Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 3, 2020 19:29:37 GMT
We haven't got that data .... at least not that we can post here.
BUT .... "if" you're using our B727 panels then you'll note that the EPR gauges for each aircraft version/panel engine type are set/accurately bugged (to the MAX EPR setting for each engine type in accordance with the data we were able to source back in 2007/8) .... so .... always set T/O power to the displayed/bugged maximum setting (but bear in mind these settings are "for a 15*C ambient temperature at SL" only) .... or.... one can adjust/reset these EPR bugs to alternative settings if desired.
When applying T/O power .... the best procedure is simply to avoid exceeding these set EPR bug settings (even though nothing's going to break if one does) and accept the N1/N2 values for what they become .... and then adjust power for climb immediately following T/O and clean up .... it'll keep you busy
Just bear in mind though that FS (apparently) doesn't represent EPR very well, but, our George CARTY was able to tweak/fudge his EPR gauge programming (for all of our simulations) to result in indications that are actually very close to reality.
Expect T/O performance to degrade slightly in conjunction with higher airport altitudes (FS does represent this imposition reasonably well), so, watch the weight in relation to this and available RWY length .... THEN .... after T/O keep an eye on the engine power (N1/N2 primarily whilst continuing to ensure the EPR's aren't exceeded), ROC, IAS and MACH indications all the way up to cruising altitude .... and be prepared to progressively adjust ROC accordingly too and throughout the climb in order to maintain the best overall climb performance before settling into the cruise .... that'll keep you pretty busy too .... no getting bored with any of these simulations if they're used properly
If you refer to "SECTION 5" of our following linked and forum based B727 manual ....
.... I've posted procedural recommendations for each B727 version/engine type configuration and which (for the simple reason that simulated weight and engine thrust for each B727 version differs .... what one version may not be able to accomplish with ease another likely will) can be used very reliably .... in accordance with all I've mentioned above and which is based on my own extensive developmental testing of these simulations over the years.
This data and our recommendations .... whilst "NOT" being what you've specifically requested (I know) .... is the closest to it/best "we" can offer "here".
When the B727's were first implemented into the HJG virtual flight line we weren't allowed to post R/W aircraft data "here" (it being an common in-service aircraft type at the time) .... the circulation of which became more rigidly controlled following 9/11.
"When the B727's were first implemented into the HJG virtual flight line we weren't allowed to post R/W aircraft data "here" (it being an common in-service aircraft type at the time) .... the circulation of which became more rigidly controlled following 9/11. "
One of the pities for fltsimmers who try to "fly" like real pilots. This is also one of the advantages of ex-Soviet simulations where real flightmanuals are available and some simulations are programed in ways overcoming the shortcomings of FS. The problem is the language barrier. But flightmanuals follow a common logic, so the tables are often selfexplaining. Besides that flightmanuals for the IL-62 and the Tu-154M are available in translations (IL-62 in German and Tu-154M in English). For the IL 62, Tu-104 and Tu-114 I published English short versions with all the relevant tables at avsim.su. One can find them searching for "walterleo" there.
For the 727 performance try that: As at least the range and runway requirements for T.O. are still available in its original BOEING handout.
In the tables there is a reference to additional procedures and limits by different Airlines, so one can feel being free to go to redlines in a difficult take off e.g. heavy at noon in MMMX where you will need all of the long runways even with only 80 tons and the -17 engines and limited to 5 deg of flaps only.
Here screenshots, that it worked respecting EPR limt and the redlines at a standart day.
Climbing over the end of the 3952 m of rwy 05 L
Well done HJG!
P.S.: As "pilots" in FS we need not discuss with our "airline" the engine life we can use all the available power for take off.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 17, 2020 21:27:05 GMT
Are you sure about that 5 deg of flaps or is it only for MMMX operations and it is NOT for Quito airport operations?
Walter generally "knows what he's talking about and is sufficiently technically astute as to be able to understand it all too (he's no fool) .... that's one of a number of reasons why his contributions are welcome here.
The information quoted is sourced "from the document he's linked above" .... and it "is" an aviation document, but, he also states the flap setting is for the "JT8D-15" and "MMXX" only ....
Here a link to the datas of the 727-200 ADV With JT8D-15 (not the 17 Sorry!)
The flap setting will likely be a hot'n'high operations imposition/"recommendation" .... and which can apply more during certain times of day than others due to atmospheric temperature and air pressure variations which apply to all R/W operations. How well FS simulates this, if at all, is an entirely different matter.
More flap produces greater lift .... with a slightly increased drag component too .... the latter being precisely what one doesn't need going out of MMMX's high altitude and rarefied atmosphere on a hot day .... and especially with a reasonably high (not necessarily full) payload as well.
Quito is an entirely different matter again.
That is beautiful panel. Whose panel is that and does it work for FSX??
It's by Richard PROBST .... and "extensively" re-engineered by us (George CARTY) with his approval.
As we've also stated "repeatedly" since 2008 .... this panel is FS2004 native but "is" FSX "portable" too .... though "not" FSX native.
In addition to our apparently constant need to repeat this information we've since gone to great lengths to try'n ensure people are well informed in regard to what is, and isn't FSX portablee/compatible .... most recently per the following "ANNOUNCEMENT" which appears at the top of all forum pages here and clearly states what is, and isn't FSX portable/compatible ....
It was conventional wisdom to use more flaps if the rwy length is a consideration.
BUT: If you have to fly out from an airport at high altitude at high wheight the inititial climb is also a important. Therefore the Boeing graphs demand flap 5 for takeoffs from high altitude airports at high wheight. Besidses the DC-10 manual encourges pilots to use whenever possible less flaps.
Using charts is quite common in manuals but reading them is less intiutive than tables. But the nice thing with charts is, one can press in more information into one place. In real life still more considerations have to be atended like maximum tire speed.
P.S.: The pictures show the original panel. The King KLN90B I have installed is not visible. But alltogether considering its age the panels are a gem! And the 727-s presented here are beautiful simulations. Here a 727-200 ADV in Mexicanas last Paint.
The flap 5 high altitude high wheight applies also for the 727-100 with the JT8D-7 engines and there is a 10.000 pds difference bezween standart day and standart day +25 f for a T.O. at press altitude of 8000 ft with 4000 m of rwy.
Means: With a 727-100 with JT8D-7 engines you can fly out of MMMX (05L/23R 12966ft 7309 ft altitude) on a standart day with 155.000 pds and with 145.000 pds at standart day plus 25 F.
One can carry 77 % of fuel resp 60 % with a "full house".
but, he also states the flap setting is for the "JT8D-15" and "MMXX" only.
Actually, Walter said in his post: you will need all of the long runways even with only 80 tons and the -17 engines and limited to 5 deg of flaps only.
That is why I am surprised for 5 deg of flaps for -17 engines hence me asking if he was sure. I was under impression it could be typing typo hence me asking him if he was sure. He did not say -15 engines. I was under impression that it was typing error for type of engines, NOT fact error hence me asking him if he was sure.
The principle of less flap at high altitude is valid for nearly all jets. In the picture it was a 727-200 ADV with JT8D-17 engines, with my links one can find datas for various combinations. I have tried also the 727-100 with JT8D-7 engines and it flies out at less weight in the same distance with flaps 5. To my knowledge there is only one jet-airliner which has to use on every T.O. full flaps: The IL-62. And seems for not using this setting in a difficult take off an IL 62M was brought down by a microburst at Havanna. (Cubana flight 9646).