|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 28, 2011 21:49:44 GMT
I've further tidied up my listings of recommended DC10 files above.
Hopefully it's all a bit easier to follow now.
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by tokolosh on Aug 28, 2011 22:38:37 GMT
I've further tidied up my listings of recommended DC10 files above. Hopefully it's all a bit easier to follow now. Amazing overview and very clear. Thank you. Albert
|
|
|
Post by bluestar on Aug 28, 2011 23:35:52 GMT
Garryrussel,
Have you flown the DC10 or the MD11?
Are you an aeronautical engineer and do you understand the physics of the design?
bs
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Aug 29, 2011 9:31:01 GMT
I believe that Garry was referring to FS and Aharons question about using files from one model in another model, which is absolutely not a good idea FS-wise. I don't see Garry is arguing either the MD11 over the DC10 or vice verse.
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Aug 29, 2011 13:04:06 GMT
Aharons question about using files from one model in another model, which is absolutely not a good idea FS-wise. How right you are! Sometimes it helps (without guarantee) to use the airfile and the aircraft.cfg of a plane together and apply that to the model of another plane. But still strange effects can occure: flying nose down in flare, going straight up after roll out and crashing, landing meters below the runway etc. Not to talk about custom-made panels which loose functions or refuse to start the engines and so on.... Kind regards Walter
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Aug 31, 2011 3:13:46 GMT
I'm not going to take the time to make up all the quotes but,
1) Mark, the early DC-10-10 with the splitter plates are GE-powered. All DC-10's except the DC-10-40 are GE, the DC-10-40's are P&W. The only reason the DC-10-40 exists is because Northwest and JAL desperately wanted the DC-10 but at the time they were flying the 747-100 & -200 with JT-9D and they wanted at least some level of interchangeability between their (at the time) only high-bypass turbofan aircraft. However, as the JT-9D was significantly inferior to the CF6 in both thrust and fuel economy, these two airlines would be the only ones to order the DC-10-40. Aeroflot then bought a bunch of the -40s when they were retired by their original owners, but the weight and range limitations of the JT-9D meant that very few have seen service beyond a 3rd owner.
2) Yes, I did assist in the research and development of the SGA DC-10 (both the free version and the payware "Fly To!" version). Fraser Turner, who did the original FDE work designed the free FDE to be within 5% of actual in all conditions and the payware one to be within 2%. Beyond that would have required a lot of external gauge programming which could have caused significant performance degradation, something SGA wasn't in favor of doing. We verified it versus the charts and with real DC-10 and KC-10 pilots verifying our data from flight test to their data in the real world and their own flights in FS. The upgraded FDE that Mike put out for the DC-10s placed the FDE close to the same fidelity as the "FlyTo!" aircraft. That update was only released once the "FlyTo!" series had become sufficiently dated as to not hurt sales of that product or violate our non-compete clause. Sadly we were never allowed to release the panel that was put together for the airplane which was SGA's own design, the one in the "FlyTo!" product was from a different author.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2011 17:58:12 GMT
Yes, I did assist in the research and development of the SGA DC-10 Christrott, Thank you for your great contributions to SGA DC-10s and it is honor to meet you on HJG forums!! Nice to meet you and please enjoy my screenshots of your SGA DC-10s in two screenshot subforums on HGJ forums. Aharon
|
|
|
Post by Falcon on Aug 31, 2011 18:47:52 GMT
Ok, all this discussion on the "10" spiked my interest as many were around when I was involved in Aviation. Does anyone know of a DC-10 panel that actually works in FSX? I've tried several, and they all have some issues in FSX. The only one I found displays oval gauges instead of round, and is not very realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Aug 31, 2011 19:01:12 GMT
I would hazard a guess that the oval gauges are due to a widescreen display?
