CV990 FDE Adjustments

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Thanks to incentive/motivation provided by "THALES COELHO's" recent CV990 AP NAV related query ....
tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/10094/having-problems-cv990-autopilot-mode
.... since mid February I've been assessing, editing, and by implication further improving our CV990 and CV990-A FDE's much sooner that might otherwise have been the case.

The CV990 simulations were first released by HJG during 2003/4 .... almost 20 years ago.

These are the only simulations among HJG's current flight line that "HAVE NOT EVER" been subjected to an FDE update within this time .... other than what's been absolutely essential in the interest of both panel/gauge and audio compatibility.

In short .... these simulations are long overdue for such an update.

During the course of my evaluation/s a lot of errors (discrepancies really .... in the form of both over and under statements associated with various data) have been detected .... and corrected .... and with so far "very positive results".

There are/were 2 basic versions of the CV990.

The initial production (pre-modification) version .... the CV990 .... which was marketed in both 30-5 (AMERICAN AIRLINES) and 30-6 (SWISSAIR) configurations. Then the post production (modified) version .... the CV990-A .... and which was marketed in 30-5 (AMERICAN AIRLINES and APSA), 30-6 (SWISSAIR and APSA), and -30-8 (VARIG, GARUDA, and NASA) configurations.

Each of these 5 types varied in regard to engine their engine thrust ratings (applicable to the 30-5 versions only), fuel capacity (range), and certified MGW.

Until now each CV990 version offered "HERE" has been over payloaded and under fueled .... and their engines were also under burning in regard to fuel consumption too.

We also found not only were the weights "out of spec" among we currently offer .... BUT .... the MOI's were all "considerably out of spec" too .... as well as these simulations suffering from an appalling ability to over accelerate for otherwise unrealistically low power settings as well.

All of these details have been carefully scrutinized .... the discrepancies each noted and corrected .... and to the extent we now seem to have CV990 and CV990-A simulations that not only fly better, but also, perform a bit more realistically too .... "provided one flies them sensibly of course".

Some of the previously reported (over the years) problems flying these simulations have also been imposed by the way some people have been trying to fly them .... and not solely due to the detected, and now corrected, FDE discrepancies.

It seems most people's problems with these simulations, in the past, appear to have been caused by their trying to fly them too much like B707's and DC-8's. In reality the CV990's were not only smaller aircraft, but, were also "a great deal lighter whilst having around the same power as most B707-320B's and the DC-8-51's in particular.

The MGW of most B707-320B's and C's ranges between 327,000 LBS and MGW 335,000 LBS .... whilst that of most DC-8-50's ranges between 276,000 LBS and 325,000 LBS .... where-as the CV990's were only certified for MGW's of between 239,000 and 253,000 LBS depending upon aircraft's type version/operator configuration.

It's perhaps little wonder the CV990's .... "as beautiful and fun to fly as they may have been" .... couldn't compete economically with their more logistically capable but slower BOEING and DOUGLAS counterparts, and could only eventually (after many problems, a delay of almost one year, and fairly extensive modification work being applied to each airframe) go really fast .... but never as fast as was originally promised by CONVAIR/GENERAL DYNAMICS .... and even then their additional airspeed performance was only possible for unacceptably high fuel burn rates, and to such an extent these aircraft were then barely capable of making non-stop trans-continental crossings of the USA .... if at all.

CONVAIR/GENERAL DYNAMICS did however successfully produce a small family of very fast, but commercially unsuccessful, first generation civil jet airliners (including the CV880's) though after both BOEING and DOUGLAS had insisted such wasn't possible .... and if their production hadn't come to pass, then, we'd have a few aircraft types less to offer "HERE" today

The lighter weight, and high power rating, of the CV990's resulted in their ability to perform somewhat better than B707's and DC-8's during the climb .... primarily enabling a higher ROC at MGW (up to 3,200 FPM under most operating conditions) and fly faster too .... up to MACH 0.88 for the unmodified CV990's and up to MACH 0.97 for the modified CV990-A's .... but again .... only for the imposition of greatly increased fuel burn that couldn't be effectively offset by their lower payload capacities.

