Super Constellation - Installation Sequence

[Deleted]

Hello everybody:

I am fairly new to CalClassics and their airplanes although not new at all to flight simulation.
I have installed the Super Constellation (FS2004), unfortunately with "disastrous" results, as I am unable to get any of the performance parameters specified in the charts and manuals. For example, I never "saw" 170 kts IAS and notwithstanding how light the fuel and/or payload weights are, I will not be able to climb at anything close to 500 fpm. I notice that even on level flight, I have a pitch of very high nose-up attitude. Eventually the flights end in a crash (engine fire, stall, etc.etc.)

I believe that I am making a series of mistakes with the process of installing the basic aircraft and the various updates for it that are available in its page.

For example, next to the TWA Super-Connie photo in its page, there are the follwoing options to download:

- FS2004 Flight Model Update - It Now Includes the Alphasim Connie
- Clicking on the photo downloads tthe basic model "l1049G.zip"
- Model Update
- Flight Dynamics Update
- FS2004 Alphasim Version
- Base Alphasim Version

There is also a FS2004 panel for the Lockheed L-1049 Flight Dynamics 1.2 Improved Flight Dynamics and Panel Upgrade
for the FS2004/FSX Lockheed L-1049G and H by Volker Böhme, Luis Pallas, Bill Tyne and Stefan Werner

It is not quite clear to me from the text, in which date these updates were made.

Is there a specific sequence in which all of these files should be installed/replaced?

I greatly enjoy the panel views and realism, the sounds and the textures and I would be happy to be able to fly the aircraft as realistically as possible as well.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Roberto

[Tom/CalClassic]

You do need to read the included panel manual before trying to fly the plane.

One thing that typically causes this problem (lack of power) is something in your default flight.

So try this:

1. Load the default Cessna at SeaTac flight (in the Other category).
2. Switch to the Super Connie
3. Take off.

Does this fix it?

Hope this helps,

[chris_c]

Hi Roberto, welcome to the Forum.

I'll try to help until somebody with more knowledge sees this, that's most of the Members around here...

Assuming you're running FS9:

Don't ever mix the Alphasim files with the Manfred Jahn and coy L1049 files.

If you have the l1049g.zip, it stands alone needing only the Model update which corrects some minor visual anomalies and the Flight Dynamics update that polishes the FDE a bit.

Connie is tempermental and complex, she needs to be treated right and the best way to do that is fly her by the numbers and follow the check lists.

When you load her the engines will be running but the mixture control and superchargers are not necessarily in the optimum settings. Go to the FE screen and click on the mixture icon, you will see the supercharger levers and mixture controls move to their optimum settings for the current conditions.

Go back to the flightdeck and right-click on the kneeboard icon, this opens the FE status window and gives yoy all the required engine perimeters. Red text is very bad, yellow text demands immediate attention and white text is ok. It sounds like you are cooking your engines either through too high RPM or too high CHT. Both these conditions can be corrected.

If using full power for takeoff, reduce from maximum RPM as soon as possible to METO (2600 RPM @ 52" max) MAP or at light weights, Climb power (2500 RPM @ 41" max). Use the FE window to monitor CHT and BMEP. CHT in yellow or red needs to be dealt with, you need adjust speed and cowl flap settings while probably reducing power at the same time. This might mean reducing rate of climb although the fix will depend on your immediate situation.

Once established in climb and all the FE data is in the white, you need to use the mixture icon every 1000' or so to correct the mixture and engage the high blower setting.

Hope this helps a bit, Connie is well worth getting to know her but she's a stickler for the details and hates being mistreated.

Good Luck, this should do until one of the smart guys comes along.

Chris

[volkerboehme]

Hi,

as Chris pointed out Constellations are available from several developers, some of them freeware. The one by Manfred Jahn is the most recent one, and probably the most developed one as well, but I am partial to this, of course.

Manfred's L1049G was released May 2009, I think, with a bugfix a few weeks later. The L1049H came out a few weeks later again. An FS9 upgrade for both L1049G/H was released this spring, all details about the files required should be available in the readme file. Note that there is a bug in the original fuel system that has been fixed in the 2010 update. The 2010 update may have some compatibility issues in FSX, though.

