L1011 V2 Range?

[thrillsandchills]

Does anyone know the range on the L1011's V2? Has the range been improved since V1?

Thanks,

Thrills and Chills

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

No changes have been made in respect of the FS range capabilities of any of these L1011 simulations.

The range of most versions of these L1011 simulations "DOES" differ though .... primarily on account of each ones assigned fuel capacity/laiding .... and which will ultimately be impacted by how one actually flies each one (in regard to altitude and airspeed etc in FS.

What route are you trying to fly ?

Which L1011 version are you actually flying that particular route with ?

Are you flying with a full load .... or otherwise ?

How high are are you flying ?

What sort of airspeed are you flying at ?

All of these factors will, ultimately, determine ones range .... "IN FS".

I'm not sure what the FS range of each of these L1011 simulations actually is .... since a maximum range check does not form any part of my pre-release checks, but, on the basis of calculations alone, the range of each of these simulations should be well within the ball park figure of its realworld counterpart.

"IN FS" .... there are procedures one can apply in order to further extend/maximize range .... such as reducing the stated payload (both PAX and cargo only) in order to avoid sacrificing/reducing fuel loading when adjusting the virtual weight of each L1011 simulation to within its stated MGW capabilities .... once again all of which "DO" differ.

The early L1011's (-1 through -100 series) were more of a high density aircraft for medium range routes (like those flown by EASTERN AIR LINES across the USA .... and BRITISH AIRWAYS bwtween the UK and European destinations .... and SAUDIA from middle eastern ports to Europe, Asia, and The Continent or the UK .... up to aeound 3,000 mile or so) rather than a truly long range/intercontinental routes, so, one probably wouldn't/shouldn't try using these ones on any virtual trans-Altantic crossing .... "unless one was rediculously light in terms of payload". Later models of the L1011 (-200 series) were longer-ranging (up to around 4,000 miles or so and could, possiblly, manage virtual trans-Atlantic crossings .... like the DC10-30. The truly long range/intercontinental versionj of the TRISTAR was the L1011-500 (up to 6,000 miles of range) .... BUT .... which is also "the one/version of these particular aircraft which HJG, as yet, doesn't represent

Bear in mind also .... "real world" aircraft range can become "a very grey area" (at the best of times even) as there's a lot of factors that can, and do, influence it


Mark C
AKL/NZ

[thrillsandchills]

Thanks aerofoto for the reply.

So then, a "medium range route" is around 3000 statute miles? Are you saying that the early L1011's (-1 through -100 series,) if I'm skilled enough and at the right altitude and speed, and in the right atmospheric conditions, I might get 3000 SM out of those models?

Thanks in advance,

Thrills and Chills

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I'd call up to, and around, 3,000 miles to be long (but not necessarily intercontinental) range

Medium range is probably more around 1,500 to 2,000 miles .... or thereabouts.

if I'm skilled enough

I don't think think it really requires any "skill" .... just "GOOD PLANNING" .... and possibly a reasonable understanding of certain things also

Atmospheric conditions .... "IN FS" .... are probably less practiceable, but, the general rule of thumb (even in FS) is, the higher one flies (subject to weight), then, the more ones en-route fuel consuption will reduce .... and be further reduced slightly too on account of progressive fuel burn off (weight reduction) en-route too .... and by also reducing ones cruising airspeed as well and which will/should help even further assist reducing fuel burn to, assumedly, promote a bit more range.

Personally .... I'd probably start out by climbing to around 31,000 FT (which is a good initial cruising altitude even after any MGW departure) .... with later, progressive, climb towards 33,000 FT, and then 35,000 FT, and higher "after" reasonable fuel burn off (I don't have the real world weights .... I'm sorry) .... and also by maintaining around MACH 0.81 or MACH 0.82 all the while too.

The later L1011's can "really scooter along" (up to around MACH 0.86 .... I believe) .... BUT .... like is the case with any aircraft type, the faster one goes, then, the more fuel ones going to burn in order to maintain a higher airspeed .... and which isn't exactly going to promote range.

Try'n learn to fly "ECONOMICALLY" .... "the least fuel burn" over any distance .... possibly with a slightly reduced payload to help .... and even if this means flying "a bit slower" (rather than going "BALLS-TO-THE-WALL) in order to be able promote doing so

Again .... I've no idea what routes you're trying to fly .... or with which L1011 version .... or at what airspeed and altitude either .... since you've not responded to my earlier queries in regard to these particular details .... BUT .... what I've "suggested", here, for you, are just "A FEW VERY BASIC POINTERS" which should/will help

Once again also ....

I never undertook a pre-release maximum range test/check using any of the HJG L1011 simulations, but, have flown the L1011-1 along the New York/Miami route a few times (roungly 1,100 miles or so .... I think) .... and I calculated, on the basis of having flown this particular route after a MGW departure (up to around 430,000 LBS MGW for this particular L1011 version), I should, in theory, have been able to do so almost 3 times, if not a bit more, without risking flamimg everything out, or, virtually refuelling along the way (only I'm "BUGGERED" if I'm going to sit at my PC "that long" in order to try'n prove the point) .... and which does seem to be "about right" according to the known typical endurance capabilities of L1011-1 aircraft.

On a similar basis our later L1011 version simulations should be capable of even better endurances.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[thrillsandchills]

Thanks for the quick reply.

Sorry about that.

In answer to your questions:

Range I'm looking to do coast to coast service, virtually anyway. Which L10 fits the bill, I don't know.

PAX/Cargo Load I usually do fly with a full load, and default cargo settings.

Altitude Is flying at FL350 too high for the L1011?