We've managed to get our CV990's flying a wee bit in excess of MACH 0.88 .... and our CV990-A's flying at over MACH 0.96 (MACH 0.97 is attainable for this one but will "ring the bell" if exceeded) .... and for more realistic performances all the way up to cruising altitude, per "an altitude/ROC/power adjustment procedure" we've designed and which works perfectly well "if strictly adhered to". It's not difficult, but, does require concentration, skill (with experience) with both foresight and good judgement ....















The landing performance of our CV990 simulations was also discovered to be "off-spec" too. Previously they approached to land with too high a nose up pitch attitude (even for landing speeds in excess of 150 KIAS) .... and which ultimately restricted/interfered with RWY visibility throughout the entire approach to landing .... even with less than 20% total fuel remaining. These imperfections have also been resolved too with each CV990 simulation now flying the entire approach to landing in accordance with a flatter nose pitch attitude .... and which ensures more than adequate RWY visibility throughout the entire approach to landing and from as much as 15 (+) DME ....



















With a full payload though it's essential to ensure one doesn't fly any approach landing with in excess of 20% total fuel remaining .... AND ALSO .... to avoid getting too slow, or too fast, during any approach to landing .... or that will bugger things up completely and one will (likely) get into trouble quickly. With full flaps and gear down the approach to landing airspeed for our CV990's will typically now vary between 141 KIAS to 147 KIAS (with a touchdown airspeed of between 121 and 127 KIAS) .... again depending on aircraft type version and weight.

I've a bit more evidentiary material to present in relation to this project .... just see how we go for "TIME" and which hasn't been in my favor lately

My sincere thanks and appreciation to Mike MONCE whom has assisted me with this project

OH .... AND .... nothing's been released yet .... and nor will it be featured within our next release either (which is large enough already) given a few more verification tests still need being flown.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Unless I opt to hang a bit more decorative CV990 related wall paper here (dunno if I'll bother though) .... the following report may conclude all I want, and need, to say in relation to this project.

"SOME OF" of what's recommended below is practiceable using our currently downloadable CV990 FDE's (as appalling as these may be) .... BUT .... not entirely practiceable without the "NEW/IMPROVED" data which is yet to be released. Although these revised FDE's aren't yet publicly available there's no harm relating "a little" in regard to what's been refined .... therefore consider this information as "a preview in another form" .

As mentioned within the above/first presentation we've now got these simulations performing "a little more" like they should .... certainly more sensibly than was previously the case .... although it always pays to bear in mind the best of anything we offer should be interpreted as "an approximation only", simply because FS (both 2004 and FSX) "can't" replicate the technical and physical aspects of R/W aviation with absolute precision (we can close to actual performances, but, absolute fidelity is outside the practicalities of the FS platforms we represent). Bearing this in mind though the latest CV990 FDE and handling conclusions we've arrived at, based on the best/most reliable reference data we can source (including an old AOM publication), are "SUPERIOR" to the data that's currently publicly downloadable here

What follows is another quick appraisal of this project, some clarifications, as well as suggestions and recommendations for flying these "revised" CV990 simulations to best advantage .... once again based on revised data and our past 2 months of testing (remember this's an FDE update only and not a 3D model, panel/gauges, texture, effects, or audio revision). Some people will do what they want irrespective of whatever we recommend (OH WELL .... we do "TRY" you know), but, everything recommended by us is based upon our own experience and intimate knowledge of what we compile given we best understand the components of everything associated with the simulations we offer

This's the basic project .... the liveries for each variation of aircraft being clearly categorized within the "CV990" section of our following-linked "CONVAIR 880/990 TEXTURE INVENTORY" ....
tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/6299/hjg-cv880-cv990-texture-inventory


CV990 30-5 AMERICAN AIRLINES configuration (initial production/pre-modification version)


CV990 30-6 SWISSAIR configuration (initial production/pre modification version)


CV990-A 30-5 AMERICAN AIRLINES and APSA configuration (post production/modified version)


CV990-A 30-6 SWISSAIR and APSA configuration (post production/modified version)


CV990-A 30-8 VARIG. GARUDA, and NASA configuration (post production/modified version)



Although these aircraft are referred to as airline specific configurations (with their accompanying official series nomenclature) most later went on to fly with other carriers whilst retaining the configuration references of their original operators .... a similar, but different, system to that employed by BOEING being applicable to the nomenclature of these aircraft.

