DC-10 action at last

[M.I.B.]

I finally had time to dig into the wonders of the brand new HJG DC-10, and take it for a couple of test flights. And because I am genuinely passionate about classic/old jetliners, the -10 being (how else?) one of the most legendary and remarkable of such machines, and among the ones that captivate me the most - in my case, such test flights are bound to arouse my curiosity about various systems, flight behaviors and procedures, and make me want to know more, so they'll inevitably prompt me to ask questions, out of my thirst for knowledge in this field. So if my curiosity/questions are annoying you, just send me to take a walk.   

We'll get to that later on, but first, I'd like to keep my promise to George, and make a comparative analysis of the HJG DC-10 and its older, payware, CLS counterpart, which I own and have been enjoying for many years. It's just that...I'm afraid there's really not that much to compare. As expected, the HJG simulation is vastly superior to the CLS one in terms of almost everything - the number of functional systems modeled, their level of realism and fidelity, not to mention the diversity of aircraft, engine and system types, sub-types and versions being provided (as is customary at HJG), the quality and diversity of soundsets. And although I myself lack the know-how and intellectual prowess necessary to verify such things myself, I am more than convinced the flight dynamics, as well as the behavior of the various systems, are superior in the HJG product as well, owing to the proven high level of knowledge and expertise in this field, among the HJG developers. 

As George correctly pointed out, the CLS DC-10 does have an "ALT" button on the AP MCP panel which has no business being there, as it does not exist in the real aircraft. In the DC-10, the target altitude isn't reached by pressing an "ALT" button, as you would in a Boeing, and as is the case in the CLS DC-10, instead, one has to pull the altitude selector knob to initiate the altitude acquire mode, much like in an Airbus plane. But that's just one of the inaccuracies present in the CLS DC-10. In the real DC-10, as in the HJG one, other AP and AT modes, such as acquiring and holding a pre-selected heading, or acquiring and maintaining a pre-selected airspeed, are also activated by pulling their respective selector knobs. So for instance if you want to acquire a pre-selected airspeed, you just activate AT and pull the AS selector knob. Similarly, by pulling the heading selector knob, you initiate the acquiring and subsequent holding of the pre-selected heading. In the CLS DC-10, the acquiring and holding of a pre-selected airspeed is achieved by activating the AT and then pushing the "IAS" button on the AP MCP. That "IAS" button does exist in the real plane, but it's not an AT function the way it is simulated in the CLS product, instead it's an AP function - it maintains the airspeed the plane had at the time of pressing the button, by altering pitch. The HJG DC-10 replicates that correctly. I wasn't even aware how many inaccuracies there are in the CLS DC-10. And that's a shame, because if a system as basic and important as the autopilot, does not behave like the real thing, then you're not really simulating the airplane you're looking at in spot view.

I also think the AP mode annunciator in the CLS bird is completely drunk. The first (AT) light correctly displays the AT mode, but the second one, which should normally display the armed AP mode, displays the roll mode. All those lights keep changing their duties apparently, and never seem to get them right. 

Moreover, there are plenty of systems included on the FE panel of the CLS DC-10, but plenty of them are also missing, even more of them are only partially simulated, and even more still do not really behave the way they should. And as is usual with F-lite (light, easy to operate) simulations such as the CLS DC-10, the end result is that you do, apparently, have a lot of systems modeled, but it doesn't really feel like you have them, since they don't have a lot of actual influence. You may even skip or misconfigure crucial systems which should normally render you powerless for instance, and the plane will still work like a charm, as if those systems don't even matter. That's not the case in the HJG DC-10. The CLS DC-10 also has ONE single soundset and ONE single panel for all DC-10s, which is kind of hard to swallow even for a lite simulation, especially that soundset used for multiple engine types.

All in all, as I mentioned previously here on the forum, the CLS DC-10, like nearly all CLS products, is an F-lite simulation - the kind of simulation which is meant to look very good, to include quite a lot of systems you can play with, which look very much like the real thing, but which is ultimately meant to be very easy to operate, so if you follow the provided checklists, you can play with those systems in a more or less realistic-ish way, but many important steps and systems are omitted or greatly simplified. In other words, it's meant to be a lightweight/easy to use simulation, but also one which gives you a basic impression of the real thing's innards, unlike "mega-lightweight" simulations, such as the ones from Overland.

That's pretty much what the CLS DC-10 is, a lightweight simulation, meant to be easy to operate, so it only replicates the DC-10 systems mainly superficially. Which is not bad, to be perfectly clear. Many people prefer just that kind of simulation, including me, depending on a/c type. But for those of us who want a more serious DC-10 sim experience, the CLS product is only an appetizer. An appetizer us DC-10 loving, die-hard FS9-ers just had to make do with, simply due to the fact there was no better alternative...until now. Who would have thought this old FS platform will get its best simulation for an aircraft like the DC-10, some 15 years after its launch? Yes ladies and gents, it's perfectly safe to say (as if we don't all know it by now) the best DC-10 simulation for FS9 has just been born. And it's freeware.