Manfred Jahn's L-749 has been released in late 2009, again with an (FS9-based) update early in 2010.

There is also a L-1649 Starliner, latest version 2.2, released late 2008 or early 2009. An upgrade is currently underway and might be available by September. His earlier turboprop L-1249 Connies have never received an upgrade.

The most recent freeware L-49 is still the FsDzign L-49 of 2004.

Installing a Super connie:

I had a look at Tom's download page and I understand that it might be confusing. It looks like the Alphasim version might be a part of the same pack. It isn't.

To install the most recent version of the L1049G, go to the download page and download Manfred's 1049G base pack by clicking on the TWA picture. Once you're at it, you migh as well download the L1049H cargo/convertible as well - the link is provided in the text of the REAL paint below. Then download the first thwo links from the TWA - the model update and the flight dynamics update. This is all you need.
Follow the instructions as given in the readme files. Give it a try and let us know if you're in trouble.

To fly the Connie, read the manual first. We had a number of people wondering why the engines keep failing and it turned out they failed to reduce power (throttle and RPM) after take-off. If you want to fly circuits, reduce weight below max landing weight - it is set to MTOW by default and you'll need to fly several hours to burn off all the excess weight.

Keep in mind that the Connie is a complex aircraft and was flown by a minimum crew of 3, all of them certified pilots and mechanics. It is somewhat complex to handle, but the documentation should be giving you the neccesary clues.

Best regards,
Volker

[Deleted]

Thank you everybody for your concerns and advice.

Chris, I broke out in a sweat after reading your post! That is exactly why I want to fly this a/c!!

Tom, I RTFM every time I add a new feature to my (FS9) simulator.

I am quite handy with it (more thanks to my old age than my wit) and I fly quite comfortably the Dreamfleet B727 (having been a beta tester for it), LDS's B767, ATR-72's, a series of PMDG jets, etc. etc.

I have no difficulty with CalClassics DC-6's and DC-7's. I also own and fly a MAAM's DC-3.

My set up, has a Saitek yoke, Saitek pedals, a CH throttle quadrant, and a number of GoFlight radio modules.

I do a lot of flying in the high altitudes of the Andes and the challenging airports of Bolivia (although I reside in Toronto, Canada) and I have learned the need to be vigilant to MAP's, RPM's and mixtures.

Knowing all that, I have been avoiding the high altitude airports in my trials of the Connie.

Yesterday, I totally uninstalled the super-connie and re-installed only the "base" model without any modifications. I met up on-line with Rodney my good friend from Philly and together we started from "cold and dark". Even ATC was sympathetic, as they let us "do our thing".

Engines 2 and 3 never started. I tried the "auto start" and engine 3 would not start at all. Obviously there is some incompatibility in my system (Windows XP) that I am not getting.

However, if you guys have the patience for my questions, I will not give up. I will read with care your comments and re-read the "readme" files and report back

Thanks a lot
Roberto

[volkerboehme]

Hi,

add the first add-on pack as well and try to load the aircraft with engines running.

By the way, there's a help tooltip over the start switch that tells you what to do next (see L-749 manual).

Best regards,
Volker

[Tom/CalClassic]

Some people were having problems with the Connie and the solution was posted here in this forum. Anyone remember that? Could that be the problem? I think it had something to do with the yoke/joystick controls, FSUIPC settings or something like that?

[Deleted]

OK folks.
It is about to rain in Toronto and Becky accepted my excuse that it is not reasonable to mow the lawn and such.

Took advantage of the situation and installed the basic model, plus the model upgrade and finally the flight dynamics upgrade.

Started the default Cessna in Seattle, and changed to the L1049G and it showed up with all engines running! Big improvement to yesterday's trials and tribulations!

Changed fuel to 50% in the following tanks "Centre", "Centre2", 'Centre3", "External1" and "External2" as indicated in the FS9 fuel/payload tab. The rest are in "zero".

I tried to bring the CG as forward as possible but even without any passengers in the back, the CG "target" does not get close to the leading edge of the "airplane wings" graphic in the tab. There are four payload change options in my FS: "Pax-load rear", "Pax-load front", "pax-load centre" and "cabin crew".

I believe that as a result of the CG "target" location, I have a continuous nose-high attitude in the 8deg to 10 deg range even in level flight (maybe the source of some of my climb/airspeed difficulties).

