|
Post by pms707 on Sept 7, 2023 8:20:19 GMT
“ONE FINAL QUESTION ....
Have you applied any editing to the FDE suite you're using ? .... AND/OR .... Are you running these simulations with any ADD-ON utilities/modules/programs that you've omitted to mention ?”
The only add on is EZCA. And the only edits I’ve made are the position of the exhaust smoke in the aircraft.cfg file, and the one Benoit suggested to the thrust config to accommodate his reverser’s sounds. See the downloads for his FSX Spey packages on the HJG download page.
I will add the line you suggested to kill the GPW warning.
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 7, 2023 17:53:49 GMT
Hi friends:
Regarding problems of altitude holding of the AP one can remember a real procedure of real aircrafts. The nearer one approaches the desired altitude the less climb or descent rate should be applied: e.g. 2000 ft to go 2000 ft rate 1000 to go 1000 rate, 500 to go 500 rate, 300 to go 300 rate. Done in that way the AP as well a humean pilot will not overshoot and wallowing will nearly not occur.
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by pms707 on Sept 7, 2023 20:29:44 GMT
Hi friends: Regarding problems of altitude holding of the AP one can remember a real procedure of real aircrafts. The nearer one approaches the desired altitude the less climb or descent rate should be applied: e.g. 2000 ft to go 2000 ft rate 1000 to go 1000 rate, 500 to go 500 rate, 300 to go 300 rate. Done in that way the AP as well a humean pilot will not overshoot and wallowing will nearly not occur. Kind regards Walter Hi Walter -- yes I have been doing exaclty this! Nevertheless, "wallowing" sets in no matter how carefully I try to approach the set altitude. Most 3D aircraft will wallow slightly, however, this is what I end up stuck with until I descend the 1-11 to below 21000 -- at which point it completely stops: www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m93md4ho7tvemyfcw71o2/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-X-2023-09-07-13-13-23.mp4?rlkey=lkfwxwcpq0rv4hvzr6yoehu4v&dl=0I am posting this so that any observer may determine what if anything is wrong with my flying configuration here. The gross weight here is about 23,000 lbs below max... I suspect that whatever is causing this situation is also responsible for the drastic nose up pitching at liftoff with the stabilizer trimmed to 3 degrees as indicated in all of the documentation. The only way I can keep the nose from reaching 30 degrees within about 5 seconds is to trim the nose down with the stab quite a lot right after gear retraction, or push the nose down with the stick in what would likely be considered a pretty alarming fashion in a real airplane. What this model seems to be "asking" me for is a takeoff pitch trim of about 1 degree, but the alarm sounds prior to the takeoff roll with anything less than the requisite 3 degrees selected. I made sure to drop the FSX files into the panel folder at install as well. I am certain there is nothing wrong with my config at this point. And I am following all flying procedures explained in the online manual. I can't help but think there's an issue with the panel and or flight dynamics... --Alex
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 8, 2023 6:12:12 GMT
Hi Alex:
A silly question: Did you try the same with 2-D cockpit?
And: Some simulations change the attitude upwards after gear retraction, as the gear creates a downward pitch moment as long as it is out. The Tu-114 with its long gear is a prominent example.
But one cannot exclude WIN11 problems with FSX. As WIN10 and 11 also created problems in FS9 for a very complex simulation (PT Tu-154M).
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 8, 2023 7:49:15 GMT
Hi: A short flight around the circuit at Cancun Rwy 12: FS9, and the short-coupled BAC 11-1 475: Joystick FS9 default: cockpit preparation: Speeds: Trim,Flap,pressure cabin: Top Temp on: Ready for departure: After T.O. as trimmed gear down: As trimmed gear up: Climbing on AP on after reducing climbrate: Turning out clean on AP Altitude hold: no wallowing other simulations are less stable: Downwind preparing for landing: Baseleg turning to final, where other simulations present problems at speeds as flown for real.: ILS intercept still on AP: Short final handflown: Much higher AoA as recomended, holding pitch attitude is difficult. Kind regards Walter P.S.: David Malthby himself pointed out, that real pilots estimated the flightdinamcs of the BAC 1-11 as the best one of his simulations. He recommended also to land nearly flat as for real. I flew as Pax two times in a BAC 111 and the landing flare was "nearly flat". So, problems of pitch stability in simulation could have the origin in a too high AoA (Angle of Attac) i.e. flown near the stall.