But because I ought to be impartial in my analysis, I have to say there's ONE thing (or maybe two) at which the CLS DC-10 is superior to the HJG offer. The external models and the presence of a VC. Needless to say, a VC is like virtual gold, but at least as far as I'm concerned, if I were to choose between a lite VC-equipped simulation (such as the CLS one) and a far more realistic simulation without VC (such as the HJG one), I would even forget there's such a thing as VC. Probably the same can be said about the quality of the 3D models. But I have to say, it's not easy letting go of those CLS 3D marvels, for the (comparatively) considerably less feature-rich and less detailed Erick Cantu oldies. But I can certainly live with them. What is probably the most difficult pill to swallow (for me) is the wingflex affair. More specifically - the constant "inflight"/upwards bent position of the wings on the 10-10 and 10-15 series. It looks funny when on the ground. The wingflex on the 10-30 and 10-40 seems to be working more or less fine, except on glideslope, with flaps down, it would seem the wings are bent downwards/on-ground position. But what a small price to pay for such an absolutely astounding treasure. Huh, I even forgot this is supposed to be a flight report with screenshots and all, hehe, so let's get the ball rolling. And then I'll present my queries/curiosities...


I haven't taken that many screenshots actually. I've got more words and thoughts to share than screenies today. Here I am ready for takeoff in the 10-30, today's test subject, after a complete cold and dark start-up, following the APU assisted engine start-up and APU shutdown (combined full procedure) checklist. 

Love that working wingflex on the 10-30 and 10-40. Or am I the only one who sees those wings flexing upwards a bit when in flight? 


Takeoff. Note that instead of manually advancing the throttle levers to full power (all the way to the N1 limit bugs), I did something else instead: after manually spooling up the engines a bit to have them stabilize, I activated the N1 AT mode, as evidenced by the "N1" indication on the AP mode annunciator. That way, the AT automatically puts the engines to the maximum allowable N1 value/all the way to the N1 limit bugs. I see no way why this procedure can not or should not be used at takeoff. But is this really something that can be done? I know this is doable in the A300.


Words are pointless here...




I'm happy and relieved to report that the CWS system works splendidly! It flawlessly maintains the amount of pitch and roll I command through the yoke. Something I can only wish my copy of Benoit Gaurant's A300 could do. 




I gotta say, these must be the only 3D models with built-in humor I've ever seen. Talking about the animation assigned to the tailhook command. So unnecessary, so discreet that you don't even realize it, but it just had to be there.



So here's my set of questions and curiosities:

- Like I mentioned earlier, I followed the APU assisted engine start-up and APU shutdown (combined full procedure) checklist. The pre-APU power supply checklist says I should make sure the battery is turned OFF. Then, as part of the APU start-up checklist, I need to put the APU master switch in the "Run" position and keep it there until the F/E panel announciator displays the "APU DOOR OPEN" message. But there's a problem. Since the battery is OFF (as required by the pre-APU power supply checklist), the F/E panel annunciator cannot work, it cannot display any messages, so the "APU DOOR OPEN" message will never pop up. The checklist only asks me to turn on the battery after the APU has been fired up. So what I did was I turned on the battery before starting the APU, otherwise the "APU DOOR OPEN" message will never appear on the F/E panel annunciator, which cannot work without electricity from the battery. So why does the checklist ask me to turn on the battery only after starting the APU?

- The checklist says that after the APU has stabilized following its start-up, the APU N1 should stabilize at roughly 96%, while its EGT should stabilize at 361 degrees. Instead, after the APU has stabilized, in my case, the N1 stabilizes at 87% (instead of 96) and the EGT stabilizes at 269 degrees (instead of 361). However, when I turn on the APU bus switches, the "proper values" mentioned by the checklist, do appear. Specifically, after turning on the APU bus switches, the APU N1 does rise to 96% while its EGT rises to 361 degrees, but only AFTER turning on the APU bus switches. The checklist however, says those values should be attained as soon as the APU stabilizes. How come? 

- In the DC-10-30, which I flight tested here, the checklist says that the engines should stabilize at 54% N2 after start-up. In my case, they stabilize at 59.9% N2, which is very close to the N2 value at which the DC-10-40 engines should stabilize, which is 60%. Any idea why this happens?

- The Nose lights switch is slaved to the landing lights, and it does not control the actual nose lights. The runway turnoff lights instead control the nose gear lights, is this correct or is it just a compromise that needed to be made? Just curious.

- The post-engine start-up checklist says to put the O/H AB selector to "ON", but there is no such position for the autobrake selector. It can only be set to T/O (takeoff), OFF, MIN, MED and MAX. Would I be correct in assuming that when the checklist asked me to place the selector to "ON" it meant to place it in either MIN, MED, MAX or T/O? Since those positions basically turn on the autobrake. 

