I have also recently been flying the Tinmouse 737-200, but it is a port over to FSX so I had to resort to using an FSX 737-200 panel from Ken Wickington. The panel works quite well,however, I find that the cruising pitch attitude at .78M and 35000ft is somewhat higher ( +4 degrees as shown in my screen shots) than it should be, and I do not think that this can be corrected easily, and I do get the "Stabalizer Out of Trim" alarm. I did have to adjust my flight deck seat up to get a better view outside. On the ground the aircraft appears to be quite level with no nose down pitch.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 23, 2020 18:35:37 GMT
I find that the cruising pitch attitude at .78M and 35000ft is somewhat higher ( +4 degrees as shown in my screen shots) than it should be, and I do not think that this can be corrected easily
it should be no more than +1* .... to +2* at the very most .... subject to weight and airspeed/MACH velocity.
MACH 0.78 is about right (good economic performance at altitude) for the early JT8D-7 and -D9 powered B737-200's, but, the later -D15 and -D17 powered versions were capable of MACH 0.80 .... and the rest .... whist still being "economic".
Pitch attitude, in FS, is generally a product of both weight and airspeed/MACH velocity. The slower one flies whilst heavy then the higher the pitch attitude .... and the faster one flies whilst light then the lower the pitch attitude .... but either way .... its the FDE statements that dictate the basic pitch limits between both extremes.
I know precisely which scaler is causing the apparently excessively higher than desirable cruise pitch attitude .... BUT .... it can take multiple adjustments, tests, readjustments, and retesting in order to perfect/resolve it (such testing and analysis has to be done at high FS altitudes .... and which becomes quite time consuming) .... AND THEN (and like is often the case with FDE editing) .... once "that particular flight parameter" is successfully resolved it will, highly likely, result in the FLAP data also then needing to be readjusted too (more editing, testing, readjusting, and retesting in order to perfectly/resolve it) .... because the primary scaler also influences pitch attitude during approach landing an which usually then forces adjustments to the FLAP data too.
I might look at this later during the year (after my current projects are all done'n'dusted) .... BUT .... I make no promises .... we'll just have to wait'n'see.
The trim related issue you refer to is likely a combination of "both gauge and FDE related" influences, but, is "entirely separate" to any of the the above details.
Thank you for your input Mark, into this issue. It's not of a terribly high priority as we can all live with it for the time being.
Looking at the HJG Eric Cantu\ Vistaliner Models that followed, the 737-300's and 400's, this issue seems to have been resolved as shown in the following images. Pitch attitude is much better at +2 degrees as you mentioned.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 24, 2020 1:46:39 GMT
Mike, and I, did "A LOT" of work on those B737-300/400/500 FDE's .... because they "really needed it". Previously they wouldn't fly anything close to the way they're all performing now .... and what we did there then became the base for our current B737-400/400/500 sound packs too .... since there's a necessary interaction between these and the FDE we provide also.
We also did "A LOT" of work on the B737-200 FDE's too .... and which were similarly "really in need of it" .... BUT .... as I (think I) mentioned earlier within this thread these FDE's haven't been released .... to date.
Pitch attitude is much better at +2 degrees as you mentioned.
Again .... pitch attitude, at cruising altitude, is a product of both weight and air speed .... in FS. "IF" one's heavy at cruise altitude then one can expect the AI pitch attitude to be slightly higher .... even with airspeed .... and if too slow it'll be higher still. And .... "IF" one's light/lighter at altitude then one can expect the AI pitch attitude to be lower with airspeed .... and it'll be lower still if too fast. In either scenerio, and subject to airspeed primarily, the AI pitch attitude should never increase beyond +2*, but, nor should it decrease to 0* either.
We adjust certain scalers within FDE in order to achieve this .... to get the right/best pitch attitude within both high and low altitude as well as high and low speed regimes.
With some panel gauges though the AI will display an 0* indication, but, in external FS viewing mode the simulation is still flying with a roughly +1* nose up pitch attitude. I've seen evidence of this too with a number of simulations .... including some our own. It's just that some gauges display more finely/accurately than others.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 24, 2020 18:52:19 GMT
the TM II B 747-200 cruises at 4-5 deg pitch up, but it lands in a nice attitude. So like many things in life and flightsimulation its a compromise.
There shouldn't need to be any compromise/s .... if it'd been done right from the start.
I know what's causing the discrepancy and how to address/fix it.
It requires fixing the cruise pitch attitude "first" .... because whatever's applied to resolve that "WILL" ultimately impact the landing profile too (there's absolutely no avoiding that) .... THEN .... addressing/re-addressing the approach to landing profile created by the cruise fix. Just how such edits might impact trim gauge settings displayed within the simulation though .... and if at all .... is an entirely different matter that can't be anticipated. or assessed, until such editing is attempted.
FDE editing/fixing can sometimes be "a very fine balance" between resolving one issue .... and creating another.
All the 737-200\300\400 FSX Panels I used are available at flightsim. Do a search and you will find them. They are all submitted by Ken Wigginton.
Just a reminder to anyone opting to use non-HJG supplied panels with the simulations we offer (and even if this isn't Alex's intent) ....
What people opt to use is entirely up to them, of course, but, do bear in mind that HJG can't provide support for files it doesn't produce or offer "HERE" .... and which is also why, with the exception of basic commentary only, I'm not posting a list of recommended fixes in regard to the TM B737 simulation which is the subject of this thread.
I "WILL" (hope to I mean) look at some of the issues with this simulation later though .... when I/"IF" I (ever) get time to do so .... but .... whatever I do, if I do anything at all, will be done "outside the sphere of HJG" and the results of any success would then be released as "a community oriented project" .... in compliance with the EULA documentation provided within the file version I have/use, but again, and as I've earlier stated (a couple of times within this thread), I'm "not" committing to this either.
I always preferred Erik Cantu's Kittyhawk 737-200 and Ken Mitchells 737-200 panel
"Unusually" for KM panels (since we do offer one of his here .... for our L-1011 simulations .... and which has been "extensively modified" by us "with his authorization" to now become a very functional and well featured add-on) I could never, ever, get that particular B737 panel to work properly .... so .... I abandoned it completely (no other option) in favor of what I now use and which I may present later .... "time and opportunity permitting".
Just to clarify, as I only use FSX Steam now, I am pretty well forced to use panels that are issued for FSX, so I do, as you have mentioned, have to expect slight variations in aircraft performances.
Unfortunately the HJG supplied panel for the 737-300\400 series aircraft are for FS2004 only. No problems encountered though, porting over the Models and textures.
Just for my own interest, I did try to use this panel but it did not work too good. In the past I did find that for some aircraft, such as David Maltby's VC-10's for example, I was ably to use successfully both the Models and Panel, however, this is not always the case for other FS 2004 aircraft.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 24, 2020 23:23:23 GMT
I am pretty well forced to use panels that are issued for FSX, so I do, as you have mentioned, have to expect slight variations in aircraft performances.
It's the FDE primarily that dictates how any simulation performs .... BUT .... some gauges can (in the case of some panels) also be dependent on FDE data in respect of how well they do, or don't, function too.
I am pretty well forced to use panels that are issued for FSX
That's always "best" .... but .... some pre-FSX panels (like those we offer that "are" FSX portable .... though a few we offer aren't, or, we've never been cleared to market some of them as FSX portable even though they may be) work "perfectly fine" in FSX too. It largely depends on the origin of their supporting gauges/modules. Gauges/Modules that originate from FS98 can/will work in FS2004 .... but .... wonn't function in FSX.