|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 12, 2011 0:54:12 GMT
Quite likely ! Allow me to clarify one thing though .... I'm not actually advocating a 90* (degree) intercept being routine/normal, but rather, it's just one of the many different FS tests I perform when evaluating the FS performance of any aircraft .... simply to assess how each handles such extremities. TBH .... I can't remember precisely what flap setting I was using when making the AP/APPR controlled turn from base to final during that extreme angle ILS intercept.... other than it was 3 knotches. I know my speed was at 180 KIAS .... reducing down to 155/150/145/140/145/140 as I felt necessary throughout the remainder of the approach to landing. I was at 22-25 DME (the maximum in FS) from the RWY threshold when I commenced the intercept .... and which promotes plenty of room to manouver as well as study how things are progressing. At the moment I'm trying to figure out how these DC10's fly .... without any official reference data/manuals to aid my understanding of how these aircraft should be able to perform versus "what FS will actually allow one to do with them" ;D. I do think I'm onto something though in respect of my FLAP LIFT values observations .... because I'm no longer getting that wreckless nose-down AOA during ILS coupled AP controlled aut0-approaches to landing .... even at speeds of greater that 150 KIAS. I generally won't land with more than 20% fuel remaining .... which ensures the landing weight is well within limits of what could, otherwise, "SCREW THINGS UP". Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 12, 2011 3:36:13 GMT
YEP .... I do believe I've "FIXED IT" .... the DC10-10 at least As hinted above .... it "IS" the FLAP LIFT values (within the official SGA released CFG) that's been causing the "nose down" AOA problem during AP controlled ILS coupled asuto-approaches to landing I've now used the FLAP LIFT data (only) from Walter's CFG .... applying it to the official SGA version along with other minor corrections too. This edited CFG has then been tested using Walter's more recent AIR.FILE (dated May 2007 .... which was a surprise !) .... as well as with the official SGA released version (dated December 2003 for the DC10-10). I'm now getting very nice performances using either FDE combination .... in fact it's now very difficult to tell either FDE performances apart. I've now need to assess (per more extensive testing) precisely what, if anything, my edits might potetially have "SCREWED-UP" FS and FDE work in particular is full of compromises. Adjust 1 parameter here .... and it can, potentially, affect other parameters elsewhere. It's "extremly time consuming" and one's really got to be in just the "right mood" in order to be able do it properly. If all seems well .... then I'll move on to the DC10-15 next ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Sept 13, 2011 5:23:21 GMT
Glad to hear you're finding a good medium. My reason for making the post Mark was just to caution you not to remove that characteristic because usually when they say to limit the bank, there's a good reason for it, and a heavy nose-down tendency would be one (and be what I'd figure would happen based on various factors), so I just didn't want you to think it was part of the "problem" and try to remove it.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 13, 2011 11:29:04 GMT
I'm getting there .... slowly but surely .... like a turtle in a thunderstorm ! ;D I've not removed that particular characteristic .... which only seems to come to pass during extreme angles of bank like you suggested might occur .... namely when testing ILS intercepts at extremely acute angles (90 degrees with 25 DME to run) and which I wouldn't normally do .... but .... do anyway just for the sake of test observations. All I've edited is the FLAPS (list scalar only) .... which now dramatically improves (resolves would be a better term) the entire aircraft nose pitch attitude during wings level and straight-in AP controlled ILS couped auto-approaches to landing. Along with some very minor AIRPLANE GEOMETRY, CONTACT POINTS (no CLG for the DC10-10/15 versions), TURBINE ENGINE DATA/(Static thrust corrections) edits to better represent the DC10-10 series .... in this particular case. That tendency for the simulation to start dipping with increasing bank angles (more than 15 degrees) "has not" been removed/lost and still occurs .... if one causes it to .... and despite the FLAP edit. The WEIGHTS still need to be perfected/fine tuned too, but, I've got someone in mind to assist me with that. The main thrust of my attention has really been to get that classic DC10 type nose-up pitch attitude as per the following tests .... 1. Here's the DC10-10's attitude during an AP controlled ILS coupled auto-approach to landing "PRIOR to my FLAP LIFT scalar edit". Note that the airspeed is a very slow 130 KIAS (any faster caused the nose to start going down, even further), but, also note the very flat approach to landing attitude despite this very slow approach speed .... as evidenced from both the gauges and the panel view itself. An external visual check (no image available) also confirmed precisely what the gauges and panel view are indicating here .... in terms of the aircraft's approach to landing attitude being "way too flat" .... 