Jump to content

metzgergva

Members
  • Content Count

    166
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by metzgergva


  1. Hi, let's start with the footnote in the manual: Page 291 is definately using knots. The original handbook that I have is using miles/h and the values for the highest weight braket at 14000 ft are DIAS 218 and TAS 277. Converting the miles/hr to knots in the PMDG manual was done because the airspeed indicator in the aircraft is in knots. Unfortunately the footnote has not been corrected accordingly. My calculator converts 218 miles/hr to 189 knots and 277 miles/hr to 240 knots and that is corresponding with the chart.

    Now why did you get only 160-165? Firstly, the cowling flaps position in cruise with minimal drag is not fully closed (-4°) but slightly open (0°). We have simulated drag from cowling flaps position. On top you were heavy and by that at the edge of performance and by being slow you were close to the bottom of the power/drag curve. The additional pitch required to stay level slowed you down a bit further.

    Lastly, manuals of that time were always quite optimistic and you know the sim is not perfect either in simulating the athmosphere.

    During the development of the aircraft, I have tested the aircraft from 4000 to 16000 ft with low blower and from 17000 to 21000 ft with high blower at standard weight choosen 90.000 lb and the deviation on IAS in knots is within 0  to -2%.

    I hope this helps to relate the sim experiance to the manual and next time keep the cowling flaps at 0°.

    • Like 1

  2. Hi, just as the header indicates, I do not have a mouse wheel functionality on those settings. Only by left and right click I can change in single units and that takes ages to change things when you land in higher altitude mountains. It is the same on the B747 as on the B777. 

    On all other dials the acceleration with mouse wheel works perfectly for me, just missing on those two parameters. Hope you can have a look and implement.

    P3Dv4.3 is used here.

     


  3. Well I ran into the same issue but cannot fix it. I have Cycle 1811 installed and the latest Version of PANC, which shows in P3Dv4 in the Airport Menu for PANC the RWY 15.

     When I load the B737 all is good.

     When I load the B747-8F I get an error on the DEP page in the FMS

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/2tbelct9m09d2wh/PANC_RWY-empty.jpg?dl=0

    I checked for double AFCAD and deleted the one for PANC in ORBX SAK.

    Any idea to look out for?


  4. I have discussed and experienced may approaches with the DC-3 and also the Connie (which flies similar to the DC-6), but have no RW DC-6 experience. But we had great discussions with the pilots from the Red Bull DC-6.

    The Rule of Thumb "MP > RPM/100" certainly has a safety marging included for the fact that you may have a wind change or gust which would short term impact the actual speed over the props. I also learned that ist is more important to stick to it when you flying during the approach with higher speeds, then on final.

    Actually there are a bit different philosophies among the DC-3 pilots and the european pilots use a bit a different profile to slow down than the US ones.

    The difference is that we try to avoid RPM below 2000 as the engines get a bit rough there. So we stick with minimum 20/2000, while US pilots also fly 17/1700, if needed.

    Also important is that the rule is more stricktly to be  imposed on high speeds resulting in more torque driving an engine and damaging the gear versus when you are on final with just 100 kts.

    In any case, we plan with 300 ft/min for decent and 500 ft/min as maximum in case of tailwind. Also as this is more convinient for passengers for a non pressurised plane. 

    The DC-3 has very low flaps limits and we apply 1/2 below 100 kts. That is a big difference to the DC-6 with a smaller first step allowed at 174 and you can follow with steps to 20 and 30 degrees quickly if needed. Plus the limit of 170 for the landing gear.

    So in essence for an approach into an airport you just need to slow down to 170 on a few miles horizontal during the approach pattern, but you need to set flaps/gear to follow a 3 degree glide.

    • Like 1

  5. I can only talk about my RW flights on the DC-3, which has a similar descent profile. They key is in the diagram on an approach and you will see there that you slow down in the pattern early and use flaps and gear to accomodadate to descending. You can basically fly any VFR pattern used for larger GA aircraft like a Piper Chieftain.

