|
Post by Falcon on Sept 4, 2011 16:23:38 GMT
Thanks Mark for the suggestions. I have 3 different panels. SGA will not work as the gauges are to old for FSX as you adivsed. The panel I've had problems with seeing out the windscreen, (even on the ground taxing) is a generic 3 holer panel. The one that seems to be the best is actually for the DC-10, but has the oval gauges, which I have corrected almost complete. Thanks again. Falcon
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 4, 2011 18:07:32 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 Yes the AoA! I also have it (out of the Tu 154M) installed in various planes, especially if there is no documentation of the real plane any more available. But in the case of the DC-10 this is not the case, the SGA DC-10 is very near in its numbers to the real thing and an AoA out of the Tushka is quite a matter of a different style. And having provoked a style discussion here before I don't dare to propose it, but only among us: I am flying my DC-10 with the panel of the L 1011 ;D till some better solution arrives and with the speeds of the real DC-10 provided by Matt Zagoren. Kind regards Walter
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 5, 2011 4:42:26 GMT
I realize "this" (what I'm about to comment) may not be a priority for you at this time, but, a major drawback (if not the only drawback) to your using our MITCHELL/CARTY L1011 panel with the FFX/SGA/CANTU DC10's is .... one will likely not then get accurate engine instrument readings/indications .... and .... the integrety of some other panel gauge instrument "may" suffer too. This's because of the panel/gauge/FDE relationship which exists with all of/most of the panel/aircraft productions we offer .... meaning the MITCHELL/CARTY L1011 panels offered by us ("HERE") are intended for use with none other than the L1011 model/FDE data we also provide. The engine gauges/instrument (in particular) in these panels are calibrated ("as best our skills and FS limitations will permit") according to known RR RB211 engine performance parameters rather than those of P&W and GE engines which power the DC10's. Our L1011 panels will/should still be "FLYABLE" with the DC10's though ;D It just depends on what one/ the end user wants .... "AUTHENTICITY" .... or .... just a "BASIC WORKABLE SOLUTION". For the DC10's .... I'd still encourage one to use the SGA DC10 related panel files recommended, by me, much earlier on within this thread .... only these likely won't work within FSX. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 5, 2011 13:06:23 GMT
Hi Mark Thanks for your comments: Besides the obvious that the engine instruments don't play correctly together with the engines, the fuel system also doesn't cooperate with the panel, even if you define the tanks according the L 1011 in the aircraft.cfg. Sorry AND: reloaded the SGA panel and flew it again: at daylight there is no color difference between the ADI,HSI and the rest. AND: SGA-panels AP with DC-10 flies the ILS perfectly, I stay with the SGA-panel! Walter
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 6, 2011 4:59:27 GMT
"THAT" .... unfortunately .... is what "can" (and often does) happen (what I was meaning) in cases where any panel is assigned to an FS aircraft type/model/FDE for which it wasn't originally custiomized. I don't encourage anyone actually do "THIS" (what I'm about to comment), but, if one's "so desperate" as to want to use our L1011 panel/s with any of the FFX/SGA/CANTU DC10's .... then .... at the very least .... one would probably need to replace the entitre current DC10 [ELECTRICAL] and [FUEL] data sections (CFG) with that from one of our L1011's .... as well as the [AUTOPILOT] section (CFG again) too .... just to get the panel "basically working" HOWEVER .... "BEWARE" .... because doing this will likely also screw the currently assigned DC10 aircraft weights (CFG) and COG too .... and maybe promote other issues as well One can "TRY" doing "THIS" .... but again .... I'm not encouraging it as a solution. Once again .... I recommend using only those SGA DC10 panel files which are supposedly customized for these aircraft which I've referenced earlier within this thread .... despite the fact that even these still need a bit of tweaking too in IMHO. It's simply the very best option currently available .... so far as I'm aware ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 6, 2011 9:33:47 GMT
Yes you are right!, see may modified post!
I have a question relating to the air-file: I have two of them SGA1015 and FFXDC1015, both created 26. 9. 2006 SGA modified 2.11.2006 and FFX modified 2.5. 2007, which is the better one?