- The takeoff and initial climb (manual mode) checklist asks me to turn off the anti-skid on the O/H panel. But that prompts the O/H annunciator panel to give me yellow warning messages, alerting me that the anti-skid is off. Is it normal to have those warning messages persist there on the O/H annunciator panel?

I also have a few curiosities regarding general aircraft systems and their placement in the simulation compared to the real life. I searched for pictures and videos of DC-10 cockpits, but I could never find the following layouts, which are present in the HJG DC-10 panel:

- Those two annunciators which are found above the thrust rating computer in the HJG panel, always appear on the left hand side of the computer in all the real-life photos I've seen. Have there actually been DC-10s which had the 2 annunciators above the computer, or is this just a sort of compromise to be able to render the whole thing into an FS panel?


- Similarly, in the HJG panel, below the radio altimeter, there's an ADF gauge. Whereas in every picture of the real DC-10 I could find, that spot is taken by a backup altimeter. So were there DC-10s that had an ADF in that spot, or is this also an FS break with reality.


- And lastly, is the CWS button only an FS thingie, or did it ever exist in any real DC-10 as well, because I could never see it in any real-life pictures?


Please note that I do not question the quality or realism of these panel components, I am simply curious to know the story behind those instruments, and their relation to the real thing.

A son as the panel first appeared on my screen, it became obvious this is gonna be so much fun. And sure enough, that proved so right within minutes. I can't say how grateful I am to every team member who contributed to make this gem a reality, finally an actual "hard-core" DC-10 simulation for FS9, which enables many of us to truly experience the -10 for the first time. I bow my head to you all, you've created a masterpiece once more!

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I don´t really want to start comparing simulations (freeware or payware) simply because it creates an impression (in the minds of some) that HJG is out to try´n compete .... but .... which simply isn´t our intention at all

All we do here is try our best, to do our best, in accordance with our knowledge, skills, and resources we have available to us, on order to try´n produce something nice for everyone´s consumption .... and at the end of the day all we hope is that some folk might enjoy what we offer .... HOWEVER .... at the very end of the day it´s up to each individual end user to decide what they uitimately prefer (some will like what we do, but, others won´t) .... and either way we do respect theor choices of course

I´ll now try´n address as many of your queries as possible .... and as thoroughly as I possible can .... as follows ....


1.

there's ONE thing (or maybe two) at which the CLS DC-10 is superior to the HJG offer. The external models and the presence of a VC ....

.... What is probably the most difficult pill to swallow (for me) is the wingflex affair. More specifically - the constant "inflight"/upwards bent position of the wings on the 10-10 and 10-15 series.

We appreciate/accept all of this .... BUT .... in the case of our 3D models we simply "do not" have the full source code for these available to us in order to apply greater than the limited (but definitely improving)model adjustments we´ve applied so far and to date. In so far as WING FLEX is concerned .... it "IS" there .... but .... we very quickly found each of the models we inherited were somewhat different in their compilation, so, the like of their WING FLEX differs accordingly, only to standardze these effects throughout our new model range requires a GMAX modeler .... which we "do not" have. VC´s are entirely out of the question for us too .... because of the way we produce our 2D panels and which feature either customised panel layouts and/or feature instrumentaion customized for each aircraft type .... and which would mrte than likely mean having to produce seperate VC´s for each 2D aircraft type panel represented .... but which less than practical for us to be able to undertake.


2.

instead: after manually spooling up the engines a bit to have them stabilize, I activated the N1 AT mode, as evidenced by the "N1" indication on the AP mode annunciator. That way, the AT automatically puts the engines to the maximum allowable N1 value/all the way to the N1 limit bugs

That will work .... but .... the prescribed/better procedure is to engage the AT first .... then engage "TOGA" mode for T/O ..... and once established in the climb after T/O and only after adjusting the ROC (which will also then disengages "TOGA" mode) .... then engage the "N1" mode if one needs/wishes to do so at all. I believe my recommended procedures within "SECTION 6.00" of the manual actually cover this procedure.


3.

The pre-APU power supply checklist says I should make sure the battery is turned OFF

You may have misread part the procedural notes here Firstly .... the BATTERY switch is always "ON" by default. Selecting the BATTERY switch "OFF" only applies if one wishes to manually revert the entire panel back to a (partial) cold & dark scenario .... and from which then various items/systems can then progressively selected "ON" as part of the recommended step by step procedures. "SECTION 4.06/PRE APU POWER SUPPLY" actually states as follows ....

PLEASE NOTE: This section is optional. It should only be used if a partial cold & dark scenario is desired ,... otherwise move on to the following "APU POWER SUPPLY" section.

.... meaning if the stated (partial) cold & dark scenario "is not" intended then one should proceed directly to the very next part/step of the outlined procedures ("APU POWER SUPPLY" in this particular case) .... and which calls for the BATTERY switch to be selected "ON" as stated.