Two only "V3" base pack files will continue being offered .... one for the CV990 and one for the CV990-A (as is currently and has always been the case). Each of these two base pack files will contain separate "Aircraft Base Pack's" for each corresponding sub type .... two for the CV990's and and three for the CV990-A's .... all'n'all a very, Very, "VERY EASY" system made easier by equally simple and easy to understand documentation.

In reality there were a number noticeable physical differences between initial production and modified CV990 versions, but, it's unlikely we'll be able to produce the latter .... within the foreseeable future. The physical features of our current 3D model tend to favor the original aircraft version. However .... what also stands these aircraft apart, and what "WE CAN AND HAVE" successfully achieved, is in relation updating these simulations in accordance with their correct weights, engine thrust, and fuel capacities (range) .... each of which, supported by "a number of" edited FDE parameters, result in "varying performances" between each version .... particularly in regard to airspeed as is evidenced per the following images ....


CV990 30-5 at sustained MACH 0.87 (virtual FL310 )....


CV990 30-6 at sustained MACH 0.88 (virtual FL310) ....


CV990-A 30-5 at sustained MACH 0.95 (virtual FL310) ....


CV990-A 30-6 & CV990A 30-8 at sustained MACH 0.96 (virtual FL310) .... there's a significant weight variation between both of these types resulting in similar performance indications ....



Should one really want to go "BALLS TO THE WALL" each simulation is capable of slightly faster performance than is evident within the above imagery (especially following fuel burn-off during virtual flights of any prolonged duration) .... but .... the way I establish these recommended maximum airspeed performances is to set engine N1 and N2 RPM indications within about 1% of each other (N2's being the higher indication) .... and then accept the resulting performance which is also assisted by other applied FDE manipulations. How these power settings and other manipulations each conspire to impact F/F indications for the stated performances will be your surprise to have fun with later .

"At/Near MGW" expect the T/O roll for each of these CV990's to be quite lengthy. The cited RWY/field requirement for CV990's (again "at MGW" only) is referenced as being some 9,800 FT .... subject to airport altitude, air temperature, and all of the usual dictating variables. "At MGW" .... these simulations are now demonstrating this performance quite well (remember MGW checks form the basis of our own pre-release flight testing and recommended procedures). The performance of any of our simulations improves progressively with corresponding weight reduction/s. All of our simulations load into FS with 100% fuel and payload .... not a set standard/common fuel/payload combination and which is only good for a particular virtual flight. This preference, of ours, always results in a nominal overload .... just as as should be the case. We "DO NOT EVER" assign weight in order to dictate handling and feel though. Using the FS based Fuel & Payload Adjustment facility (or aided by our flying guides) the end user is expected to reduce fuel or payload, or both, in accordance with the specific requirements of their intended virtual flight. The way we compile these/all of our simulations promotes better/more accurate flight planning .... for those whom favor doing such.

Ranging from the lightest to heaviest CV990 variants T/O V-REF (again "at MGW") is higher in comparison with that for B707's and DC-8's. Setting an engine N2 RPM minimum of 98.5%, FLAPS 27, and applying 5 units of Elevator Trim setting, I've calculated the T/O V-REF for our CV990 simulations to be in the vicinity of the following data (based on references available to us) .... given a little bit of tolerance here'n'there ....


V1 = 156 KIAS
VR = 166 KIAS
V2 = 180 KIAS

V1 = 158 KIAS
VR = 168 KIAS
V2 = 180 KIAS


T/O rotation axis/AI attitude should never exceed +7*.







The initial ROC should never be set less, or in excess of, 2,000 FPM using an engine N2 minimum of 98.5% and with FLAPS 27 extended. For these simulations maximum engine thrust, at SL, is N2 102.6% .... but if applied (procedures at some airports, at some places around the world, do require a "full power T/O"), then, power should be reduced to the engine 98.5% N2 minimum passing through 1,000 FT, after T/O, and prior commencing flap retraction .... or one might still find oneself over-accelerating and then ascending like the Space Shuttle, but, not as badly as previously

My new flying guide/s, specifically tailored for each version of these CV990 simulations, will aid good performance/s. The designed procedures have been "PROVEN" to work provided they're correctly implemented .... difficult at first (maybe), but, "A PIECE OF PISS" subject to sufficient experience gained For each CV990 variant the post T/O climb out and clean up procedures are now in accordance with the following recommendations ....