|
|
|
Post by Falcon on Sept 1, 2011 16:51:03 GMT
You are correct Dan, regarding the widescreen. I've changed the display and that panel corrected a little, but still is somewhat oval. I did find a panel that is working well, but it doesn't give much view out the windscreen. I'm going to retry the SGA panel again when I find time. Thanks for the suggestion. Falcon
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 3, 2011 2:49:40 GMT
"BS" .... Garry's comments are in relation to FS parameters only ! I wondered what those flat fairing were called .... and I did, originally, think they were P&W related .... but which I'll edit/correct immediately. The thing that probably "threw me out" there .... and something I've realized only since acquiring Terry WADDINGTON's book ("McDONNELL-DOUGLAS DC-10") is that these DC10-10's were, indeed, GE powered (both GE CF6-D and D1), but, their tone was quite different from that of the GE CF6-50 type engines which I was nmostly accustomed to .... and which is why I though those particular DC10-10 engines were P&W's. I remember puzzling over this (their sound) when CO first began servicing AKL with DC10-10's during 1979. Would I be correct to assume that the Splitter Plates on all 3 engines on most DC10-10's were removed much later than 1980/81 ? Just curious ! I'm buggered if I know why I quoted the US configuration DC10-40 as being GE powered Probably just a copy & paste I forgot to edit .... What's the status of that other SGA DC10 panel now .... since I think the "FLY TO" DC10 series is no more .... so far as I'm aware .... so .... releasing it (if that were possible) might not now be so political.. Again .... I'm just curious ! If using a WIDESCREEN monitor .... You will be able to address any oval shaped gauge appearances "somewhat" per altering the screen/display resolutions .... but .... maybe not entirely In respect of "through the panel panel to exterior FS environment view" .... You should be able to raise and lower the horizon (and foreground) by using the SHIFT+BACKSPACE and SHIFT+ENTER keyboard commands respectively .... at least thats' the case in FS2004, but, I'm not sure in respect of FSX. Try it out anyway. Remember also .... A300B, DC10, and L1011 aircraft "DO" maintain quite a naturally high (nose high) AOA during approaches to landing .... which can, sometimes, restrict forward vision, of the RWY in FS .... sometimes necessitation at least 1 tap of weither of the recommended horizon adjustment/seat elevation keyboard commands .... BUT .... if one get's "too slow" then this visual situation will become progressively worse still. The best method of approach to landing, I find, using the recommended panel/s, and FDE, is to ensure that one is "light enough" (no more than around 20% fuel load remainning with a full payload) so they can approach "slow enough" (around 140-150 KIAS .... with full lap .... I find) .... and which seems to ensure a relatively good AOA throughout the approach to landing without loosing the VASI lights all the way down. The CLS (Commercial Level Simulations) DC10 product is the only one I'm aware of and which "IS" quite good (because the DC10 panel/combings have quite a distinctive shape/appearance). It also features a VC too .... if I remember correctly .... and it "IS" both FS2004/FSX compatible .... BUT .... it's not freeware .... unfortunately ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Sept 3, 2011 17:27:08 GMT
I wondered what those flat fairing were called .... and I did, originally, think they were P&W related .... but which I'll edit/correct immediately. The thing that probably "threw me out" there .... and something I've realized only since acquiring Terry WADDINGTON's book ("McDONNELL-DOUGLAS DC-10") is that these DC10-10's were, indeed, GE powered (both GE CF6-D and D1), but, their tone was quite different from that of the GE CF6-50 type engines which I was nmostly accustomed to .... and which is why I though those particular DC10-10 engines were P&W's. I remember puzzling over this (their sound) when CO first began servicing AKL with DC10-10's during 1979. Would I be correct to assume that the Splitter Plates on all 3 engines on most DC10-10's were removed much later than 1980/81 ? Just curious ! As far as I'm aware, the splitter plates were never removed from the D series engines. They only went away because the airlines started swapping the D series for 50 series engines due to the D series' "teething problems". To be honest, I don't know. I never actually got more than a very early BETA of it for use during testing, but then again, I think the panel was for FS2002 anyway since the SGA DC-10 was originally built for FS2002 and then upgraded into FS2004.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 3, 2011 22:12:06 GMT
See what you can find out Chris .... if you care to ! I, for one, would be interested .... and even if it is a "NO GO" I'd still like to know anyway Ya never know .... aye ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 4, 2011 11:34:32 GMT
Remember also .... A300B, DC10, and L1011 aircraft "DO" maintain quite a naturally high (nose high) AOA during approaches to landing .... BUT .... if one get's "too slow" then this visual situation will become progressively worse still. The best method of approach to landing, I find, using the recommended panel/s, and FDE, is to ensure that one is "light enough" (no more than around 20% fuel load remaining with a full payload) so they can approach "slow enough" (around 140-150 KIAS .... with full lap .... I find) .... and which seems to ensure a relatively good AOA throughout the approach to landing without loosing the VASI lights all the way down. Hi Mark: Here I am again with the approach-speed-attitude question. Your advice to come in with 150 kts is a good one. One has to take into account also, that the wonderful SGA model (I use normally the 10-15) comes with a very high payload of nearly 100.000 pounds, which brings you even with empty tanks above the maximum landing weight. I refer to Matt Zagorens data compilation for the 10-10 but the 10-15 had only more power, but the same airframe. All together you need with 10 tons of fuel remaining and full flaps 140 over the threshold and 150 while on approach with flaps 35. Lets assume the SGA model errs 5 % to the high side you are at 150 full flap for landing and 160 flap 35 approaching. As target speeds on approach (-0%). But one can always do is reduce the station loads from 16.000 pounds at every station to 12.000 p. 16.000 p would assume that every of your 277 pax have a weight including baggage of 140 kg. Kind regards Walter
|
|
|
Post by bluestar on Sept 4, 2011 15:35:13 GMT
Why not just add an AOA guage to your panel and the approach speeds will always be correct for the aircraft "FDE"? Fly the guage and not the IAS (which is not very realistic in some cases). I have it installed on all my MS aircraft and the speeds are always correct for the aircraft configuration.
bs
|
|