In the case of a partial (or even true/full) cold & dark scenario being created (as might be the case with an aircraft having come out of maintenance after its periodic checks), I´d probaly opt select the BATTERY witch "ON" .... then use the External/GPU power supply/connection in order to get the panel powered up .... then .... fire up the APU, connect it´s electrical bus system .... then disconnect the External/GPU power supply.

The recommended procedures "are not" perfect .... because FS itself (aided by the fact these panels do, by default, load with all essential systems pre-configured and running) "is not" perfect either .... and in the case of a true/full cold & dark startup scenario we´ve yet to define the best/most logogical systms configuration procedure.s What´s so far recommended though is "perfectly adequate" .... and works fine .... if performed correctly to start with.

We do fine tune each of our manuals over time, and as our experience with each simulation improves, and the same "WILL" also be applied to this DC-10 manual as well .... over time .... so this does need to be constantly born in mind and people do need to/should occasionally revise our recommended procedures per the forum based manual.


4.

The checklist says that after the APU has stabilized following its start-up, the APU N1 should stabilize at roughly 96%, while its EGT should stabilize at 361 degrees. Instead, after the APU has stabilized, in my case, the N1 stabilizes at 87% (instead of 96) and the EGT stabilizes at 269 degrees (instead of 361). However, when I turn on the APU bus switches, the "proper values" mentioned by the checklist, do appear. Specifically, after turning on the APU bus switches, the APU N1 does rise to 96% while its EGT rises to 361 degrees, but only AFTER turning on the APU bus switches. The checklist however, says those values should be attained as soon as the APU stabilizes. How come?

It was easier to state what the APU gauge indications should be "after" the APU BUS 1/2/3 swiches have been engaged .... and it was at this point the quoted indications were recorded as provided. However minorly mis-sequenced the following note ....

"Following startup the APU gauges should indicate approximately as follows"

.... should imply that the APU BUS switches have been engaged .... as should be done as soon as APU power becomes available.


5.

In the DC-10-30, which I flight tested here, the checklist says that the engines should stabilize at 54% N2 after start-up. In my case, they stabilize at 59.9% N2, which is very close to the N2 value at which the DC-10-40 engines should stabilize, which is 60%. Any idea why this happens?

The quoted post engine startup engine idle indications are "approximate only" .... and may vary among each of the different engine type DC-10´s versions we offer and by virtue o fthe fact that each engine type reprsented is composed of it´s own unique (to that engine type) characteristics. The stated indications are based on what I´ve personally recorded. These indications might also be influenced by simulated ambient air temperature and variations in airport altitude within FS .... or even the engine idle calibration of ones own throttle controller device too .... each of which can influence these engine indications.


6.

The Nose lights switch is slaved to the landing lights, and it does not control the actual nose lights. The runway turnoff lights instead control the nose gear lights, is this correct or is it just a compromise that needed to be made? Just curious.

Possibly the latter .... I.E. Among the "compromises" that may needed to have been made. I can´t answer this particular engineering detail with any precision.


7.

The post-engine start-up checklist says to put the O/H AB selector to "ON", but there is no such position for the autobrake selector. It can only be set to T/O (takeoff), OFF, MIN, MED and MAX. Would I be correct in assuming that when the checklist asked me to place the selector to "ON" it meant to place it in either MIN, MED, MAX or T/O? Since those positions basically turn on the autobrake.

Just a minor typo within the "SECTION 4.08/POST-ENGINE STARTUP & PRE-DEPARTURE PANEL/FLIGHT PREPARATIONS". In any case the "SECTION 4.00/DEFAULT ENGINES RUNNING PANEL CONFIGURATION" does state as follows ....

- Select AB selector swtch to "TO".

- Select AB switch to "ARM".

.... and which is the correct/intended procedure.


8.

The takeoff and initial climb (manual mode) checklist asks me to turn off the anti-skid on the O/H panel. But that prompts the O/H annunciator panel to give me yellow warning messages, alerting me that the anti-skid is off. Is it normal to have those warning messages persist there on the O/H annunciator panel?

It can be left "ON" .... or "OFF". Either way it´s not going to hurt/influence anything else in flight .... other than it triggering the associated OH sub panel annunciator lamp if selected "OFF". There doesn´t seem to be much point in leaving it "ON" in flight .... and which is why I recommended it be selected "OFF" after T/O. In the case of it´s being selected "OFF" in flight .... and then triggering the associated OH sub panel annunciator lamp .... then that indication probably isn´t a bad thing by virtue of the fact it´s a good/clear reminder/indication that this particular item is still "OFF" and should be engaged for landing (as part of the associated checklist) and prior to landing


9.

I also have a few curiosities regarding general aircraft systems and their placement in the simulation compared to the real life.