- INITIAL CLIMB RATE = 2,000 FPM
- FLAP 27* RETRACT = 220 KIAS .... increase ROC to 2,500 FPM
- FLAP 10* RETRACT = 240 KIAS .... increase ROC to 3,200 FPM .... set climb thrust (reduce engine thrust to between 90.6% and 90.5 N2/RPM depending on CV990 weight version) and assume the following climb procedure whilst also ensuring the AI pitch attitude never exceeds +10* (+11* at the very most and only once "clean") .... or one will risk plummeting to the virtual tierra firma (stalling) with a decent "THUMP"

Getting the entire post T/O and climb out procedure right and from TO (as prescribed above) is "essential" in order to ensure airspeed doesn't increase beyond 250 KIAS below 10,000 FT following flap retraction. These CV990 simulations will only over-perform if one allows them to do so. Again getting the ROC correct, and managing power properly, is "critical" in order to realize desirable performance.

The AI pitch attitude will progressively reduce with acceleration.

A typical climb to cruising altitude (virtual FL310) is now in accordance with the following recommendations ....


- Maintain 3,200 FPM ROC until 10,000 FT - maintain approx 90.6 to 90.7 % N2 RPM
- 10,000 FT reduce ROC to 2,500 FPM - maintain approx 90.5 to 90.6 % N2 RPM
- 15,000 FT reduce ROC to 2,000 FPM - maintain approx 90.5 to 90.6 % N2 RPM
- 20,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,500 FPM - maintain approx 90.5 to 90.6 % N2 RPM
- 25,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,000 FPM - maintain approx 90.5 to 90.6 % N2 RPM
- 27,000 FT reduce ROC to 800 FPM - maintain approx 90.5 to 90.6 % N2 RPM
- 29,000 FT reduce ROC to 500 FPM - maintain approx 90.5 to 90.5 % N2 RPM
- 30,000 FT reduce ROC to 250 FPM - maintain approx 90.4 to 90.4 % N2 RPM
- 31,000 FT ALT CAPTURE - maintain approx 89.3 to 90.2 % N2 RPM


PLEASE NOTE: Actual engine N2 RPM settings during climb will once again vary in accordance with CV990 weight version). This information is stated "with precision" within the new CV990 Basic Flying Guide .... once it's released) ....

The above procedure/s guarantee good climb and airspeed performance/s .... from T/O .... all the way up to cruising altitude .... and without the over-performance/over-acceleration that previously flawed these CV990 simulations.

Once again also .... the above recommended procedures aren't guaranteed to work using the current publicly downloadable CV990 FDE's. All of the above described procedures are based on the new and yet to be released data.

Getting back down again requires the following recommend procedure ....


- 110 DME reduce engine power to N2/RPM 80% .... maintain level flight to bleed airspeed below 350 KIAS.
- 100 DME reduce engine power to N2/RPM 70% .... commence 2,500 FPM ROD not in excess of 350 KIAS.
- 20,000 FT reduce engine power to N2/RPM 65% .... maintain 2,500 FPM ROD not in excess of 350 KIAS.
- 17,500 FT DME .... reset QNH/altimeter barometric pressure setting (2991 or as required).
- 15,000 FT reduce engine power to flight idle (N2/RPM 60%) .... maintain 2,500 FPM ROD .... reducing airspeed toward 250 KIAS.
- 10,000 FT reduce ROD .... 1,000 FPM ROD .... and reduce airspeed toward/below 250 KIAS.


Do not attempt any approach to landing with in excess of 20% total fuel remaining .... doing so will adversely influence the approach to landing AI pitch attitude.

Flying an extended approach/center line of between 18 and 20 DME is also advantageous/recommended .... simply in the interest of stabilizing these simulations on the ILS/GS at the earliest opportunity.


- Downwind legue .... select FLAP 10 at 240 KIAS .... reduce airspeed toward 220 KIAS .... maintain level flight.
- Base legue ... select FLAP 27 and reduce airspeed at 220 KIAS .... reduce airspeed toward 200 KTS .... maintaining level flight.
- Final approach legue .... reduce airspeed toward 185 KIAS .... maintain level flight.
- ILS/GS intercept .... 185 KIAS
- Select gear down 180 KIAS .... reduce engine thrust .... reduce airspeed toward 149 to 144 KIAS.
- Select FLAP 36 at 170 KIAS .... reducing toward 149 to 144 KIAS.
- Select FLAP 50/FULL FLAPS at 160 KIAS .... reduce airspeed toward 149 to 144 KIAS.
- Final approach to landing airspeed with full flaps and gear down .... 149-144 KIAS.
- Disengage AP at 100 FT .... prior to landing.
- Retard engine thrust to idle at 50 FT .... prior to landing.
- Commence +5* flair to landing at 20 FT .... prior to landing.









