|
Post by mikethepilot on Jul 3, 2014 3:00:35 GMT
Allow me to contribute my two cents...
I have been doing some flights on the L-1011 "TriStar 1" model recently and I have found that Mach .78 to .80 (270-273kts on indicated airspeed; 463kts ground speed) is a great cruising speed for FL360. I've found that the L-1011 burns about 30% of total its fuel capacity (not counting fuel reserve) in the TJSJ-KMCO route compared to cruising at 310kts (492kts ground speed) on indicated airspeed in which the L-1011 would burn and additional 10-12% its fuel capacity in flight on the same route. Another thing to note is that in the real world and in the FS World as long as you use real world weather any flight going from east to west will take longer to complete and burn more fuel because the airplane is flying against the Jetstream that goes from west to east, and flying from west to east flights will take less as the airplane is being pushed by the Jetstream (tailwind) and requiring less thrust from the engines (reason why going from TJSJ-KMCO takes about 2hrs 50mins+ and 2hrs 30mins+/- going from KMCO to TJSJ).
Anyways, here's a screenshot of the L-1011 "TriStar 1" in flight at FL360.
Hope this helps... Happy Flying!
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jul 3, 2014 5:37:06 GMT
On the basis of my pre-release testing/evaluation experience flying all of the HJG L1011 simulations .... I think the only consequence of flying at such reduced MACH cruising airspeeds .... "IN FS" .... is likely to be that this may force each to fly with a higher AI pitch attitude .... possibly around 3* or more. "IN FS" .... and unless one's flying incredibly light .... then .... this's something that will just have to be tolerated I'm afraid This actually reminds me of something I was reading a little while back .... but .... in regard to the DC10's .... When the first oil price shock, of the 1970's, started to bite .... most airlines began to reduce their high altitude MACH cruising airspeeds as a fuel/cost saving measure. In the case of the DC10's some operators reduced their cruising airspeeds from MACH 0.85 down to MACH 0.82 .... at 35,000 FT. Doing this "DID" save them "a bit of money" .... but .... it also had the unanticipated affect of making life a bit more difficult for their cabin crews .... whom then found it a little harder to push their heavy service carts "uphill", toward the nose/forward cabin sections, due to the increased/3* nose up pitch attitude that resulted from reduced MACH cruising airspeeds I suspect similar might have applied in the case of the L1011's (and other aircraft too) .... and for the same/a similar reason. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by thrillsandchills on Jul 7, 2014 14:18:42 GMT
I did add the gauge, but when I looked at the panel, (after adding the gauge,) I didn't see any difference from before, so I deleted the gauges. Now I'm back to the Standard Installation.
Thrills and Chills
|
|