Some of our DC-10-30 (tape engine gauges) panel was based on AOM data provided by AIR NEW ZEALAND. Aircraft panel layouts are .... in some cases .... customised in accordance with original client airline preferences/requrements and which can vary between operators .... and even vary between aircraft too where these might have been acquired later from other operators. Among some classic aircraft types there´s probably no such thing as a standard panel layout or even instrument standard (this´s very true among DC-8´s .... and given that the DC-10 remained in production for almost 20 years we assume the same must have applied to these aircraft too as instrument types/technology advanced/improved with the passage of time). To some extent what we´ve compiled into these DC-10 panels is based on how they were originally configured for FS when we first acquired them. What we engineer, and the way we engineer it, and where it all ends up being located on any panel, as well as how it looks and functions too .... is often determined by a combination of what´s best and easiest (for us) to be able to achieve .... as well as being dictated by some of the compromises often imposed upon us in regard to both engineering, and what we can sensibly accomodate within any panel/sub panel in accordance with the limitations of space availble. Some instrumentation simply can´t be accomodated in any panel/sub panel for either lack of such space .... or .... the impracticality of it being represented due to the inability of either the simulation or FS to be able to support it properly.


I think all of this covers most of your points quite satisfactorily

PHEW-WEE .... I think I´ll sleep well tonight .... I think i´ve just earned it

Mark C
BOG/CO

[M.I.B.]

That covers all my points very satisfactorily, many thanks Mark, much appreciated. Please keep in mind that none of my queries were the result of problems or difficulties experienced with the simulation, instead, they are merely the manifestation of my curiosity in those cases where I felt some things are interesting/"mysterious" or may not have made perfect sense, even though I hinted at what may have happened, as was the case with the minor typos or actual meanings of certain elements in the checklists.

I know exactly what you mean in regards to comparisons to other similar products. But George was very interested in such a comparison, and I obliged. Moreover, this is a comparison which, in my opinion, is quite relevant, because this is definitely not your everyday "yet another developer released yet another simulation of that same aircraft". We're talking about the most advanced simulation yet of a certain aircraft, being released for FS9, after so many years since the birth of the platform. During that time, many representations of that aircraft may have popped up for this platform, which were more or less lightweight, and now, here comes another simulation of that craft which "promises" to outdo all the previous ones in terms of realism/fidelity. Those whom prefer lightweight representations of that craft, will continue to happily use and buy the same old simulations that existed until now, but for those who want a considerably more serious experience, this is big news. Such simmers will naturally want the most realistic and feature rich one. And as a "hard-core simmer", after so many years during which one had to make do with a mostly lite simulation, one is eager to see just how much the richness of his/her experience has raised with this new, superior simulation. That's all, in such cases, no simulation is "inferior" or "superior" to the other one, since each of them targets a slightly different "audience", I would feel. Indeed, too bad some get the wrong impression, that this is a virtual war of some sorts, or other such nonsense.

In regards to the VC and wingflex. As previously stated - I very much enjoy VCs (who doesn't?), but if I can have an exquisite simulation of an aircraft I like, with the only price I'd have to pay being the lack of a VC, I'm tellin' ya, I even forget there's such a thing as VC. It doesn't matter to me at all. I have plenty of very advanced and high quality simulations without VC, both freeware and payware, from various developers, but as much as I like VCs, I've never even hinted at thinking that I am somehow disadvantaged because of the lack of VC in those simulations, or that this is somehow a drawback. I've never ever suffered from the lack of VC in any high quality simulation, not at all, because the overall quality of the simulation more than makes up for the lack of VC. I've seen earlier discussions about the DC-10 wingflex, I'm aware of all that. That's really the only thing that draws my attention, but alas, it's such a small price to pay for everything we get with these simulations.

Yeah, you can count on my curiosity anytime insomnia messes with you.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Please keep in mind that none of my queries were the result of problems or difficulties experienced with the simulation, instead, they are merely the manifestation of my curiosity in those cases where I felt some things are interesting/"mysterious" or may not have made perfect sense,

No problem at all Dorel .... and I (for one) have no objection to the way you logically persue your enquires in regard to various items .... as well as the way in which you honestly, and unbiously, review FS productions over on your own website too

In any case .... the items you query will answer the questions of more people than whom are either keen to, or confident in, asking/posting publicly .... so .... this also then gives us a chance to explain and/or otherwize clarify certain details for everyone´s benefit too

Those whom prefer lightweight representations of that craft, will continue to happily use and buy the same old simulations that existed until now, but for those who want a considerably more serious experience, this is big news.