- Landing speed - approx 129 to 124 KIAS.
- Deploy wing spoilers immediately upon main gear ground contact.
- Engage reverse thrust upon ground contact.
- Derotate to land nose gear.
- 80-60 KTS cancel reverse thrust.
- Retract wing spoilers.
- Retract flaps.
- Taxi to gate/ramp.

Again also .... the actual Landing V-REF will vary in accordance with CV990 weight version too, but, what's prescribed for each simulation "DOES" work very well .... "if properly/correctly implemented".

As is the case with all of our simulations good planning and adherence to the recommended procedures is rewarding .... despite the obvious learning curve this may temporarily impose. What we recommend is intended to aid adaption to that learning curve though and is for the ultimate benefit of end user enjoyment

Another detail we've noted using the "NEW" FDE is engine startups are now "VERY SMOOTH" .... no more surging at the point of startup ignition/combustion. The current (albeit FS2004 only customized CV990 sound pack) also appears to be running somewhat more smoothly too. At the moment no further audio upgrading or extensions are planned, but, we'll see what transpires later.

One final detail/recommendation and which is applicable to both our currently downloadable and yet to be released CV990 simulations concerns main panel to external scenery horizon line view perspectives as follows ....


The following image presents the default main panel to external scenery horizon line view and which is quite good with no further adjustment/s being necessary or recommended ....


As these are 2D panels though by the time one reaches cruising altitude the perspective of this default main panel to exterior scenery view alters considerably (the horizon line recedes naturally) to appear as follows ....



It's therefore recommended that SHIFT+ENTER key board commands (FS2004 only .... although these panels "ARE" FSX portable too the panel view adjustment keys for this FS version are different) be selected "ONCE ONLY" to reset this view as follows ....

.... or selected "TWICE ONLY" to reset this view as follows ....

.... or even selected "THRICE ONLY" to reset this view as follows ....

The4 view preference and adjustment is "entirely up to the end user"


These panel/scenery/horizon view adjustments can be applied from approximately 10,000 FT during any climb to cruising altitude. After implementing these adjustments one must also remember to reset the original default view perspectives again and per SHIFT+BACK SPACE (FS2004) key board commands an in accordance with the same increment/s of adjustment/s for a desirable landing view .... and which can be applied from approximately 20,000FT during any descent. Failure to do this will result in an improper/exaggerated view perspective (way too much foreground being visible) by the time one flies the approach to landing and after the actual landing.


The following image presents the correctly readjusted default main panel to exterior scenery horizon line view during the approach to landing ....


The following image presents default view during a +3 degree flare prior to landing. The loss of RWY visibility is only momentary .... this's perfectly normal due to the elevated nose axis ....


The following image presents the correctly readjusted default main panel to exterior scenery horizon line view after derotation and during roll out after landing .... and which approximates that of the very first RWY image above



Adjusting the panel scenery horizon line perspective per CFG.FILE adjustment/s "IS NOT" encouraged.

Adjusting the panel scenery perspective view ZOOM FACTOR "IS NOT" encouraged either.

As I said at the very start of this presentation I can't think of anything more to add (for the moment) .... unless I decide to publish more CV990 wall paper for decorative, in as much as for teasing, purposes although I doubt I'll be arsed doing so

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[alex94]

did erick ever give you guys the source files for the convair?

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Model source code "is not" the issue (since this model was "made for us") .... and in any case this project (as per it's thread title) "IS NOT" a model upgrade as I mentioned within the above text

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

And the editing and testing continues. Into its 4th month now, but, only as time permits .... only "TIME" is precisely what I don't have a lot of at present due to a number of imposing circumstances.

