Sign in to follow this  
w6kd

Gulfstream G550

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.:-)Of course it'd be better to have the blessing and cooperation of the company. No problem there. But should the company only bless one developer, and then attempt to exclude others, well, that's not healthy. Should the company demand or receive royalties for that blessing...ditto. I doubt severely that every maker of a quality payware Boeing product has a relationship with Boeing...it's a "nice to have" rather than a "must have."And let's take this a step further...what would prevent application of the same logic to Honeywell and Rockwell for their avionics...to the architects who designed any building appearing in an FS scenery...the whole thing takes us in a bad direction. This is a cause worth fighting for.Last, it's not just an enforcement argument being made. These overreaching sorts of IPR claims aren't even accepted in much of the world...and arguably not even in the USA.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of the Gulfstream, the reason no commercial developer has ever released one is because Gulfstream has been quite clear that they'll pursue legal action. While you sit on a mountainside in the middle of nowhere (not that I know a thing about Chile)... most commercial developers reside within the U.S. and most of them don't make enough income to afford the cost of a lawyer to even respond to a legal action against them. It's not worth the risk, or the cost to persue it without permission.Gulfstream has patents on the shapes that make up their aircraft, even the windows. They protect them quite heavily, whether you approve or like it or not. Patents garner far more protection than mere copyright or trademark, but it's been my experience as a software professional that copyright enforcement is far more active than you think it is. I've even seen company web sites shut down by courts because they use material that's not theirs to use. A copyright is a copyright is a copyright. If it's not yours... you better have permission, in writing.As far as avionics are concerned... most of them have the same "look and feel". As I stated regarding the Microsoft vs Apple "look and feel" lawsuit... the judge threw it out because it's a reasonable expectation that an ADI should look like an ADI no matter who makes it.Your "cause" is, simply put, not what you think it is. You're screaming that you have the right to develop an identical model of absolutely anything anyone else has ever made and profit from it. In short, you take that approach... sooner or later someone IS going to get you.As for your last statement, just plain wrong. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,You raise some interesting points regarding the right of a specific company, in this case Gulfstream, to exclusively "bless one developer" while excluding other developers. While it may not be "healthy" in your view, they as a corporation have a perfect right to do just that if they so choose. The arguments in this thread, while interesting from an academic perspective, hold no water in the "business world". Gulfstream maintains a position regarding their products because they have a perfectly legal right to do so. It really is that simple.From a business perspective, any developer who attempts to circumvent the Gulfstream policy would, as mentioned before, have more legal and economic headaches than would be offset by imagined profits. Seems the arguments will remain fruitless until some commercial developer is granted the permissions and "blessings" of Gulfstream:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>While you sit>on a mountainside in the middle of nowhere (not that I know a>thing about Chile)No, clearly you don't. That's a classically ignorant US view of anywhere south of the Rio Grande. We call the area of Santiago where I work "Sanhattan," because of its high-rises and businesses very reminiscent of Manhattan. ... most commercial developers reside within>the U.S. and most of them don't make enough income to afford>the cost of a lawyer to even respond to a legal action against>them. It's not worth the risk, or the cost to persue it>without permission.Yeah, like Level-D (Canada), Feelthere (Czech Rep), PSS (UK), Captain Sim (Russia), Cloud9 (Italy), Project Magenta (Italy), LAGO Maddog (Italy), Ariane (UK), etc etc. >Gulfstream has patents on the shapes that make up their>aircraft, even the windows. They protect them quite heavily,>whether you approve or like it or not. Patents garner far>more protection than mere copyright or trademark, but it's>been my experience as a software professional that copyright>enforcement is far more active than you think it is. I've>even seen company web sites shut down by courts because they>use material that's not theirs to use. A copyright is a>copyright is a copyright. If it's not yours... you better>have permission, in writing.Were that the case, they'd have stopped all those guys from selling $200 Gulfstream models. The patents do not go nearly as far as you think, whether you like it or not.>As far as avionics are concerned... most of them have the same>"look and feel". As I stated regarding the Microsoft vs Apple>"look and feel" lawsuit... the judge threw it out because it's>a reasonable expectation that an ADI should look like an ADI>no matter who makes it.Suggest you go read the case law on that. You've got the reasoning all wrong.