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 8, 2023 8:43:43 GMT
Hi Alex:
In your video flying the 111-400 at FL 270 the trim indicator shows a rare value. Did you try to reinstall a BAC 1-11? Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by pms707 on Sept 8, 2023 19:25:33 GMT
Hi Alex: In your video flying the 111-400 at FL 270 the trim indicator shows a rare value. Did you try to reinstall a BAC 1-11? Kind regards Walter The install is the most recent available on the HJG website from the downloads page. I believe the dates for those are December 2021. The panel is installed from the link to the most recent downloads on this forum, per Mark's post further up the thread. It is dated July 2023 I believe. The panels have been correctly installed, with the relevant FSX files replacing the FS9 files in the DMFS Shared Files 1-11 panel folder. I would love to get to the bottom of this -- this is such a fun little plane and so relevant to my 1968-69 sim... Also: Here is another video -- one of a takeoff showing the extreme forward action on the stick needed to keep it from pitching up to 30 degrees at gear retraction. Bear in mind -- the forward action is basically at the forward limit of my joystick. This cannot be normal. www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qvgcuuhnxzt8z2j75zns7/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-10-2023.09.07-17.48.37.03.mp4?rlkey=s6r368s22vyyyukmlgbgzz80q&dl=0I did neglect to turn on the flight director for this takeoff, but the results are the same for both FD and no FD on for takeoff. The other option has been to re-trim with the wheel immediately before AP engagement. What's odd is that the trim wheel is set at 3 degrees each time and the checklist is always complete for the takeoff config.
|
|
|
Post by pms707 on Sept 8, 2023 19:33:13 GMT
Hi Alex: A silly question: Did you try the same with 2-D cockpit? And: Some simulations change the attitude upwards after gear retraction, as the gear creates a downward pitch moment as long as it is out. The Tu-114 with its long gear is a prominent example. But one cannot exclude WIN11 problems with FSX. As WIN10 and 11 also created problems in FS9 for a very complex simulation (PT Tu-154M). Kind regards Walter Walter I have not tried the 2D cockpit -- also I am using Windows 10...
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 9, 2023 6:34:49 GMT
Hi Alex: The panel is installed from the link to the most recent downloads on this forum, per Mark's post further up the thread. It is dated July 2023 I believe.
One could try to install the panel also from the HJG download page i.e. not the latest version. My version is this one of 2021 not the 2023. simviation.com/hjg/panels1/B111.htmWhat's odd is that the trim wheel is set at 3 degrees each time and the checklist is always complete for the takeoff config.
Start FS with the default flight with the C 172. Change the airplane to your BAC 1-11 and use the dark and cold start to avoid that something unwanted remains in the FS. Kind regards Walter P.S.: You could also try the original aircraft.cfg again. Because changing it one can by typing error change a line of the aircraft.cfg. It already did happen to me and created inexplicable behaviours.
|
|
|
Post by Herman on Sept 9, 2023 19:26:54 GMT
Hello Alex....Also did a test flight with the BAC 1-11-400 using FSX and W10 platforms and my results were pretty well the same as the results of Walter and Mark.
No unusual excessive rates of pitch\attitudes during takeoff and climb out. I used 80% of fuel and the default payload of 14,000lbs.
One thing to remember is.... that as the airspeed increases nose down trim will always be required to maintain the desired climb rate and this will usually be true for all aircraft.
I did experience some wallowing at my cruise altitude of FL240 and M0.72 When I checked my setting for Turbulence in the Weather section it was set at "Light". I then set it to "None" and the slight wallowing stopped.