An extensive pre-release testing period is always necessary in order to ensure the integrity of all improvements applied .... and in any case I'm simply "not prepared" to hurry anything .... "ever"

As mentioned within my above two reports; The tendency for these simulations to over-accelerate (evident within the currently downloadable versions) has now been "tamed somewhat", but, a degree of sprightliness is still necessary in order for these simulations to be able to meet the high-speed/maximum performance capabilities of these R/W aircraft. Whatever tendency still remains for these simulations to over-accelerate though is largely controlled per the ROC (at MGW, and because of their considerably lighter than B707 and DC-8 weights, CV990's were actually capable of maintaining quite a high "initial" ROC) .... as well as sensible power management too. Managing the recommended power settings and ROC, in order to control performance, "is" a bit of balancing act .... but .... is also "A PIECE OF PISS" too once "one understands the capabilities of these R/W aircraft and then "masters these simulations" accordingly. Beyond 25,000 FT, in FS and during the climb, there's less tendency for these simulations (any simulation) to over-accelerate, but again, it's imperative to get performance right ASAP following TO .... or one "WILL" still get into trouble. Once more .... sensible power management and implementing (what will later become) our recommended handling procedures is "ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL" in order to be able to fly these simulations well. In any case these simulations are now (when they're released) meeting their maximum performance capabilities and without any problem/s at all .... "at least none that I can so far detect".

Also as mentioned within my earlier progress reports (above) .... a number of other performance enhancing edits (corrections) have been applied in order to improve the handling of these simulations .... and more experiments are currently being conducted (again as time permits) in order to further ensure the integrity of these improvements where such are deemed practical.

A couple of very minor panel related issues have been discovered (these have been there, unnoticed, since 2003 though), so, we'll see what can be done about these too .... if anything can be done at all. As I mentioned (within my updated CONVAIR support posting of yesterday) .... these panel issues are "VERY MINOR" though and "DO NOT" actually impair either the quality or performance of these simulations (and which is likely why they've not been noticed earlier), but, one does need to be made aware of them all the same.

The following is a bit of additional CV990 wallpaper .... so far created during these past 4 months of testing. Some of the liveries represented below are actually "NEW" .... but .... I'll leave that for the observant one's among us to detect




















































































































That's likely "IT" now , from me, and for a little while

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

This one's still being "fiddled with" too (it's an FDE update primarily .... although "another more major surprise" for it is also anticipated) .... as and when I can afford time to do so.

Because these aircraft performed differently from B707's and DC-8's these simulations require finer tuning.

The results are "minor but represent definite and encouraging improvements", but, as implied within more detailed reports (above) it's "absolutely essential" to fly these simulations "precisely in accordance with the new procedures" that will be later advised in order to ensure the intended/proper performance .... and which then guarantees their flying "beautifully".

It's only when recommended procedures are not strictly adhered to (especially in the case of these CV990 simulations) that FS performance is then at risk of getting out of control/becoming problematic .... as month of endless testing and editing has so far "proven".

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[alex94]

Would be nice if time/model sources permitted to have some additional model detailing done like the DC-8s. But thats a big what if.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

thats a big what if.

It "SURE IS" .... but .... by no means any indication that we don't want to.

It's more a matter of "praticalities"

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Still expect to/hope to provide a new and very comprehensive CV880 & CV990 manual before the conclusion of this 2022 HJG year.

This new CV880 & CV990 manual (nothing uploaded yet though .... unlike is the case with the new DC-8 manual) will be every part as thorough/all-encompassing as the new DC-8 manual (among the others I've compiled) .... with all the necessary/important aircraft base pack, effects, model, panel, sound, and textures related descriptions and orientation etc .... plus startup and flying guide tutorials as well.

3x pages/sections so far complete.

Still 3 more to be completed .... in order to ensure this reference what it should be/needs to be.

Still also hoping to release "a bit of a surprise" for these CV880 and CV990 simulations too .... all going well/to plan.

"A LOT" of work still needing to be done though

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Although not (really) relevant to this CV990 presentation. I'm going to present the following information anyway .... concerning both a feature of these aircraft and also "a particular TWA operated CV880".

Between their early 1960's introduction and early 1970's withdrawal from service the TWA CV880 fleet supported "quite a number differences" .... minor though some of these may have been .... and most of which have been represented for us by Nick BOTAMER.

Some may not be aware, but, it wasn't an uncommon procedure for the wing spoilers of CV880 aircraft to remain "popped" during the approach to landing .... and which is practiceable using the CV880 and CV880-M simulations we offer here.

A particular detail most have probably forgotten or are more likely totally unaware of though concerns "TWA CV880-22 N8495H" .... and which we represent in the airlines 1967 livery.

