I notice 1 of you is talking about TRISTAR 1, whilst the other is talking about TRISTAR SHIP ONE !
This's probably imaterial to the issue being discussed here, but, both aircraft are "different" .... in that whilst their certified MGTOW's are similar their thrust ratings are not the same .... in that our "SHIP 1" (the first TRISTAR produced) is represented with it's original "derated" test flight engine thrust setting of 36,500 LBS, as opposed to the later 42,000 LBS thrust setting which had been certified by the time the L1011 when into full production as TRISTAR 1. These basic differences in engine thrust values are sufficient to affect performance .... as one should see/experience when flying theseaircraft in FS. See my performance notes per my L1011 PANEL INSTALLATION & HANDLING NOTES pegged to the top of this forum page
Although this does not directly address the issue raised either .... I want to state the following anyway ....
We/HJG did not mess around with the panel Fuel System, at all, as part of the general modifications applied to these L1011 panels .... so far as I'm aware. This part of each of panel remains the same ....
"as supplied by Ken MITCHELL" .... and therefore functions identically with each panel/aircraft version. Only the fuel quantities, displayed by each of the F/E panel guages, should differ .... influenced by both aircraft MGTOW and FUEL data within the CFG file for each aircraft type .... essentially only if my Fuel Adjustment notes are followed.
It should not be necessary to adjust any of the fuel valves beyond those descriptions recommended within my L1011 PANEL HANDLING & INSTALLATION NOTES .... and things should then continue to operate fine accordingly. The fuel system within these panels is completely different and far less complex than that featured within our B707/B720 panels .... just in case any comparison is being made with these
In my "HANDLING NOTES" .... I have discussed the way in which "I personally" set up/use the F/E sub panel fuel system. Whether or not what I recommend is best, or even authentic, I know not, but, I can confirm what what I recommend seems to work fine .... for me .... and for the type of route flying which I undertake.
As part of my pre-release testing of the L1011-1 version, in particular, I flew this simulation on a typical EAL NY/MIA flight. Despite reducing fuel load (only) at the start of my test flight .... which is what I do (standard) in order to establish any simulation as near as possible to its certified MGTOW but without any payload adjustment at all .... I still had plenty of fuel remaining upon the completion of this test. Unfortunately I did not record the fuel values remaining after my flight, and I do not now recall whether or not the center tank was exhausted completely.
I stand to be corrected here .... because I'm not entirely certain .... but .... I think TRISTAR 1 aircraft would typically have serviced much shorter routes than EGCC/CYYZ. There is a lot of weight variation within the L1011 family .... mostly in regard tanking variations = range capabilities for these aircraft. TRISTAR 1 (the demo version) did cross the Atlantic, but, so far as I'm aware, not in the course of operating a full PAX load .... as these flights were undertaken to demonstrate the aircraft to both COURT LINE and BEA.
Personally .... I would have been inclined to use either the L1011-200, or -250 versions with higher weights = greater fuel capacity .... OR ..... I might have increased my fuel load at the expense of dropping some of payload if using any other L1011 version and which might/should then enable you to fly longer routes, with more fuel, without the risk of flaming anything out.
L1011-500 fuel capacity/range would be "EVEN BETTER STILL" (over an EGCC/CYZZ type of route) .... but unfortunately .... we do not, yet, represent this particular L1011 family member.
I hope something here might of use to someone .... despite not directly addressing the issue raised.
Mark C
AKL/NZ