Herman
|
|
|
Post by pms707 on Sept 9, 2023 22:01:33 GMT
OK noted. I will get used to trimming the nose down with the stab then. It just seems rather extreme with this model compared to others I regularly fly, including the DM Trident, which is a fantastic model. And if setting light turbulence to none is a quick and easy fix to the wallowing issue, then that will be just fine! I will give this a try.
|
|
|
Post by pms707 on Sept 9, 2023 23:40:15 GMT
Well with turbulence set to NONE I still cannot eliminate the wallow at cruise above 21000. But since I’m only ever gonna fly this in AA, Braniff, Mohawk and BEA colors on very short hops, I’m fine to stay at 21000 or below. Those are realistic altitudes for the airplane and the routes it flew — especially the -200 which stayed below 25000 all the time since it lacked emergency 02 in the cabin. A “Jet powered Viscount” was what the 1-11 was meant to be, after all…
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 10, 2023 11:11:02 GMT
Hi Alex:
Flew again with the gross weight you did in your 2nd video:
With 27 tons the BAC 1-11 475 will take off like a rocket or an early Learjet. AND one has to trim forward after gear retraction and reduce the power considerably. If in the Trident it is not so marked: The Trident was an infamous bad climber. So, take off at full cross weight or accept that one has to adapt to the basic conditions of a flight. A real airplane needs trimming, the DM BAC 1-11 is excellently well simulated.
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by Benoit - HJG on Sept 10, 2023 15:23:36 GMT
FSX No problems/no flight instability and no oscillation up to Fl280 with auto-pilot engaged.
This 5 min video shows takeoff with 80% fuel with 14,000lbs payload, climbing to FL280 using DMFS Panel files V1.1 in VC engaging auto-pilot at cruise altitude around MACH 0.76 FSX-Acceleration Win 7 Pro
Benoit
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 10, 2023 20:30:43 GMT
"PERFECT" Benoit .... and thank you AND .... thanks also to both Herman and Walter for their valued input too It needs to be understood that the "technical expertise" of Walter, and Herman, has been respected on the HJG forum for more than 20 years. Both have accumulated vast FS experience in regard to HJG produced, and hosted, simulations .... and which has resulted in their successful problem solving for many HJG community members throughout these years. And Benoit has been a respected "technical specialist" among our 5-man in-house development team over equally as long a period too and whom also played a significant role in regard to HJG's introduction of the DMFS products. I don't want this response being misconstrued or otherwise "taken the wrong way", but, I do need to say what I now need to say. Over the past few days (since my own last input) "considerable and time consuming" analysis has been applied in regard to the reported issue (at the cost of interrupting/delaying other developing projects behind the scenes here) .... searching the FS web (including CBFS too where most support for DMFS simulations was previously undertaken) .... BUT .... "no evidence whatsoever" can be found in regard to any of the issues reported within this thread or since the BAC ONE-ELEVEN simulations were last FDE updated (by DM) back around 2008/9. Walter's not reported any difficulties, nor has Herman either, and as is now further supported by the above/latest video evidence submitted by Benoit too, it's apparent the reported issue is obviously something not universally experienced .... nobody here (including myself) can replicate any of the reported issue/s. In this sort of situation logic therefore "suggests" when no evidence of what's been reported is apparent (as thorough as we try and do tend to be) and we can't replicate the issue either, then, the cause of the reported issue is unlikely to be associated with the simulation itself. This then only leaves the likelihood of hardware (controller device configurations and sensitivities etc), FS configurations and sensitivities (etc), possibly even undesirable FDE editing/tampering too (such can't not be reasoned), and more likely "simple/basic flying technique" also .... all open to conjecture. We "do not" doubt the OP is experiencing an issue, but, If we whom know these simulations more intimately than most can't replicate a reported issue (even on the basis of the very scant information provided), then, there's likely no issue to be addressed .... in short we can't fix what isn't proven to be broken.This group has, over the past 23 years, earned a respectable reputation for "going out of its way" to try'n assist folk and as a result it resolves more than 90% of all reported issues, but, there are occasions when reported issues aren't the result of an irregularity within a particular simulation .... and such issues (as rare as these may be) can be difficult or impossible to trouble shoot. "On the basis of extensive background research undertaken" (by myself and a number of other expert FS assistants) in relation to this report we can only conclude .... "there are no known issues in regard to any of the HJG hosted DMFS BAC ONBE-ELEVEN simulations.MRC
|
|