|
Post by Herman on Apr 11, 2024 18:21:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 11, 2024 21:34:38 GMT
"GOOD" taste Herman Hope you're finding the recently edited (DEC 2022 released) CV990 and CV990-A FDE's better. They "are" definitely "better" (in fact they "can't" not be considering what was applied to them) .... BUT .... setting TO power correctly (first of all), and then following the recommended ROC/altitude adjustment/power adjustment profile all the way up to cruising altitude (as stated within PP4,and PP5 in particular of the following-linked CV880/990 manual), is "ABSOLUTLY ESSENTIAL" with each of the "CV990's" in order to realize that "better" performance .... or one "WILL" get into trouble quite rapidly .... tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/1699/cv880-panels-installation-handling-notesBear in mind also we offer 2 basic versions of the CV990's. Both the original and modified aircraft. Significant performance differences exist between the CV990's and CV990-A's. The 2X "CV990" types replicate its original high-drag configuration which saw these aircraft only managing to achieve MACH 0.89/0.90 at normal cruising altitudes (scarcely better than the CV880's) .... whilst the 3X "CV990-A" aircraft replicate its later modified/reduced-drag configuration which saw these versions managing to achieve MACH 0.95/0.96/0.97 at normal cruising altitudes (albeit still below CV's/GD's original performance guarantees). I regard the CV990's as being our most difficult simulations "TO FLY WELL" (properly) .... but like applies to everything else lots of practice makes perfect and if one's prepared to do that (nothing wrong with the simulations it's just that they require more care/"a procedure" being adhered to), then, they'll master these simulations (aided by my tutorials) in no time at all and probably never look backwards .... even to the extent that once MACH 0.97 is achieved, and maintained, a kind of sadness overcomes one when its time to slow down, in order to start going down/descending, toward the end of one's virtual flight. Difficult simulations to fly, but also, a fun simulations to fly too .... "once properly mastered". Remember also new CV880 and CV990 sound packs were released during DEC 2022 as well). As another reminder: Gauges/Core Files (only .... "not panels or base packs/FDE") updates for the CV880's and CV990's (and B707's/B720's/C-135's, B727's, DC-8's, and DC-10's) will soon be released (not available yet). These address/fix a number of long-standing instrument/gauge related anomalies of varying degrees. Not all of these have been previewed (explained) by me yet, but, what has, so far, been presented can be reviewed per the following link .... tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/10504/forthcoming-upgrades-improvementsHope you're also using the HJG updated VC10, SUPER, VC-10, and C1K FDE edits too. These edits "ARE NOT" included within the DMFS base packs (since we opted not to mess with the original files). Instead these FDE edits are available separately, and individually, per the yellow placarded DOWNLOADS tabs "within each of the 4 individual VC10 aircraft type sections" on our (official) DOWNLOADS page. These FDE's are somewhat superior to the originals .... according to feedback received here following their DEC 2021 release. Whilst on this particular subject and FYI also: The "SUPER VC10 1154" base pack is "our own/HJG offering" (higher EW than the other SUPER as I recall) based on the DMFS files (but credited by us to DM by default as matter of courtesy/respect of course), is already composed of its updated FDE as a stand-alone download with our own EAA texture. Similarly hope you're enjoying the updated (during 2020) B707/B720/C-135 FDE's .... as well as those updated for the DC-8's too (updated during 2016 and with new sound packs too). New B707/B720/C-135 TYPE sound packs were also released during DEC 2020). I do have other updates for the few HJG offerings which haven't ever yet been further refined, but, I'm "biding my time" with these .... "for reasons" FYI also: I've been working on an FDE update for the VANGUARD's too .... "FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY THOUGH" (because I felt they really needed such), but, "NOT BEING ONE OF OUR OWN SIMULATIONS" (or rather not being something I can release without authorization) this project's never been a priority. Just one of many I've got on the back-burner and which I fiddle with occasionally .... when I've time, feel like it, or otherwise get bored or pissed-off. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Apr 12, 2024 14:01:46 GMT
Hi Friends: As I like the CV 990 A very much here the results of HJPC for the 990 A 6 ver 3: Cruising at Mach 0,82 (as Spantax did) it has a decent range of: At Mach 0,97 the range is considerably less: Take Off full and landing speeds at 180.000 pounds come out near to the HJG "manual". All that is calculated from the aircraft.cfg and air file of the simulation. Kind regards Walter
|
|
|
Post by Herman on Apr 12, 2024 15:19:53 GMT
Hello Mark;
Thank you for all your information. I re-downloaded and re- installed all the HJG Aircraft that had their files revised and updated.
Walter....I should start using those Jetliner Performance Calculator Charts.