This particular aircraft was originally slotted to be TWA's N829TW, but, became one of a number of CV880's retained by Howard HUGHES TOOLCO. It was leased to NORTHEAST AIRLINES as N8495H from December 1st 1962. From May 22nd 1967 this aircraft was then sub leased to TWA .... and with whom it operated until February 2nd 1968. Throughout its TWA lease this aircraft supported the airlines full and late 1960's era livery, but, prior to entering service with the airline it's engineering department apparently neglected to remove the NORTHEAEST legend displayed on undersides of the aircraft's wing spoilers and which read .... "THANK YOU FOR FLYING NORTHEAST" ....





This over-sight was promptly removed after some good natured and in-jest prodding on the part of TWA clientelle flying aboard this particular aircraft.

Upon the conclusion of its TWA lease N8495H was returned to TOOLCO and stored at Marana. It was then sold to LANICA on October 7th 1972 .... and with whom it served as AN-BIA until February 1975 when it was withdrawn from service, and again placed in storage, this time at at Miami. TOOLCO was succeeded by SUMMA CORP and which acquired this aircraft (re-regristered N90455) during November 1978 .... though it continued to display its former LANICA registration. It was sold to AMERICAN JET INDUSTRIES (N820AJ) on December 28th 1978 .... then sold to EIGHT TWENTY AJ CORP/LIGONAIR during August 1981 .... neither of whom actually flew this aircraft .... and it was eventually scrapped at Miami during November 1983.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Benoit - HJG]

Engine start on CV-800 and CV-990

[alex94]

Amazing benoit! Im sure youve seen these two wonderful videos that have actual CJ805-23 audio
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUg-cgRx0FU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClY8cp_F4UU&t=22s

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

What Benoit's presented above is "THE SURPRISE" I've made reference to a few times in regard to presenting this particular project.

It's new, and far superior, CV880 and CV990 sound packs .... each meticulously customized by Benoit .... the compilation of which has been aided by his own (personal) real world recordings of these aircraft.

The GE CJ805-3/-3B turbojet engines of the CV880's, and GE CJ805-23/-23B Aft-Fan Fanjet engines of the CV990's, demonstrated quite different and unique audio characteristics in comparison with the P&W and RR engines which powered their B707/720 and DC-8 counterparts.

"Separate" FS2004 and FSX specific versions of these sound packs will be provided for both our CV880 and CV990 simulations.

These sound packs are engineered in accordance with "certain FDE parameters" within for both simulations (that's the new and yet to be released FDE in the case of the CV990's as that for the CV880's was earlier updated, released, and needs no further editing), so, each will "best function" with our/the HJG simulations only.

I've done "as much as I dare" to the CV990 FDE's. There's more I'd like to have been able to do, but, are simply not prepared risk doing .... given attempting to do so would then see the CV990's unable to meet their maximum performance airspeed/velocity as well causing other minor performance related shortcomings too.

The key to getting the CV990 simulations (in particular) to perform nicely is to "follow the new and recommended procedures .... to the very letter". Not easy at first .... BUT .... with plenty of practice it'll become 2nd nature/easy and these simulations will then perform very nicely/a lot better than previously. It must also be born-in-mind these aircraft types were smaller than the B707 and DC-8 .... and also a lot lighter too .... whilst having about the same power, so, they "are" prone to accelerating quickly, and which can only get out of control "if one allows such to occur". The best TO/climb procedure is to set "no more than the recommended power" .... then .... establish "a higher ROC" (which these aircraft were capable of) in order to keep airspeed under control) .... and to "adjust climb power, and the ROC, precisely as recommended when passing through different altitudes". Do all this correctly/properly .... and these CV990 simulation (supported by their new and soon to be released FDE) each TO, climb, cruise, descend, and approach to land b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l-l-y.

What Benoit's providing (as evidenced per the above promotional videos of these new sound packs) is "the icing on the cake" in respect of these CV880 and CV990 simulations

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

"IF" .... anyone's interested Benoit's just (today) added another/3rd video posted above.

This one relates to the new CV990 sound packs only and from an interior/FD based audio perspective .... and is composed of a basic engine startup tutorial

All other information concerning our new CV880 and CV990 sound packs remains as earlier communicated .... 3 postings above

Mark C
AKL/NZ