2. Here's the same DC10-10 attitude (being flown at the same weight etc) during an AP controlled ILS coupled auto-approach to landing "AFTER my FLAP LIFT scalar edit . Note the airspeed is a better 140 KIAS (speed can also be increased now to 145 or 150 KIAS .... and a bit more if necessary too .... and which will bring the nose down in desirable increments, but, nothing like as badly/poorly as occurred previously and prior to this edit). I'm satisfied that the approach to landing attitude, here, is now much better .... as is evidenced from both the gauges and panel view. The following external visual check also confirms precisely what the gauges and panel view are indicating here .... in terms of the approach to landing attitude being "about right" .... Post editing external DC10-10 visual nose pitch attitude check .... The DC10-10 was the first of the widebody DC10 series of jetliners launched by McDONNELL-DOUGLAS from 1968. It first flew on August 19th 1970, was certified on July 29th 1970, and entered service with UNITED AIR LINES on August 14th 1971. The DC10-10 was a medium range aircraft primarily intended intended for US domestic type operations. It was built in both PAX (-10) and convertible PAX/freighter versions (-10CF). A small number of DC10-10's were later converted to pure freighter (-10F) aircraft versions. The DC10-10 (and -15) differed from the later DC10 models in that these aircraft lacked the CLG unit due to their lighter operating weights. As I said above .... I'm getting there ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 13, 2011 17:38:02 GMT
Hi to everybody:
Still searching in my soul, from where I did get the FFX airfile and FDE from 2007. One idea developed: Could be, that I got it from AVSIM long before AVSIM was hacked. After that AVSIM had to reinstall all its archives, maybe in that proces a faulty FDE crept in. How knows?
Hi Mark: You are doing a great job!
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 13, 2011 19:25:00 GMT
The most important thing is .... since the FLAP edit I'm now getting excellent nose pitch attitudes (I believe) during AP controlled ILS coupled auto-approaches to landing .... and that's regardless whether I use the 2007 dated FFX AIR.FILE or the original December 2003 dated update version which is also apparently the last "officially released by SGA".
Personally .... I do, at the moment, feel inclined to stick with the SGA AIR.FILE version .... simply because it's the one (both Chris and I know) that was released with all of the supposed DC10 crew endorsements. So far as I'm aware it's also the one intended for use with this particular panel version too .... which is another very important deciding factor too.
The 2007 dated FFX AIR.FILE is "good too", but, only because of the fact we're not, at this time, entirely certain of it's origin, and who might have done what to it (so far as I'm aware the FFX data was succeeded by SGA in terms of DC10 development) and why .... it "might" not, necessarily, be as authentic as the SGA version is suppose to be. In regard to the AIRCRAFT.CFG file which accompanied this AIR data .... I did find a lot of DC10-30 data within it (which was all wrong) and which I've since corrected to represent known DC10-10 and DC10-15 values in the case of this, first, DC10-10 modification.
As I mentioned above .... I also still have to refine the aircraft type weights.
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 13, 2011 22:22:08 GMT
There is another possibility too .... With regard to that "DECEMBER 2007" dated FFX AIR.FILE data .... the following should, perhaps, be considered too .... It's possible this particular more recent AIR.FILE "MIGHT" actually already contain all of the supposedly DC10 crew endorsed edits from the 2003 and 2004 dated AIR data versions .... as I've already acknowledged these both seem fly "so alike" (DC10-10 only so far remember) .... with my CFG edits just impriooving the approach attitude which was the main thrust of my investigation ! HOWEVER .... a detail which I did recently comment regarding and in relation to the SGA panel (much earlier within this thread) is the noted N1/N2 turbine engine gauge values in the high altitude cruise regime. Above FL250 (the magical FS altitude from where things either contunue performing fine or progressively start turning to crap) .... I found the N1 engine gauge values start to exceed the N2 engine gauge values .... and things got worse, by a considerable margin, the higher one went. From my own past testing experience .... these sorts of problems are usually the caused engine related records within any AIR.FILE .... or .... simply having too much power applied. The latter most certainly wasn't the case though. It's possible the "DECEMBER 2007" FFX edit "MIGHT" not only include the 2003 and 2004 AIR data enhancements, but, "MIGHT" also result in better/more realistic N2/N2 turbine engine indications in the high altitude cruise regime .... it's far too early for me to say yet ! These are all things I still need to check out .... using both lots of AIR.FILE data. Again .... my CFG edits "DO" result in much improved approach to landing attitude and which now also seems to remain very stable too .... regardless of which AIR.FILE version is used. "IF" I'm right in I disagreeumptions, so far, then the integrety of high altitude cruise engine gauge indications (N1/N2 engine gauge indications in particular, in relation to speed, and cruise flight attitude etc) may well become the defining factor in regard to which particular AIR.FILE version is eventually adopted. There's still "A LOT" of work to be done yet .... when I can find the time to do it ! ;D Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by bluestar on Sept 14, 2011 0:01:20 GMT
For the -30 deck angle in cruise about +4 degrees, approach and flaps 35 +4 to +5. About the same for the 11.