As I am now paused in Climb Stage 2 (T/O and METO appeared to go OK, other than the nose-high issue), I read the following:

Empty weight: 79907 lbs
Payload: 10984 lbs
Fuel: 16030 lbs

MAP 41"
RPM 2500
Cowls 20%
BMEP 210 in all engines
Total FFPH about 4200
All temperatures in the mid-green bands

All of this results in a climb of 500 fpm at 135 KTS IAS

I am climbing with the A/P on and the elevator trim shows "5" in the green band.

The inclinometer is 8.4 degrees nose high

That is my current report

At least it is in the air :-)

Regards,
Roberto

[chris_c]

Tom wrote:

Some people were having problems with the Connie and the solution was posted here in this forum. Anyone remember that? Could that be the problem? I think it had something to do with the yoke/joystick controls, FSUIPC settings or something like that?

This thread dealt with Super Constellation engine problems but in FSX and there were external programs and file editing involved and no real "bug" was identified:

calclassic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2882&page=1

Then there is this one but it also does not seem to apply and is FSX again:

calclassic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2863

I went back a fair ways looking for another Connie thread where the solutions were not user related but couldn't find one.

Chris

[emfrat]

Hi Tom, everyone -
I managed to organise a really weird problem with the Starliner
These posts cover it:

Reply#25
calclassic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=645&page=2

Reply#7
calclassic.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=chat&thread=775&page=1

ATB
MikeW

[Tom/CalClassic]

That was the one I was thinking of Mike, but since the Super Connie doesn't have a speed brake I guess that doesn't apply here...

[sunny9850]

Tom I think you are on the right track despite the fact that the Super Connie does not have a "Speedbrake". The "Spoiler" drag is still being used and if a Spoiler axis is present in FSUIPC or the / key is used at some point you still might end up with a very very draggy airplane....and the numbers Roberto reports in his posts.

To test this theory open the aircraft.cfg file and look for this:

spoiler_limit = 70.000 <<<<< ----- Change this one to = 00.001
aileron_to_spoileron_gain = 0.000
spoiler_handle_available = 1 // HJN 0503
min_ailerons_for_spoilerons = 0.000
min_flaps_for_spoilerons = 0.000
spoilerons_available = 0
auto_spoiler_available=0
spoiler_extension_time=8.000000
positive_g_limit_flaps_up=4.068376
positive_g_limit_flaps_down=2.000000

Make the change as outlined in bold and save the file and then try again.

Stefan

[chris_c]

EDIT
I will leave the original post alone on principle but tested for CG issues in the L1049G using Roberto's numbers and had no problem achieving expected take off and climb performance. Please disregard what follows...
____________________________________________________
Note that he loaded 50% fuel in five tanks:

Changed fuel to 50% in the following tanks "Centre", "Centre2", 'Centre3", "External1" and "External2" as indicated in the FS9 fuel/payload tab. The rest are in "zero".

I was thinking that his nose-high attitude (causing excessive drag perhaps) might be a balance issue due to having over 2000 pounds of fuel in tank #5 which is farther behind the CG and comparatively little in tanks 1-4. It's only a ton in #5 but could it be a factor?

Chris

[mrcapitalism]

Your climb performance seems normal to me... Although your speed looks slow (should be doing 170 KIAS.. perhaps accelerate before beginning the climb?)

I find that I get around 500 FPM from METO all the way to cruise... it's mighty slow :-)

In climb, your nose up pitch seems appropriate... But I get this kind of performance at max weight in FSX. It's strange that you're getting it with such a light aircraft.

[volkerboehme]

Hi,

to me it sounds you like you might be on the back end of the power curve. Did you ever achieve 170 kts?

Once you are clear of ground obstructions @ 145 kts/60% Flaps/METO power, you will need to retract flaps and then accelerate in METO power until you reach 170 kts. You will probably have to avoid excessive pitching during flap transition, but acceleration should then go smoothly even at MTOW.

You will probably have a hard time accelerating at climp power (41"/2500) even when flying level, let alone during climb. Actually, I doubt that it is possible at all.

I don't think that FSX should make a substantial diference to FS9 in this respect. What do you use?

Best regards,
Volker