Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2010 11:51:53 GMT -5
Hello everybody! It is now Sunday morning and I am quite happy, for two reasons. One, it is still raining in Toronto and Becky remains understanding Two, you guys are great. Great concern and great advice. The "trick" that did it, is Stefan's suggestion to reduce the spoiler limit to 00.001. It now takes off with a spunk, I finally "saw" 170 knots in the airspeed indicator and the nose is low enough that I can also "see" a bit of ground on climb, without having to "sit at the edge of the seat" I have to go and play with my grandson for a few hours (he is two, and being with him trumps everything; he already points at every aircraft in the sky ) and then I will take her for a spin in the rare atmosphere of Bolivia (SLCB to SLTJ sounds like a nice plan) to check the parameters. Thank you kindly for your patience and great interest. Regards, Roberto
|
|
|
Post by volkerboehme on Aug 22, 2010 12:19:06 GMT -5
Hi,
glad to hear that. Give it some time to try and lat us know about the results.
Best regards, Volker
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Aug 22, 2010 12:43:58 GMT -5
Ok since that "trick" worked you must have a "spoiler activated" when it should not be. As I said in the other posting that typically happens if you have assigned a spoiler axis in FSUIPC at one time. You may not even use that anymore but for some reason it causes this conflict. Option A: Make a "aircraft specific" configuration in FSUIPC for the Connie (downside is you must have one for each paint scheme) but you can keep the spoiler axis for other airplanes such as modern jets that have such things. Option B: Change the default FSUIPC configuration to clear all assignments for Spoiler axis. That eliminates all problems with the Connies and then make a "aircraft specific" one with spoiler axis assignment for those planes only where you need it. Finally go back and reset the aircraft.cfg file to the original value to get the original drag back we need from the cowl flaps Stefan
|
|
|
Post by Randy_Cain on Aug 22, 2010 13:52:16 GMT -5
Hi, Roberto, Hi! I have a quick story for you. I recently (yesterday) had to install FS9 from scratch on a new machine. I only had time to get the L1049G v2 package (Eastern Airlines on the preview) and go fly with online with Tom and the gang. I had EXACTLY SAME RESULTS as you did when flying the climb phase...even after I remembered, right after take off, to dump fuel from all but 4 tanks...as you mentioned earlier. I couldn't keep up and still didn't get more than 150KIAS til reducing climb to about 300 FPM. By coincidence, I was finishing my connie installations this morning when I saw this thread. Go back and be SURE you installed this updated FDE files www.flightsim.com/kdl.php?fid=145700 correctly. I got lucky and got it in the first shot...after a full night's sleep and 2 cups of coffee. If you're still not running the correct aircraft config (rs, rst, s, st) then you might be missing part of the update. This update is newer than the original "re-upload" of the Eastern Airlines package (v2) at AVSIM. I now see the performance that everyone ELSE said was "normal". Yours, (P.S. If you'd like to join us some Saturday for an online flight we'd LOVE to have you! We use TeamSpeak 3 and the servers at Kenny Fox's site FSVintageAIR.com . Registration is free. We keep in each other posted on what's new here at calclassic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=chat&action=display&thread=1047
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2010 16:43:27 GMT -5
Hi Folks: Randy, thanks for the advice. I checked and I am sure that I installed the right FDE file after the initial posts, I made sure that I checked every step twice I think that Stefan has hit the nail (twice). It is, indeed, the whole spoiler issue. I do, indeed, have an axis of the CH Throttle Quadrant, assigned to "Spoilers" and I have calibrated it and set it up via FSUIPC quite a while ago. So now I know where the problem was. As I "play" with various groups and some of them only fly jets (they argue that one hour in a propliner, is much longer than one hour in a B767 .... I am still struggling with that one!) I will investigate Stefan's "Option A" ... I will definetly look for all of you on a Saturday and maybe even convince you to eventually try an "ear-popping" flight in Bolivia!! In my youth, I saw DC-3's, DC-4's and DC-6's of LAB (the local airline) as well as DC-7's of PANAGRA and BRANIFF land in La Paz (SLLP, 13,300 ft ASL) regularly. Thanks again for all the help. I know that I will enjoy this add-on quite a bit. I think that the model, the textures, the panels and the fidelity of the instruments are great! Roberto
|
|
|
Post by Randy_Cain on Aug 22, 2010 20:47:54 GMT -5
Hi, I'm glad Stefan found it for you. To next Saturday, we are currently working our way around the world. We started with our first test flights of the then "new" L-1649 Starliner in Shannon Ireland. We're currently in Zandery, French Guiana (SMJP) and next week will be in smaller planes for an island tour up the coast. Convairs, or similar.....just so we can see more of the scenery there. (Northern Brazil was pretty flat.) Anyway, we're slowly working our way up the coast to New York and eventually back to Shannon, Ireland. We didn't start our trip out as a " 'round the world" tour. It just sorta happened. I hope to see...ok, hear you next weekend. ;D Yours,
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Aug 22, 2010 20:48:11 GMT -5
But we already did a flight to/from Bolivia, about 3 months ago (or so).
