Okay..how did they do it..?

[beeker46]

DC-7s flying from one coast to the other, nonstop, in just under 8 hours? I know FSX is nothing like real life, but I have been flying this DC-7B from KRIC to KLAX since 6:30 this morning, using Active Sky Next for weather and battling a somewhat resistant headwind (50-60 knots) most of the way. I have been using the handling notes religiously from taxi, take off and now cruise. Now, just crossing El Paso, I am just short of eight hours out of Richmond, VA and with another 3 hours of flying left to go (if my humble skills with an E6B are telling the truth). That is well over 8 hours. I have plenty of gas, but if not for that persistent headwind I might now be on approach to LAX. I would not think the weather today was much different than it was 50+ years ago, even at 20,000 feet... so, how did they do it under 8 hours...? Or, did they pull a Howard Hughes trick (like he did in 1942 with the L-049 and boast of nonstop flight with a heavily modified Connie and max throttle all the way), with the DC-7? I have no doubt my return trip will be under 8 hours with a decent tailwind behind me.... Is the sim DC-7, in its limitations in FS, so vastly different than the real world -7?

edit:
I think I answered my own question.. seems even the DC-7B required a stop. It wasn't until the DC-7C that nonstop flight was achieved.. so, THAT was how they did it...

[Tom/CalClassic]

Hi,

To my knowledge no DC-7C was ever used on nonstop US transcon flights, except for Northwest's NYC to Seattle route. So it was DC-7s and DC-7Bs that did the job.

1. In this 1954 AAL timetable, the Mercury departed IDL at 5 pm and arrived in LAX at 9:55. That's 4:55. Add in the time zones and that's 7:55.

www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/aa/aa54/aa54-03.jpg

But it was not unusual for airlines to lie about their arrival times in their timetables. American was sued for exactly this example, and had to change their times from 7:55 in 1954 to 8:35 in 1958 due to prevailing headwind data that had been generated in the time between those years.

www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/complete/aa58/aa58-03.jpg

2. What power setting did you use? At High Weight Econ Power (United Standard Power), you plan for 285 KTAS. It is 2139 NM from IDL to LAX. That means the time should be 7.53 hours. So if you maintain an average of 285 KTAS over the distance, you will make it just fine. Now you say you had a 50 kt headwind. This means your speed is only around 235 KTAS. That will take you 9.1 hours. See the problem? And it appears your speed was less than that, since you estimate the trip to take 11 hours - that would be only 195 KTAS, suggesting that you were not attaining 285 KTAS without wind (i.e. only about 245 KTAS), or your average headwind has been higher than that (about 90 kts). Perhaps you did not get high enough soon enough to get your TAS up? When time is of the essence I climb until my TAS (found on the airspeed indicator tooltip) is as high as I can get it. If I climb 2000 ft and the TAS is lower, I drop back down for a while. Remember, in this specific case you are not aiming for efficiency (which is what FSAviator's handling notes are designed for), but SPEED. Thus you would maintain this higher cruise power if your calculations showed you were running late.

3. When you are in a headwind, the Propliner Tutorial says you should be using an even higher power setting. At Max Cruise Power, you plan for 306 KTAS, 61 kts faster than the original cruise power speed. That means that your 9 hour trip would be cut to 8.36 hours, quite reasonable. At 3000 PPH that's 25080 lbs of fuel, well within the fuel capacity with reserves.

4. Even back then, they used Pressure Pattern flying. That is due to the fact that the great circle route is not always the fastest, due to headwinds. They would plan the flights so they were flying in tailwinds most of the time, or at least the very lowest headwinds. Westbound, when you fly north of a low pressure area or south of a high pressure area, you will often find tailwinds.

5. And yes, there were occasions where DC-7s and DC-7Bs did have to make a fuel stop, especially if they were full of passengers (i.e. could not load enough fuel) and there were unavoidable headwinds. But that was relatively rare.

Hope this helps,

[Tom/CalClassic]

PS. I just performed a speed test using the DC-7 using High Weight Econ Power (20,000 ft, 2300 RPM, 735 PPH, 50% fuel, no wind) and it was maintaining 295 KTAS, so the plane does not appear to be the problem.