Thanks
Walter
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 6, 2011 9:53:20 GMT
I can only recommend those DC10 files listed within my extensive posting (dated Aug 28, 2011, 5:24am) .... as appears on "PAGE 3" of this thread ! So far as I'm aware .... the downloadable files and file dates referenced within that posting are "the most recent officially released (by SGA) versions" of these files. I'm not aware of anything more recent that represents "an official release by SGA". I really wouldn't be inclined toward using anything else ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 7, 2011 17:46:51 GMT
Hi Mark: Did download the files again from flightsim.com the release-dates coincide with yours and I installed the airfile and the FDE as it came.
BUT: With the that airfile, FDE (and the SGA-panel) reappeared the nasty behavior which made me searching among the whole FS-community years ago: The DC-10-15 flies nose down on approach and lands flat (at max landing weight) something the real DC10 never does and the SGA-panels clever fuel-panel doesn't move the fuel forward and backward as it should do. Therefore I went back to my installation, sorry I don't know from where I got the files.
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 7, 2011 20:23:11 GMT
The files I've recommended "ARE" .... apparently .... the most recent official SGA released DC10 FDE's .... so far as I'm aware. Is what you're experiencing affecting just the DC10-15 only .... OR .... other versions as well ? Also .... is what you're experiencing happening with just that particular DC10 panel/FDE combination .... OR .... is it happening also with any other DC10 panel with the same FDE combination. This would interest me ! The SGA DC10 panel I've recommended .... was recommended by me because it's the only "FREEWARE" panel version that seems to come remotely close to representing the correct combing shape of the DC10 .... which is actually quite distinctive .... and .... because it was an official release for these then SGA hosted CANTU DC10 models. I'm not aware of a better panel version .... and it surprises me to learn of the DC10-15 attitude/AOA performance you're getting with it (during AP controlled/ILS coupled approaches to landing I assume) .... although i'm not fully familiar with it myself yet. Are you sure you're speed was OK .... not too fast .... Are you sure you're not still overweight for landing ? The only issue i recall experiencing (so far) with this panel .... but .... which is likely only related to the original FDE's I was using .... is that above FL250 I've observed that the N1 engine values start to exceed the N2 engine values (a bit challenging ;D) .... and which is what prompted me to start looking for better/more recent SGA sanctioned FDE in the first place. I, myself, have still yet to try everything. Chris .... if you're out there .... You seem to be quite familiar with what SGA have done in the past. Are you aware of any more recent SGA DC10 FDE updates than those I've recommended to date ? Perhaps refer to my extensive posting on "PAGE 3" (dated Aug 28, 2011, 5:24am) priotr to advising .... thanks ! Walter .... I've sent you a PM ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Sept 7, 2011 21:03:26 GMT
The ones you listed Mark are the only ones I know of. Remember, these aircraft were designed for FS2002 and we did have some issues when FS2004 was released that the aircraft became "rocketships", same problem that the HJG DC-8's had. Mike had put out FDE updates to fix this, but those are the only official fixes I'm aware of. It was all due to a couple sections of the AIR file being changed in FS2004 that resulted in the L/D curves being off if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 7, 2011 21:35:38 GMT
Thanks Chris ! I think the FS2002 files were namely those released by FFX .... as part of the original base packs, but, I'm pretty sure the SGA DC10 FDE UPDATE (as recommended by me) upgraded all of those FDE's (only) to FS2004. Hopefully Walter will send me what he has .... in respect of whatever he's got that might be more recent than what I've been advocating to date .... for me to look more closely at when I get time to do so. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 8, 2011 1:37:08 GMT
Hi Mark: Did send you the files of the 10-15 and 10-30 dont have other ones. In the 10-15 aircraft.cfg I have added an ADF number 2. Working to build in more radios into the SGA-panel. And its a pity that I cannot remember from where the download of the 2006 2007 files came from. Kind regards Walter
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 8, 2011 11:38:12 GMT