As I mentioed within the final presentations of our pre-release blurb ....
tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/8739/new-dc-panel-preparations-phase
.... what we´ve tried to do is cater for both tastes/preferences .... those whom, don´t want the complexity and sophistication of systems and pocedures imposed upon them .... versus those whom do desire this (in as much as we´re able to deliver such) .... per the corresponding default/all essential systerms preconfigured and the simulation basically ready to go, or the "partial" C&D scenario/s covered by our SECTION 4.00 tutorials within the manual, or people can .... if they desire .... and only once they understand the systems represented within these DC-10 panels .... create their own true/full C&D scenarios to power up the panel, start the engines, and prepare for flight accordingly. A lot of versatilty has been designed into these panels .... thanks entirely to the skill and effort of George CARTY

Regardlss of whichever scenario people opt to employ though .... there "IS" a learning curve associated with these panels (as is the case with even the simplest details in FS at first) .... and people are therefore encouraged/well advised to read, or otherwise familirize themselves with, the manual and its associated tutorials in particular.

As for the rest .... well .... we´re quite humble/modest about what we´ve achieved and simply hope people enjoy the fruits of our long labours

anytime insomnia messes with you.

It´s not "insomnia" .... but rather .... it´s the fact I´m now living in Colombia (outide Bogota DC) and are still adjusting to both the altitude and a different time zone here too. As a result it´s fortunate, for you, that I saw, and replied to, your queries late last night when I did .... othetrweize I´d probably still be writing (or at least thinking about what to reply) even now

Again .... no worries Dorel

Mark C
BOG/CO

[walterleo]

Hi friends:

As I was playing around only with the DC 10-15 and letting do the systems preparation and systems handling my "virtual FI" which greatfully HJG has inegrated into the simulation: I have to take off my hat, the bird is wonderful!

Some remarks only:

I did not find in the available documentations the number of max landing wheight. Following Marks Flying Guide (default load plus 20 % of fuel) supose it should be around 380.000 pds for the 10-15.

As I always install an AoA indicator to familiarize me with the flight dynamics I feel that the Aproach and Vref according the "speedbooklet" is a little too low as with 379.000 pds Landing Weight flown by the numbers the AoA is 9 deg and herewith near to the limit of 12 deg and its more pitch up than in the flying guide mentioned of 3-4 deg up in flare.

Did not understand fully what CWS mode of the AP is about: I know other simulations (the Tu-154´s of PT) where the AP "modulates" the manual inputs of the pilots without controlling pitch and roll and that function has to be on in all flight regimes. As the DC-10 has also selectable yaw-dampers what does the CWS function really?


Kind regards and many thanks for the wonderful bird!

Walter

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Following a couple of Dorels comments on this thread earlier today .... I have (today also) applied a couple of "very minor" edits (re-sequencing relly) to the tutorials featured within "SECTION 4.00" of our DC-10 manual.

These "very minor edits (re-sequences) should aid avioding any future confusion

"PLEASE NOTE" .... none of the recommended procedures have been altered. There´s no need to do so since everything works fine as prescribed .... provided the established procedures are followed correctly.

Mark C
BOG/CO

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I did not find in the available documentations the number of max landing wheight

That´s because I didn´t have access to that data "for all DC-10 versions" .... so .... rather than applyng this data for some, and not others, I opted to use a philosophy of "MAX PAYLOAD" and with no more than "20% TOTAL REMAINING FUEL" for any landing. Applied to any of our DC-10 versions this philosophy should then see one well within the ball park figure of "MLW" for each aircraft version.

I always install an AoA indicator to familiarize me with the flight dynamics I feel that the Aproach and Vref according the "speedbooklet" is a little too low

I simply use the "AI". The computed V-REF (apparently) comes straight from the AOM data which we sourced .... for the DC-10-10´s, -30´s, and -40´s.

Landing Weight flown by the numbers the AoA is 9 deg and herewith near to the limit of 12 deg and its more pitch up than in the flying guide mentioned of 3-4 deg up in flare

2d panels for some aircraft types (espcially those for A300´s, DC-10´s, and L-1011´s .... each of which approach to land with quite a high AOA) do often impose limitations due to their restricted view perspectives. If the nose drifts up and beyond +4* (degrees) .... then forward visibility of the RWY will be progressively impaired in accordance with any further increasing pitch attitude (raising/lowering the horizon level alleviates this problem, but, isn´t always the best solution particularly after landing) .... and to such an extent that it might not be possible to view the RWY and associated VASI lights at all. That´s why I recommended the approach to landing AI pitch attiude (with full payload and 20% total remaining fuel) should not exceed +3* to +4* degrees in accordance with the calculated approach to landing V-REF. The quoted flair to landing attitude is simply "an estimate" .... on my part (since I´ve never measured it) .... and it could be, and probably is, a wee bit higher than I quoted .... and which, I feel, is perfectly fine. In the case of a fully automatic landing the the AL system will set the flair attitude in conjunction with both airspeed and weight anyway .... and which might result in plus, or minus, 1* (degree) of variance either way.

Did not understand fully what CWS mode of the AP is about

The AP switch features 2X detents. The first detent (switch "half way up") engages AP "CWS" mode .... and the second detent (switch "fully up") engages AP "CMD" mode. Engaging AP "CWS" mode enables partial AP authority (only) .... with vertical and lateral control being influenced per manual flight control inputs .... and engaging the AP "CMD" mode enables complete AP authority .... with vertical and lateral control being influenced per AP inputs.