[beeker46]

I started at 16,000 feet, with max settings (wind right on the nose at 65 knots) for the whole way to Dallas. I fly with the weather interpretation that Active Sky Next gives me, and it is usually pretty accurate, so I have no idea how the aircraft would perform in a no-wind situation. Nose stayed level, trim slightly up and CHT normal. I was flying the 7B like I usually fly the DC-6B at heavier weights. WHen I finally reached 22,000 feet (closing in on El Paso) I had the throttle at max and was barely pushing 39", it was the fastest I could push it. Aux tanks were at 10%, and main tanks were around 55%, I had just switched them back on the mains. I never touch the passenger weights, so whether there was a full seating, or not, I don't know. I had enough fuel to make it, but I did not have time to finish the flight, so I exited out of it (real life does put a crimp in sim flying...from time to time). Perhaps I was misinterpreting the handling notes, it was the first time I had ever taken the controls of the DC-7. Most of my flying is done in the -6B and the CV-240..I prefer the shorter hops over the longer hauls.

Is there a background program that will randomize passenger figures, simulating fully loaded or sparsely loaded aircraft (or anything in between) that would work with these old birds? I had always wondered that, as I know that not all flights had every seat filled, and I do not want to fiddle around with those settings manually each and every flight.

Anyway, that was my first experience with the DC-7, and it won't be the last, but I do have alot more learning to do...

[beeker46]

One other thought here...you mentioned Pressure Pattern flying... That is something i have yet to try my hand at. Right now all my flight planning is based on a map of the Civil Airways (Amber, Green, Red and Blue airways) that I have had for years sitting in my 'flight bag' (ie. my desk). Weather is loaded in, I load up the flight plan in sim (always VFR, as I hate interacting with default ATC-I take off and land regardless of the airport's current status on the active runway info I get from ATIS) and off I go. I will look into how Active Sky Next depicts high and low pressure areas and see if I can take advantage of tailwinds even flying west... I just never put that much depth into it before. I like to be realistic, but I also like to keep it fun..its why I never use SIDs and STARs, either..just too much 'work' involved, lol...

[Tom/CalClassic]

Another question. Why did you use the civil,airways through Dallas? The route via Oklahoma City would have been shorter and possibly faster.

[Defender]

This video might inspire you if you haven't already seen it. One of the best of its kind I think. Watched it several times.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bubJ85xStVA

The 365 mph is probably the very end of the cruise.

Bill

[beeker46]

Tom, I flew from Richmond to L.A., not from NYC, so out of KRIC, down Green to Atlanta, then Red westward to Dallas, then Green all the way out to L.A., at least that is how my map depicts things. It is from the DC3Airways Radio Range System. While the Radio Range addon probably won't work in FSX (at least I have never tried it, since it is for FS9), I do have that map and I have used the appropriate VORs to simulate the route(s). Anyway, I may try again with the DC-7C that I just got around to adding to my hangar. My 'home' field is KRIC since it is the closest to where I actually live (an hour's drive away). Now that I think about it, I just may try that addon for FSX and see if it does work.. I always enjoyed flying the Ranges in FS9, even if that beep does get a bit annoying over time, lol....

Defender, I think I watched that years ago, but I will watch it again, I'm a sucker for those old(er) films and enjoy them for the inspiration and insight.

[Tom/CalClassic]

Another thought. Leaving RIC, you could have flown due west off airways until reaching the airway to OKC. That would have shortened your trip a bit. Off airway legs were not unusual.

[mrcapitalism]

In addition to the points made by everybody else here, it's important to point out that some flight schedules are not feasible in all seasons. Specifically, in the United States in the winter (when you're attempting this route) the prevailing winds increase due to the southward movement of the Jet Stream.

I know FSX is nothing like real life

yet it's teaching you valuable real life lessons, and giving you real life challenges. Quite a powerful little program wouldn't you agree?

In the propliner tutorial, you'll want to spend some time contemplating the chapter "PROPLINER TUTORIAL - PART 2C (ENROUTE PHASE IN DETAIL)"

Enjoy!

[thomas]

Hi
Yes there is. It's called FSPassengers. It will do more than just randomise the passengers numbers: it will also evaluate your take-offs and landings (if you want it to), hit you with emergencies (if you want it to), evaluate how much you keep to schedule (if you want it to) and many other nice things. Google it - I think it's at www.fspassengers.com

Dec 5, 2019 23:49:31 GMT -5 beeker46 said:

Is there a background program that will randomize passenger figures, simulating fully loaded or sparsely loaded aircraft (or anything in between) that would work with these old birds? I had always wondered that, as I know that not all flights had every seat filled, and I do not want to fiddle around with those settings manually each and every flight.