Thanks Walter ! Actually .... you might have a valid point there regarding the DC10-15 FDE .... which surprises me considering what I recommended is, indeed, an "official SGA update/release" Earlier today I did a couple of quick tests with the DC10-15 .... just around the KSEA circuit/pattern .... terminating in fully manual and AP controlled ILS coupled auto-approaches to landing. For each of these tests my fuel loading was restricted to just 20% in all tanks. T/O was fine. The AP functioned fine too (HDG HLD, ROC, ALT HLD) .... as did the AT (IAS HLD) too. In lever cruise (at up to 250 KIAS and 5000 FT) in simulations attitude/AOD remained good .... just a few degrees nose up. During the "manual" approach to landing .... the approach attitude/AOA remained good .... even with full flap set .... and maintaining around 145 KIAS (AT) .... so .... no apparent problem there. HOWEVER .... During the AP controlled ILS/coupled auto-approach to landing .... and at the same AT controlled approach airspeed with full flap set .... everything turned to "CRAP" .... with the nose remaining level (in fact it even went down "SIGNIFICANTLY" at one point) right throughout the approach to landing. SO THEN .... it "does" seem that the "official SGA FDE release/update" for this particular DC10 version at least, does indeed have a problem (in regard to how the simulation wants to fly ILS coupled approaches to landing through the AP) to be reconciled ! I'll look at what you've sent me and report back later .... just a bit busy right now ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 11, 2011 23:59:00 GMT
Walter .... just briefy .... I've now looked at those DC10 FDE's you sent me. I've also noted that the latest official SGA released DC10-10 FDE update results in similar poor AOA issues with this aircraft version too (the DC10-10, -15, and -30 are all definitely affected .... so we might as well then assume that all 3 -40's are similar affected also) during AP controlled ILS coupled auto-approaches to landing. I've found minor errors in both lots of CFG data, but, when comparing your data with that of the official SGA released versions I've detected significant differences between the FLAP LIFT data of both. These values in the data you sent me are much lower than those represented within the SGA versions. At the moment I suspect it's this SGA FLAP LIFT data which is causing the AOA problems .... these values simply being "too high" and are "probably" what's forcing the nose down during approaches to landing and regardless of speed. This's always usually more acute in ILS coupled auto-approaches to landing than is evident in manually controlled landings .... at least from my own FS experience. When I apply your "lower" FLAP LIFT data to the original SGA CFG .... I then suddenly start getting good AOA results .... it seems ! It's early days yet and I'm still testing (when I've time to do so), but, my tests, so far, seem to indicate "I might be onto something" here. Here's some visual results from my tests with modified FLAP LIFT data .... and which I think now confirm a "MUCH MORE DC10-LIKE" approach to landing attitude .... I'm not suggesting I've identified the cause of the problem. I'm just saying the results of those modifications I've applied ..... to the DC10-10 CFG only so far .... are, indeed, "encouraging". In the past I've observed some HJG aircraft (not all of them though) can handle up to a 90* (degree) ILS intercept .... without problems .... so long as distance (20 + DME at least), aircraft weight, and speed (no more than 180 KIAS and reducing once established on the ILS) are in one's favor (I know for a fact our L1011 FDE can most certainly do this) .... BUT .... these DC10's can't seem handle such an acute angle of ILS intercept .... even with all the above factors working in ones favor. Instead they do tend to "dip quite severely in the banking turn to final" (inducing up to a 1000 + FPM ROD and often completely miss the beam), which then requires excessive trimming-up in order to try and bring the simulation back on the ILS profile (if one's lucky). At the moment I wouldn't recommend ILS intercepts more acute than a 20* to 45* (degree).... so long as distance, weight, and speed are, once again, in ones favor. 180 KIAS seems to be a good general intercept speed, with 3 knotches of flap extended, and prior to the gear going down .... and reducing to 140-150 KIAS during the remainder of the approach to landing and by the time full flap is set. I'll report more later on .... when I get time ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Sept 12, 2011 0:29:20 GMT
Mark, a 90 degree intercept will typically require more than 15 degrees of bank, which accounts for why you see the dip. The DC-10 manual strongly suggests limiting all bank to less than 15 degrees with any flaps deployed because of the change in angle of attack they cause. This rise will cause a massive increase in the stall speed of the wing when bank is introduced. As such, 45* intercepts are the maximum recommended, so this behavior is actually "true to life". The L1011 has a notation that 15 degrees of bank should not be exceeded unless at or above minimum maneuvering speed for the flap setting in use, but not a restriction with any flaps deployed. The DC-8 manual has no mention of restriction at all. So, I guess it's something unique to the DC-10/MD-11 wing design as the MD-11 has the same restriction noted.
|
|