Mark C
BOG/CO

[walterleo]

Hi Mark:

The max landing weight of the 15 is by your numbers 379.000 pds, which seems a good approach to real.

The attitude on aproach is as you described, the diferences where due to sloppy handflying by me, here the picture flown by Mr. AP:



Zoom was 0,7.

The CWS:

Googled around a little and Contro Wheel Steering is a way to put by hand an attitude (pitch and/or role) which afterward the AP will hold. The real pilots where not overly impressed, seems only the KC-10 tanker crews did find it useful for inflight refueling.

www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=723069
www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-375127.html

In that discussion apears also the reason for Dorels absent CWS button in a real DC-10 AP: Not all airlines liked that function, so difference is explained.

Kind regards

Walter

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

It´s very rare for me to use AP "CWS" mode .... and I seldom even use AP "IAS" mode eother .... preferring instead to stick to AP "VS" mode predominently.

Guess we´ve all got peferences which are often hsard to break .... save for the (again rare) necessaity of whatever other imposition might suddenly prevail

Glad you´re enjoying our new "BIG 10´s" Walter

Mark
BOG/CO

[walterleo]

Hi Mark:

In airliners without autothrottle (like the CometIV, CV 990 DC-8)) or airplanes where AT was only disgned or permitted for approaches (Caravelle XII, Tu-134 Tu-154)and their simulations the IAS mode came handy for climbs respecting engine limits or helping to reach a decent time between overhaul. On descents it was useful to help the engines to deliver breathable air to the people sitting inside. These considerations apply to FS only if you want to "fly" as close as possible to real. To avoid wobbling around it is always good to start the procedures with VS and a ballpoint speed and power numbers, when established change over to IAS. The necessary adaptions to altitude and descent/climb rate best done by only small movements of throttles.
This works fine in most simulated airliners, I used that "flying" the CV 990, the Tu 154.
In real DC-10 flying this was behind an incident with a DC-10-30 of AEROMEXICO climbing out of Frankfurt which was flown into a stall and loss of altitude of various thousend feet on 11 of november 1979. The aircraft lost parts of their horizontal stabilizers in the upheavel but was flown over the atlantic to Miami, where the damages where discovered. It is not known if the passangers got their money back after the wild ride they had to experience. It was attributed to pilots error using an improper climbing procedure flying on AP. With IAS selected that could not have happen.

Kind regards

Walter

P.S.: From the Report of that incident:
"For an initial climb to cruising altitude, normal autoflight procedures
would be to select the N mode of autothrottle operation and the IAS (or Mach)
Hold mode for autopilot operation. With these selections, the engine thrust would
be continually modulated to the maximum allowable (continuous) level as
determined by the thrust computer. The pitch attitude of the airplane would vary
to maintain the AP selected airspeed. The aircraft's vertical speed would also vary
during the climb as the engine thrust decreases with the changing ambient
environment. The vertical speed would begin high and decrease as altitude is
gained.
The DFDR data, however, do not substantiate this type of climb
profile. Rather, the data show that the aircraft, as it climbed through 25,000 f t ,
was maintaining a nearly constant rate of climb of about 1,200 f t per minute at an
IAS of 318 kn. During the subsequent 4 minutes, the rate of climb was a constant
1,200 ft per minute while the airspeed decreased to 226 kn and the pitch attitude
increased from 4.5O to 11Â nose up. This performance is most consistent with that
which would be produced with the ATS engaged in the airspeed mode and the AP
engaged in the vertical speed mode. With these selections, a constant vertical
speed would be maintained by AP pitch attitude control and a constant airspeed
would be maintained by engine thrust modulation. This is contingent however, on
the relationship between thrust required and thrust available. As the climb
progresses, the aircraft will reach an altitude where the ATS system would be
commanding the maximum continuous thrust level. Beyond that altitude, the
aircraft would be unable to maintain both the AP selected vertical speed and the
ATS selected airspeed because of a thrust deficiency."....
"The Safety Board thus concludes that the crew erred in both their
actions and recollections regarding the AP mode selection. It is probable that the
flightcrew did begin, or intended to begin, the climb with the ATS N mode/AP IAS
mode selections. However, when the captain selected 320 kn into the ATS speed
window he may have either intentionally or unintentionally pulled the ATS speed
selector knob. This action would have changed the ATS selection from the N
mode to the airspeed mode. This in turn would have caused the AP IAS Hold mode
to disengage and revert automatically to the vertical speed mode of operation. In
any case, the DFDR indicates that the AP was in the vertical speed mode from
about 16,000 ft upward. The Safety Board cannot explain why corresponding
indications on the mode selection panels failed to alert the flightcrew to these
selections."
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable
cause of this incident was the failure of the flightcrew to follow standard climb
procedures and to adequately monitor the aircraft's flight instruments. This
resulted in the aircraft entering into a prolonged stall buffet which placed the
aircraft outside the design envelope."