    Here is an extract from my DC-6 Flying Guide:

    A good pattern speed with 20° flaps configuration would typically be 125 kts (Vref+35) for downwind and 105 kts (Vref+15) for base leg which you get by setting flaps to 30°. The engine settings are then similar to what you used during a shallow descent making it easy not to change engine setting too much. Best practice is in fact to keep the engines in a small window around 30 in for level flight down to 25 in during a descent with RPM at 2000. When you turn on final you drop the gear and increase RPM to 2300 1/min. Again vary MAP between 28 in for flaps 20° and 30 to 32 in for flaps 40 to 50° for matching final approach speed. Therefore, speed management during approach and landing should be managed by adding drag from lowering flaps and gear and not changing engine setting beyond those small adjustments.

    Now when approaching larger airports like Zürich or Geneva in the DC-3, we use the VFR entry points or may get radar vectors to be established on the approach 3 miles out so that we can fly a 3° descent with 500 ft/min at 100 kts. We always need to remind the tower that we have an 80 kts final speed and that they need to keep enough space behind us. Also that they can alow aircrafts departing longer as we come in sooo slow. In the beginning of the DC-3 times in GVA , I have see two go arounds behind us and 5 planes at the holding points. Now all tower ATC know us well.

    Not much difference for the Connie or the DC-6. Everything just 15 kts faster.

    Now for the steep approach into Innsbruck via RTT and the LOC DME 08/26 EAST, you can only fly those 3.77° angle descent  with flaps 40° and gear down.

    I have not come across an 80 BMP minimum. The important rule is to have MP equal or slightly above RPM/100. 

    As for DC-3 or Connie descnt planning we are using only 300 ft/min, so you need to start out early from your destination.


  6. I also have multiple TQ ( and yoke and stick) but I control the assignments all in one .ini. Just assigned to aircraft type and grouped like

    single piston stick

    single piston yoke

    single turbo yoke

    twin piston yoke

    twin turbo yoke

    twin jet yoke

    etc.

    .....

    and a special one for the DC-6 on my 4 engine throttle so that the revers guard lever is assigned too.

     


  7. On 3/17/2018 at 2:19 AM, JesC said:

    I agree. But I don't think that you have addressed the sounds at lower power (mp) settings. When manifold pressure is reduced below cruise power settings I would also anticipate some sound reductions and rpm decreases.

    BTW I have more than a few hours flying 310's and 320's myself. Nonetheless I don't think that makes me an expert.

    I'm just trying to understand this better. I'm suspecting there may be some sim based limitations that result in the use of only rpm or mp influenced sounds. Hopefully at some point Milviz may offer some insight to their reasoning and  methodology. Given the depth of this simulation I am sure this is something they have given a great deal of thought, study and consideration.

    At least I have established that this is not an anomaly of my install. Progress!! :-)

    Jesse

     

    Jesse, 

     I'm with you on this. Sure RPM change has a more noticable change, but MAP should have a noise change too as the engines are producing more power and exhaust noise and prop noise should vary- more in loudness than pitch. It is a basic limitiation in FS/P3D, but can be overcome, i.E. the ArezOnes soundpack does it.


  8. On 3/25/2018 at 10:14 PM, downscc said:

    Many thanks Tim, I have to admit I've rarely used the charts on ppg 300-313 and they were not available during most of beta because these are company charts (from an operator) whereas the charts on ppg 290-293 are the original Douglas data where the power is set reference to BMEP without having MP tablulated.  Also have to admit I've only used either MP or BMEP but not both and agree that they should correspond since they are related.  Interesting.  I'm sure Alex already has this on his todo list.

    I think both references are used at the same time. MAP/RPM clearly define the steps for power settings during climb. BMEP is just a limit there not too exceed. Once you are in cruise climb or cruise you optimize RPM and BMEP and MAP may differ a bit. If it is a couple of inch, ice may have developed or a ignition circuit has gone bust, etc.


  9. Tim,

    The team wanted to have a little variance by engine and also over time and use. What you see comes from this, plus that no real world MAP gauge is that precise. If you use BMEP you are better synchronizing the engines but RPM of course need to in sync too. The single step of the throttle in the sim shows sometimes small differences too.


