe around 85-90 percent accurate, if not more). The major thing I can say is the plane has a distance of 6750 NM at a speed of Mach 0.80, at an altitude of over 41,000 ft. Since I see no reason to fly over 30,000 ft in FS9 I configured the range at an altitude of 35,000 ft. I do have an another configuration file that will give the plane the 6750 NM at higher altitude, but again I don't use it.The panel I built using a registered version of FS Panel Studio has gauges from numerous panels that I found on here, and other websites that I liked. Even though it doesn't quite look like the original G550 panel, I like it. I even redesigned the Default FS9 so it has no buttons or outer shell (basically a glass type design). The reason for that is I don't use my Trakball when I fly except for the radio's, fuel gauge, auto landing gear, and the clock. Otherwise I use my keyboard for all my commands including the GPS. I have a registered version of FSUIPC which I programed to handle all of my keyboard commands. I do have a Flight Yoke that handles other commands not programmed on the keyboard. If your a person that uses a mouse for setting everything in the airplane, you would hate my panel. But the plane is for my own personal use only for all the reasons that I said earlier. Sorry. Thanks again for the input. Take Care, and happy New Year!!! J.R. Duda

>>This whole topic pains me, as I have type ratings and>thousands of r/w hours flying those nice-looking jets.>>Bluestar does sell a G-V model. But they're not based in the>USA. Thankfully, not everyone else in the world buys into the>crazy notion that a model likeness of a plane, train, or>automobile can be subject to copyright in its own right. GAC>can be as adamant as they want, but I hope that folks,>especially in the international community, will refuse to>recognize this sort of ridiculous claim. I mean c'mon guys,>what's next, will I have to get permission from BMW to send>someone a pic of me standing next to my car??>>It's a stretch and a tough sell even in the>Land-o-Lawyers...probably impossible to support or enforce>from an international IPR perspective. We can only hope,>anyway. Also, I know the model-building community has had a>lot of success beating these sorts of ridiculous claims>back...especially for models of US military aircraft given>that the US taxpayer subsidized their design, production, and>operation. Anyone recognize the C-20B, C-20H, or C-37A>aircraft designations??>>Anyway, I am slowly but steadily working on some nice freeware>panels for the G-III, IV, and V. What I have in mind is>something of the quality of the TinMouse B732. What'll kick>me into motion to make some world class freeware will be>seeing somebody angling for an exclusive "right" to sell>Gulfstream add-ons...that would be too reminiscent of our old>buddy Peter Tishma's exclusionary antics for me.>>BTW, Shakespeare was right.>>Regards>>Bob Scott>ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V>Santiago de Chile>In the history of FS, at any time if anyone has attempted to profit from a model of any of their aircraft they've been met with legal cease and desist orders from the appropriate courts. Because of the method used to develop said models, any court judgements would most likely include confiscation of any computer systems owned by the plaintiff(s). So, in my opinion I don't think it would be worth the risk.Whether you agree or disagree, it's a very well known fact that Gulfstream does indeed hold a copyright and patent for their aircraft designs.As for the phrase "exclusive right"... if anyone does get permission to model the Gulfstream aircraft, you can rest assured it will be exclusive simply because no one has ever obtained it before. Remember, we're talking about the model not panels. A significant difference. There's no legal grounds for protecting a panel design... after all, that's how Microsoft won their suit with Apple regarding Windows and how it had the "look and feel" of the Mac OS at the time. The judge stated that such things should be "common" in appearance much like an automobile's dashboard. One can not claim copyright on the appearance of a speedometer... for the instrument should appear basically the same across car models. Otherwise there would be "type-ratings" for driving all vehicles. ;)

>In the history of FS, at any time if anyone has attempted to>profit from a model of any of their aircraft they've been met>with legal cease and desist orders from the appropriate>courts. Because of the method used to develop said models,>any court judgements would most likely include confiscation of>any computer systems owned by the plaintiff(s). So, in my>opinion I don't think it would be worth the risk.Don't know where that sort of enforcement would apply, but I guarantee it wouldn't play out that way here in Chile. Nor in Canada. Nor in Belgium. Or the Netherlands. Come to think of it, I've never heard of said legal precedent playing out in the US, either. Naw, I'll come right out and say it...BALONEY...I don't buy it, sorry.>Whether you agree or disagree, it's a very well known fact>that Gulfstream does indeed hold a copyright and patent for>their aircraft designs.Yep, and if I were to go off and try to manufacture and sell an aircraft close enough to the copyrighted and patented aspects, I'd be dead in their sights, and rightfully so.But if I take a really nice photo of a USAF C-37A in the flare at Chievres Air Base and sell it...no way GAC has a claim. Especially outside the US, where it's darned difficult to get most other nations to enforce infringement against internationally accepted IPR claims, much less something as nebulous (and nefarious) as this. As to modelling the Gulfstream for profit...check out these sites:http://www.spacemodel.com/pic543.htmlhttp://www.warplanes.com/store/item.asp?it...epartment_id=39http://store.tailwinds.com/moaiguiv.htmlI could go on posting these links for pages. Guess we should warn all these guys (many in the US & Canada) that GAC/GD is coming for their woodworking tools? Too funny.Sorry, Ed, but I don't think a guy modelling a G-V on his computer for a few beans of profit, particularly from offshore, stands even the slightest risk of having a SWAT team show up at his door demanding he fork over his PCs.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Regarding precedent... I've seen it in action regarding other copyright/trademark/patent infringements. I've seen entire businesses and all equipment literally confiscated because a business ignored a cease and desist. The courts gave the wronged party the right to have all assets seized. It's happened to the 'big guys'... it's happened to the 'little guys'.As for enforcement, as I stated I wouldn't be willing to risk it myself. Clearly you consider yourself immune... each to their own.There's a major difference in the examples you're offering and what we're actually discussing. I'm sorry you don't see that.

>Regarding precedent... I've seen it in action regarding other>copyright/trademark/patent infringements. I've seen entire>businesses and all equipment literally confiscated because a>business ignored a cease and desist. The courts gave the>wronged party the right to have all assets seized. It's>happened to the 'big guys'... it's happened to the 'little>guys'.>>As for enforcement, as I stated I wouldn't be willing to risk>it myself. Clearly you consider yourself immune... each to>their own.>>There's a major difference in the examples you're offering and>what we're actually discussing. I'm sorry you don't see>that.A case citation would lend some credibility here. A "cease and desist" letter does not carry the force of a court order...far from it. Many times it's a lawyer's attempt to scare the other (usually legally uninformed) party into submission. I remember reading that Peter Tishma used that tactic when he tried to claim exclusive rights to airline logos and even the term "flight simulation." And many many times it'll be the last communication you ever see from them when you let it be known you're not to be coerced...or better yet, that you are also represented by counsel.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Regardless of the relative merits of the "enforcement" argument the following question remains....Why would any thinking commercial group commit to 14-16 months of development of a top quality Gulfstream without the blessing of the company itself? It would seem to be in the best interest of any company who wished to develop a complex, top quality Gulfstream for FS to establish a solid, mutually beneficial, relationship with Gulfstream. Any attempt to circumvent such a common sense approach would simply prove to be more legal headache than sales of such a project would warrant.:-)