[walterleo]

Hi friends:

Have to add after flying and reading Marks guide again: The HJG simulated AP/ATs do not accept IAS hold and N1 together, so the real procedure cannot be simulated entirely. One has to switch off the ATs and move the throttles by hand while using IAS (Mach) hold.

Kind regards

Walter

[M.I.B.]

Hi Walter,
Actually, it says in the DC-10 handling notes/flying guide, that the AT SPD and N1/EPR modes cannot be engaged while using the AP IAS pitch mode, right here:

[walterleo]

Hi Dorel:

To avoid misunderstandings: My point is NOT the flying guide, which is totaly correct. My point is, that the ATs/AP complex of the HJG DC-10s does not simulate fully the real climb procedure of the DC-10 (IAS plus N1). This is not a big affair and I dont know if it would be programable in FS or not. The alternative procedure (VSI+SPD) as described by Mark creates a bigger workload on the "pilot" or (with "pilot" distracted) can lead to a situation as in AEROMEXICO 945 on 1979 11 11. In the superb HJG DC-10 with IAS selceted the "pilot" has only to move the throttles sometimes a little to bring the N1 to the calculated value for CL. And nearing the target altitude one has to change to ASI + ALT and reduce the climb rate as described by Mark.

Kind regards

Walter

[M.I.B.]

Ooookay, I think I got it. So you're saying that you're aware the HJG DC-10 cannot maintain AP IAS and AT N1 modes activated simultaneously, but you're saying the real DC-10 SHOULD be able to do that. Is that correct?

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

the ATs/AP complex of the HJG DC-10s does not simulate fully the real climb procedure of the DC-10

That´s "a fair comment" .... since there´s only so much we (know to be able to do) that can be applied to these simulations, but, the way is open for George to experiment further in respect of possible future upates .... should he desire to do so


Walter beat me with his reply

I was in the process of replying, but, too many interruptios here this morning

Since I´d alredy drafted what I was going to communicate (as follows) this´s all I can advise in regard to what´s been discussed this morning ....


In regard to both the AP and AT (and I must also include the TRC in this also since it functions in conjunction with the AT too) .... and so far as I´m aware ....


- AT TOGA mode requires the AT be engaged .... and used in conjunction with the TRC ("TO" or "FLX" settings).

- AT N1/EPR mode requires the AT be engaged .... and used in conjunction with the TRC ("CL, MCT, MCR" or "GA" settings) .

- AT SPD mode requires the AT be engaged .... with an airspeed value selected.


A few explanatory notes ....


One shouldn´t use AT TOGA mode for more than 3-5 minutes following any T/O .... although using these simulations nothing´s going to break if one does find themselves doing so

Following T/O and cleanup .... one should revert to either AT N1/EPR or AT SPD modes.

PLEASE NOTE: AT EPR mode is applicable to the DC-10-40´s only and which do not feature an AT N1 mode.

In the case of AT TOGA mode the "TO" setting should be selected on the TRC .... the AT system engaged .... and the "TOGA" tab selected. The AT will then automatically apply, and maintain, maximum thrust in accordance with the calculated N1/EPR maximum (as displayed within the TRC window and per N1/EPR gauge bug settings .... these bug settings can be manually adjusted + or - if desired) .... only until the AP is engaged and the established VS is adjusted or another AT mode selected (typically N1/EPR mode) .... both of which will automatically cancel the AT TOGA mode.

In the case of N1/EPR mode and following T/O and clean up the "CL" setting should be selected on the TRC (for climb) .... the AT will then automatically adjust/apply climb thrust in accordance with the computed maximum N1/EPR gauge settings and ambient air temperature .... only until AT SPD mode is engaged and which will automatically cancel AT NI/EPR mode.

PLEASE NOTE: Using AT N1/EPR mode a preselected AT controlled airspeed cannot be captured .... one should therefore cancel AT N1/EPR speed mode by selecting AT SPD mode within 10 KTS of acquiring the preselected AT airspeed.

Each of the AT modes can only be engaged independently .... no 2 modes may be engaged together.

During AP (or manual) flight control one can switch between either AT modes .... for example AT TOGA to AT N1/EPR mode .... and then AT N1/EPR to AT SPD mode.

The TRC settings for "TO, FLX, CL, MCT, MCR", and "GA" should be selected for T/O, climb, cruise, descent, and approach to landing phases of flight .... and the calculated maximum power setting in conjunction with ambient temperature noted. Engine power should never be applied in excess the TRC indications.

PLEASE NOTE: No AT speed modes are available when AP IAS climb mode is engaged.


The options provided are fine for nearly every normal FS circumstance, but, anything beyond this is outside the scope of both the AP and AT functions currently built into these DC-10 simulations.

One shouldn´t be disadvantaged though


Mark C
BOG/CO