  10. Hi, if you replace [gear_warning_system] entry in the original with the one below you will get:

    - A gear warning that you have not lowered the gear if your throttle position is below 15% travel (about 200 ft-lb) and your flap is in 15 degree position

    - A gear warning that you have not lowered the gear independent from throttle position if your flap is in full down position

    [gear_warning_system]
    gear_warning_available = 1
    pct_throttle_limit =  0.15    //Percent throttle that activates warning
    flap_limit_idle    = 14.5     //Flap angle that activates warning at idle
    flap_limit_power   = 39.5     //Flap angle that activates warning at above idle
     


  11. Thank you for your kind words. As said, I have added my flight dynamics from the DA version to the Carenado version and as there is no copyright on an aircraft.cfg file unless one does infringe via copy paste and claim it is his work, I would be willing to share the two files knowing that it will take a few changes on your side to implement as I rename texture folders using the reg numbers, eliminate the Carenado name show except at the place it is meant to be, etc.

    PM with email and I sent it for your use.


  12. On 12/6/2017 at 1:33 AM, whamil77 said:

    A couple of folks have reported some problems with the mods.  They were easy fixes, so please let me know if you are having problems.  Systems are different and there are some things I don't see until somebody else points it out.  Also, as my AVSIM inbox begins to fill, please PM me your emails so I can create a group and send updates. 

    Regards,

    Bill

    Bill, could you update me on which areas you tried to improve the Carenado Cheyenne. I have done on my side the complete rework of flight dynamics using my originals for the DA version and transported them to the Carenado version. As I'm the developer of those files I could share them once completed, and fully tested.


  13. On 12/6/2017 at 6:14 PM, scottb613 said:

    Hi Raymie,

    Good thought - but - I don't think that was the case with the DA model - gear were down - full flaps - I think if you retarded the power lever in flight to where the torque went below 400 an audible alarm would sound - and the alarm annunciator would light... In all the years I flew the thing (FS9 => P3D) - I never really looked into the root cause - just made a point of keeping my torque above 400 in flight...

    Thanks for the response and good discussion...

    Regards,
    Scott 

    Sorry for a late answer, but I got interested back into flying the Cheyenne II and got the Carenado model. The gear warning comes on under different conditions of power and flaps, which was programmed by DA. I will have a look if it can be included in the Carenado via entries in the aircraft.cfg. I think she also had a clean throttle limit to maintain some systems support like pressurization, but not sure, would need to look it up.


  14. Bob, the GTN 650 should work without issues as a replacement for the default GPS by PMDG. The only thing you need to do is to select the GTN 650 option in the popup window and reload the aircraft.

    The Sperry has not all functionality a modern GPS could provide. You can use it for following VOR headings when you turn the selector knob to the middle position, after you have properly engaged first the main switch and then the servo lever.

    If you want to fly a GPS route that is possible too by just selecting GPS mode on the unit.

    in APP mode, the full right position of the selector switch, it can read an ILS signal or a LNAV signal from the GPS. The only thing missing, and hopefully will be implemented in a update, is the VNAV indication and follow.


  15. 18 hours ago, gazpatt said:

    Hi Alex, I have watched your video a few times and have been trying to wean myself off the AFE and using the power settings from the charts. Just made a lovely flight from Anchorage to Yakutat, flew using victor airways on VLOC all the way and then made a GPS approach into PAYA runway 11 but flew it manually. Made a good landing and speeds were good, was pretty pleased with myself! Have 50+ hours in the DC-6 now and watching your video has helped me with my landings, quite happy if you make some more! Out of interest, what was was the gross weight on that video, did the aeroplane have no payload? I love the DC-6. Back on topic, I am enjoying the PANC scenery, and I hope they sort out the problems Dan has highlighted, and then I hope ORBX make a region for the rest of Alaska :-)

    Sorry I do not remember the gross weight on that flight. Typically I load them about 75% of pax or cargo and calculate fuel for the distance with 2000 lbs/hr flight time plus minimum 1 hr extra plus any extra to go to the alternate.

×
×
  • Create New...