Airspeed M.70 (according to Airliners.net this would be "economical cruise" for the L10.

Thrills and Chills

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

"COAST TO COAST" .... US transcontinental is what I presume you to mean .... right ?

The HJG L1011-1's and 50's should be able to handle that .... "just" .... BUT .... you'd probably do better to use either the L1011-100, -150, -200, or -250 .... "just to ne sure"

I'd go straight up to FL310 .... "first" .... then later .... up to around FL330 or FL350 by about mid-way and three-quarters-of-the-way across respectively (I did actually cover this particular aspect in my above reply posting)

I think you can also step your airspeed up to around MACH 0.81/MACH 0.82 (at FL310) too .... since MACH 0.70 is probably "way to slow" (it'll also cause these L1011's simulations to fly with an increased "nose-up" pitch attitude too) and despite the fact it will result in even less virtual fuel resource being consumed.

That's what I, personally, would be inclined toward doing

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[christrott]

One thing to note - the L1011-1 had a range with full pax/cargo of just under 2700 nautical miles in ZERO WIND conditions with required fuel reserves. It's range with max fuel was 4250 nautical miles, but that requires you to remove a not insignificant amount of passenger/cargo payload.

The later -250 with the increased gross weights improved the max range with a full payload to 3600 nautical miles, so if you're wanting to go coast-to-coast with a full payload, I'd take that one.

Remember, due to the performance issues of the early RB.211's, the L1011 did not meet its original range projections. Between fixes by Rolls-Royce and modifications by Lockheed, they were able to achieve the original 3600nm loaded range projection with the -250 and mod kits to bring earlier aircraft up to the -250 standard.

[walterleo]

For FS9 exists a very useful gauge "lp727.Fuelstat.gau" which gives instantly the total fuel burn, the actual one, the TTE and the range (including the wind, altitude etc. effects) in metric or US notations. I have that gauge in nearly all my panels. Together with a good long range navigation instrument (like the PT KLN-90B) it eliminates all that nagging questions like "Will I arive with the fuel load I still have?"

Kind regards

Walter

P.S.: Hopefully the author has nothing against posting his wonderful piece of work here.


Attachment Deleted

[Deleted]

Jun 4, 2014 15:30:56 GMT thrillsandchills said:

Range I'm looking to do coast to coast service, virtually anyway. Which L10 fits the bill, I don't know.

In real life, I flew on as passenger from NY to LA and back on TWA L1011 for few trips. So you can do that too on FSX.

Regards,

Aharon

[christrott]

It's capable of Coast-to-Coast, but you have to reduce passenger and/or cargo load to do so safely, especially going Westbound from NY to LA where you need to account for headwinds.

[Deleted]

Also, Eastern operated L1011 service between KJFK and KLAX.

Aharon

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I flew on as passenger from NY to LA and back on TWA L1011

The TWA L1011/'s you, apparently, flew on might have been (and most probably were) one of the "heavier variants" (-100's or -200's) .... with increased fuel capacity for greater range .... since TWA "DID" operate some of these.

Eastern operated L1011 service between KJFK and KLAX

What I think Chris means ..... and certainly what I, mysself, have been trying to communicate too, is ....

Whilst even the early L1011's might have been able to fly US/coast-to-coast services .... then .... they probably would have done so with a "payload reduction" (reduced freight and/or PAX loading) to promote their carriage of additional fuel in order to fascilitate their being able to fly further/longer distances .... otherwise such an operation might become "TOO MARGINAL" (for safety) and/or "UNECONOMIC" with the imposition of a tech-stop en-route for refuelling.

Having said that though ....

During the 1970's it probably wasn't uncommon for some airline to, perhaps, route a US type trans-continental service (or even one across Europe too) less directly .... via an intermediate point (as I think AMERICAN AIRLINES, CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, and UNITED AIR LINES once did .... via Chicago, or Denver, or Dallas FW .... with their DC10-10's not long after these aircraft first entered service with them) .... and with the remainder of their route then being flown as an "extension" to the first sector of such transcontinental services. I think this's, possibly, still done today .... by some US airlines.

I could be wrong .... but ..... I don't think any of the "early L1011's" flew transcontinental services across the USA .... "DIRECT/NON-STOP" .... at least not without some form of payload imposition (reduction) as has been suggested.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[walterleo]

Hi friends:

In real aviation there were a lot of uncommented differences between airplanes of the same type even with the same airline. One knows that by a story of A. de Saint Exupery, when they got lost at night overwater and everybody trying to find a way to bring them at least overland until finally form far away comes the question "What is your tailnumber?" "O.K. with this number you have two hours more in your tanks than the rest of our fleet!"
Moral: Even the same subtype of airplane is not the same every time.

In FS one can simulate that by the airplane.cfg augmenting e.g. the belly tank and reducing payload best at points and combinations were the influence on center of gravity is small.
Works fine!

Walter

[thrillsandchills]

I'll download an EAL -2xx for when I do a USA Transcon flight. I suppose L1011-1 was used to fly to places like Denver and Dallas/FW from either coast; that type of flight.

Thanks guys,

Thrills and Chills

Can we add the gauge that Walter suggested to HJG A/C?

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

People can add whatever they want .... but please remember .... at the end of the day HJG only provides support for whatever it releases "as part of each of its downloadable packages"

Despite this .... most non-HJG edits do/should work fine with HJG supplied simulations, but, there have been reported intances where this "IS NIT" the case .... and which "DOES" need to be borne-in-mind.

Support of other such bit's'n'pieces ("IF" required) really needs to be sourced from the rspective aouthors .... outside of HJG.

Mark C
AKL/NZ