bs
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 14, 2011 0:12:59 GMT
Thanks "BLUE STAR" ! That's helpful/encouraging .... because that cruise attitude value is roughly what I'm seeing in the high-speed and high-altitude cruise regime .... even though the N1/N2 numbers (in this panel at last) may still be of some concern. I think those approach values which you confirm are "pretty much" what I'm now seeing too .... subject to the approach speed being good/sensible of course. Since you're currently my only FS correspondent whom has accumulated any DC10 flightime .... I may be in touch with you later on. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 2:44:30 GMT
For the -30 deck angle in cruise about +4 degrees, approach and flaps 35 +4 to +5. About the same for the 11. bs Bluestar, I am curious to know what are normal cruising altitudes of DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F so that I can recreate realism on FSX flights. I usually pick between FL340 and FL360 for those planes in hope I am using correct real world cruising altitudes for DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F. I know that more fuel load, lower cruising altitude is better. I am just asking what is most common cruising altitude for those 2 planes. Aharon
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 14, 2011 4:00:41 GMT
Anything from FL310 to FL390 may be considered a "typical" DC10 cruising altitude .... depending on such factors as aircraft weight, OAT, routing, and ATC clearances etc.
DC10's can also .... under some conditions .... go a bit higher too !
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 14, 2011 4:09:58 GMT
The DC10-15 is the rarest of all civil DC10 variants. It was built for MEXICANA DE AVICION .... whom, around 1978/79, needed a modern high capacity wide-body jetliner with which operate its services to and from Mexico City .... which has an elevation of around some 10,000 FT. The DC10-15 is basically a "HOT & HIGH" version of the DC10-10 .... with slightly higher weights (though not requiring the CLG) and GE CF6-50C turbofan engines of greater thrust .... intended for operation within tropical and high altitude environments such as those like Mexico City. Applying the same edits (discussed further above on this page/thread) to the final/updated version SGA FDE (both AIRCRAFT.CFG and AIR.FILE) for this particular DC10 variant .... and then using the same SGA DC10 panel too .... I'm now now getting equally superb approach to landing performance (attitiude) as that achieved for the DC10-10 .... For this latest DC10-15 AP controlled ILS coupled auto-approach to landing test .... fuel loading was purposely reduced to 20% to ensure the simulation was well within the MLW limitations (365,500 LBS) for this particular DC10 variant .... and .... the approach speed was, this time,"stepped-up" to 148 KIAS which (if the following DC10 panel image is compared with that of the previous DC10-10 test above) .... with full flaps selected, results in a landing approach attitude that's (according to the cross bars on the AI) about "SPOT ON" .... The following exterior view (in addition to the above exterior view from a separate test) confirms the panel gauge indications .... Once again .... I've still got to get the weights refined for this particular DC10 variant also. I've also still need to "properly" evaluate the high altitude cruise peformance of each individual aircraft version so far edited and in conjunction with panel/gauge indications. In the meantime .... I "might" look at the higher weight and even more powerful DC10-30 and -40 variants next .... perhaps later on towards the weekend Everything appears to be progressing well .... so far ! ;D Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by BillA on Sept 14, 2011 13:20:29 GMT
Nice DC-10 topic. I remember when Frank Idone released paints for Ericks DC-10 series almost 3 to 5 a day back in the days. I loved his paints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 13:51:01 GMT
Nice DC-10 topic. I remember when Frank Idone released paints for Ericks DC-10 series almost 3 to 5 a day back in the days. I loved his paints. I agree I have many of his liveries too but are you saying there are more that I have not yet discovered on internet? I have Frank Idone's DC-10 liveries as seen below: Wardair Air Florida CP Expo 86 livery Fed Ex old livery Fed Ex new livery Western Hawaiian Hawaiian 70th Anniversary livery Swissair Eastern I know I skipped download of some of Frank Idone's liveries such as Canadian Airlines, KLM, Northwest, and Thai as well as few ones. Is there anything that I miss? Aharon
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Sept 14, 2011 17:02:14 GMT
There is another possibility too .... Mark, what kind of N1 readings are you getting? One of the "quirks" of the CF6 is that you actually cruise it at N1 values of greater that "100%". 102%-103% N1 isn't unusual for high speed cruise. In fact, the engine won't start "protecting" itself until an ungodly 114% N1. Why the oddity? None of the mechanics I asked knew for sure. They think that GE, when they designed the CF6, set 100% N1 RPM to be "normal takeoff power" not realizing that at altitude, the engine might actually operate faster than that because of the thinner atmosphere and colder air. As a result, the engine can operate at "greater than 100%" while actually operating perfectly safe.
|
|