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Aug 23, 2010 6:34:09 GMT -5
...they argue that one hour in a propliner, is much longer than one hour in a B767 .... I am still struggling with that one! To believe so, probably they have tried out a propliner that approaches speed of light, then... rather wasteful to travel that fast in the atmosphere though. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by coenraad on Aug 25, 2010 4:46:31 GMT -5
Yeah on our server where i fly they mostly fly jets as well. A hand full fly props. But sometimes they do join me. Quite some have props installed, of wich also like 6 or so who have the Connies. But yeah, it's not uncommon that people laugh at me as the "prop guy" haha. I do fly jets as well from time to time. But props are just nice. And not flight computers and that <Beep>
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Aug 25, 2010 8:53:35 GMT -5
Last jet I flew was the... ummm... the... does the F86 Sabre count as a jet? If it does, then it was about a month ago. After its reinstallation I did a circuit on the old bug ( as I wish for the real successor of the Mustang to be the only jet engined plane of my next world tour)... before that... well, can't remember. Really couldn't care less of other people trying to bug me because I'm not flying a plane with cigars under the wings. Ceased worrying about the wants of the unwashed masses quite a while ago. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2010 10:14:38 GMT -5
Hi folks: Like in any countries where airports were build in deep valleys, there are a few countries around South America’s western coast (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Chile in particular) that have wonderfully scenic approaches if you have the right detail in the scenery. All who have tried a visual approach to Quito’s (SEQU) RWY 17, or an approach over the Andes from Mendoza (SAME) in Argentina to Santiago (SCEL) in Chile, or a departure from Cochabamba (SLCB) in Bolivia, which requires at least one orbit over the city and airport to gain altitude before exiting the valley, or the “figure 8” arrival over the VOR into Tarija (SLTJ) in Bolivia, will know what I am referring to. I want to make mention of a new scenery for Sucre (SLSU) in Bolivia, made by LatinVFR which I purchased a couple of months ago. The "real" runway of this airport, has a significant slope change about midpoint, that makes the reference to visual cues interesting, as the final approach appears steeper than it is (due to the climbing grade of the approach runway). LatinVFR has been able to replicate the runway change of slope in a fairly realistic manner, although passing through the slope change line is a bit abrupt. Nevertheless, I don’t know (yet) of another airport where the change of terrain slope on a runway is simulated. Just to make sure you all know, I am not associated in any manner with LatinVFR nor do I get any commission I bought the scenery because of my personal interest in the area and I thought that it was an interesting change from the routine sceneries we are all familiar with. Just Google it to get the details. Roberto
|
|
|
Post by sheckylt on Mar 25, 2015 12:57:24 GMT -5
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, I had the same problem even after installing all the updates. It turns out that there are some anomalies in the aircraft.cfg file. In [piston engine] section look for an entry that says "critical_altitude=(some number). Mine said 600. That's way too low. After reaserching the actual performance, I changed this value to 12500. This made a huge difference. The critical altitude is the altitude it will require full throttle to get 41 in MAP in low blower. 600 is way too low. I now get book numbers. It is also important to fly the airplane according to the checklists. It is a very complex aircraft, and the engines require constant attention during climb. I am a pilot of multi-engine piston aircraft in the real world, and I find the Cal Classic 1049G quite a challenge. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Mar 25, 2015 13:21:01 GMT -5
Mine is set at 600 and I don't have any problems.
|
|
|
Post by Defender on Mar 26, 2015 11:30:44 GMT -5
Hi,
Just in case anyone else is thinking of changing the critical_altitude from 600 to 12500, let me explain why there's a good reason behind the Connie FDE expert Luis Pallas making it 600 in the first place.
The FS critical altitude is supposed to be the highest density altitude that the full published TO power is available. In the real Super Connie with the 3,250 bhp DA3 engine it's actually 5,500' but because FS can't model the true critical altitude in a supercharged engine, the setting has to be a compromise. As Volker says in the update manual "...The default FS flight model simulates turbocharged engines with wastegate overpressure control. However, the real Super Constellation’s R-3350 engines were equipped with superchargers geared to the crankshaft and had no overpressure control......"
So what happens is that with the 600 setting you will be able to get 3,250 bhp TO power right up to just under 5,500'. That 600 setting also permits all the engine performance figures set out in the manual and in the Engine Power Schedule. Luis also gives an option in the aircraft.cfg of a setting of 5400 which although unrealistic for most operations will enable folk to get more power at Denver, La Paz etc.
I'm not sure whether MAP targets are part of sheckylt's problems but it's perhaps worth emphasising that the various engine power levels in the Connies should be set by RPM and BMEP, not MAP. For any given RPM level, the BMEP is always directly in proportion to BHP. However the published MAP levels are only ever a maximum because for any given BHP/BMEP level they will vary with temperature, pressure and humidity. I understand the maximum allowable level exists because the fuel injectors work from the weight of air so if the air is less dense than normal ISA it will take a greater volume of air to produce the same power hence the need for an air intake pressure/MAP limit. Therefore because these are never the normal ISA levels, don't expect to see the exact published MAP being reached if you're operating at ISA (SL 29.92" 59F). So on a cold day at sea level you'll get max power at less than the MAP limit but if high and hot the MAP limit is reached first so you can't get max power.
The correct RPM/BMEP settings for the real DA3 powered L1049G and the corresponding altitude limits before power falls off are,
Take Off 2,900 RPM, 264 BMEP from Sea level to 5,500'
METO 2,600 (or 2,650) RPM, 245 BMEP at Sea Level up to 250 BMEP at 5,800'
Normal Climb 2,500 RPM, using the BMEP settings in the Engine Power Schedule (approx 200).
Be sure to use the "Set Best" icon. Keep in AR throughout the climb and low blower for as long as possible, say up to 14,000'. Ignore MAP!
Bill
|
|