Herman
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 12, 2024 20:07:37 GMT
There's a potential problem with flying the CV880's (and CV990's) at "reduced" high altitude cruising MACH (particularly following any MGW departure): As these simulations get slower their AI pitch attitude will want to drift up/increase. In fact it might go from a desirable +1* to an undesirable +3* (or even more) indication. This can't then be adjusted in the simulation like it can be per trim adjustment in RW operations, so, the only way to address this successfully, in FS, is to fly each at, or near, near their intended maximum speed/velocity.
When impact of the first and second oil price shocks of the 1970's started to really bite airline economies hard .... remaining CV990 operators progressively reduced high altitude MACH cruising velocity all the way down to MACH 0.77. An interesting fact concerning CV990's and MACH cruise reduction: When applied the range of these aircraft increased considerably .... to such an extent that MODERN AIR actually operated a number of scheduled trans-Atlantic flights direct from the US eastern seaboard. By comparison, and operating as fast as the CV990-A's could be safely flown, AMERICAN AIRLINES could barely, if at all, get their aircraft across the continental USA. With their higher speed came greater drag .... and significantly increased fuel consumption (for an aircraft type already disadvantaged with a payload capacity "considerably lower" than that of both the B707 and DC-8 too) .... which consequently resulted in range impairment accordingly.
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 12, 2024 21:06:06 GMT
To try'n get Herman's thread back on track .... my favorite 7X classic jetliners ... 1. B707-320C 2. BAC ONE-ELEVEN 475 3. DC-8-50 4. DC-8 SUPER 63 5. DC-10-30 6. CV880-22M 7. CV-990-A Hastily compiled though this/the above may be. Hard to judge one jetliner as being preferable to another (very hard call indeed) since "I do like'em all" .... and which is one of many reasons behind my insistence upon our maintaining HJG's original concepts, putting "real effort" into what we produce and offer .... the latter of which I hope's evident in the results people get to fly. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by Herman on Apr 13, 2024 12:10:21 GMT
Great selection there Mark. Yes indeed.... it is hard to make a selection. They all (jetliners) seem to have a beauty about them.....sleek..... aerodynamic and powerful. Cheers......Herman
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Apr 13, 2024 21:12:35 GMT
Kinda OT, but why does the Korean Air Lines DC-10 have the airline name written in hanja (Chinese characters) rather than Korea's own hangul script?
George
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 13, 2024 21:13:29 GMT
AND .... the "NOISIER" and "SMOKIER" then "THE BETTER" Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 13, 2024 21:18:50 GMT
Not sure .... and I stand to be corrected for saying this .... but I understand (was told/taught) there's a relationship between both Japanese and Chinese written language characters.
"IF" I remember correctly .... the Japanese written language was (historically) borrowed from the Chinese .... and improved upon by the Japanese .... and similar might also apply in respect of both Korean and Chinese characters too though once again (and I do stress this) I'm not entirely certain.
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Apr 14, 2024 5:32:45 GMT
"IF" I remember correctly .... the Japanese written language was (historically) borrowed from the Chinese .... and improved upon by the Japanese .... and similar might also apply in respect of both Korean and Chinese characters too though once again (and I do stress this) I'm not entirely certain. IIRC South Koreans (but not North Koreans) are still taught traditional Chinese characters in school, so perhaps this alternative representation was used for the benefit of peoples (from Taiwan, Hong Kong and Japan) who use those characters? George
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 14, 2024 8:03:03 GMT
I wouldn't have a clue George .... beyond my above suggestion but which is "a guess only" Whatever the reason I can confirm the titles appearing on particular livery/texture are correct .... for the era represented. We've got a couple variation of that particular livery era. The following are the others supporting the later large style font and which was used on both standard DC-10-30 and DC-10-30CF (along with other aircraft type fleet members during the same period .... Compare the font size evident per both of the above and with my earlier posted image. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Apr 16, 2024 9:38:27 GMT
Hi friends:
Regarding Marks comment of flying the CV-990A at much lower Mach as it was intended at its introduction: The high pitch angel was not only a headache for the cabin crew pushing the heavy trolleys upwards for serving the passengers but also the cockpit crew had to be very careful as the AoA was very near to stall at least while being in the first hours of the long-haul flight and not having an auto-throttle system.
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by Herman on Apr 16, 2024 11:22:24 GMT
Interesting comments Walter. I never would have thought of that. Herman
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Apr 16, 2024 12:41:39 GMT
Regarding Marks comment of flying the CV-990A at much lower Mach as it was intended at its introduction: The high pitch angle was not only a headache for the cabin crew pushing the heavy trolleys upwards for serving the passengers but also the cockpit crew had to be very careful as the AoA was very near to stall at least while being in the first hours of the long-haul flight and not having an auto-throttle system. Wasn't the DC-10 also mildly notorious among cabin crews for its high pitch angle during cruising flight? George
|
|