>Your "cause" is, simply put, not what you think it is. You're>screaming that you have the right to develop an identical>model of absolutely anything anyone else has ever made and>profit from it. In short, you take that approach... sooner or>later someone IS going to get you.First, there's no "screaming" going on here, unless it happens to be you doing it. Second, I believe I do have the right to make a computer model of anything I can look out my window and see, not to copy the modeling work of others.>As for your last statement, just plain wrong. :)My last statement about lack of international acceptance of these sorts of claims is correct. You don't garner a lot of credibility calling it otherwise when you characterize the booming nation and economic miracle that is Chile as a "mountaintop in the middle of nowhere." Do a little research and you'll find that Chile's approach to IPR is a point of contention for the last several Ambassadors here.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Bob,>You raise some interesting points regarding the right of a>specific company, in this case Gulfstream, to exclusively>"bless one developer" while excluding other developers. >While it may not be "healthy" in your view, they as a>corporation have a perfect right to do just that if they so>choose. >>The arguments in this thread, while interesting from an>academic perspective, hold no water in the "business world".>Gulfstream maintains a position regarding their products>because they have a perfectly legal right to do so. It really>is that simple.It's only that simple if you accept the base premise that an acft (or car, or boat etc) manufacturer has some supposed legal right over any image of the same. Many do not...and the modelling hobbies are done if that ever becomes accepted in international law.>From a business perspective, any developer who attempts to>circumvent the Gulfstream policy would, as mentioned before,>have more legal and economic headaches than would be offset by>imagined profits. Seems the arguments will remain fruitless>until some commercial developer is granted the permissions and>"blessings" of Gulfstream:-)Or until somebody, probably from the developing world, puts a quality add-on on the streets without asking permission where there's no need.If one of our Russian developers sells a Gulfstream add-on, who's gonna give 'em headaches? Heck, they sell bootleg DVDs on the street corners in Moscow...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If one of our Russian developers sells a Gulfstream add-on, who's gonna give 'em headaches? Heck, they sell bootleg DVDs on the street corners in Moscow..."Ok... that pretty much sums up your position on the subject from beginning to end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, just because Russia or other countries ignore what is right does not in any way diminish the responsibility of US based developers to obtain certain permissions before proceeding on any given project.We suggest that any of the mentioned development groups based in other countries would still face quite a few legal and economic sanctions were they to proceed on specific Gulfstream projects for the FS commercial market. We do know of one non US developer who recently produced a specific aircraft and were indeed sanctioned for not obtaining permissions before release and the matter is still a sticking point for that developer and the overflow effect is that the company in question now refuses permission for other developers.Further, the assumption that the solid models you linked to did not receive permissions from Gulfstream is just that, an assumption. We suggest that in matters of business, just as in real world flight, it is better not to make assumptions since, in business at least, the possibility of severe economic sanctions does clearly exist:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"If one of our Russian developers sells a Gulfstream add-on,>who's gonna give 'em headaches? Heck, they sell bootleg DVDs>on the street corners in Moscow...">>Ok... that pretty much sums up your position on the subject>from beginning to end.No, it doesn't, and any intelligent person who read this thread already knows that.Need any help finding Moscow on a map? Hint: it's not on a mountaintop in the middle of nowhere...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Bob, just because Russia or other countries ignore what is>right does not in any way diminish the responsibility of US>based developers to obtain certain permissions before>proceeding on any given project.What "is right" outside the US is not defined by the US Congress or court system. It's a globalized world.>We suggest that in matters of business, just as in real world>flight, it is better not to make assumptions since, in>business at least, the possibility of severe economic>sanctions does clearly exist:-)Sadly, in the USA the "possibility of severe economic sanctions" exists every time you start your car, own property, or even try to help someone in distress. I prefer to focus on the very low probability of ever seeing these severe economic sanctions...due in part to the very questionable nature of the claims, and due in part to unenforceability outside one piece of a global market. It'd be bad PR, too...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this