Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jun 11, 2021 20:30:11 GMT
just curious if you were planning any 1011 FDE mods
None are planned .... essentially because none (that can be addressed easily) are deemed necessary.
it also suffers from the extreme takeoff and initial climb performance
Provided the correct flaps and elevator trim setting/s are applied before TO and engine power (whether it's applied manually or per TOGA mode via the AT) is set to the prescribed limits (not too much under or in excess of) .... then no issues, at all, should ever result.
Using TOGA mode, via the AT, will/should ensure that engine power (at least) is automatically set to "the prescribed limits" .... then after TO, and once cleaned up and established within the climb, one can use AP VSI mode and the AT system .... or .... above 10,000 FT and in excess of 290 KTS (AT) use the AP IAS speed mode.
After manually setting TO power I (personally) prefer engaging both AP VSI mode and the AT for the entire the climb .... and in doing so have never experienced any issues of concern.
Actual performance will/may depend upon how either of 2 available AP pitch modes are employed during the climb and in relation to airspeed.
I hasten to add it's previously been reported that when using AP controlled IAS pitch mode (not to be used below 10,000 FT or 290 KTS) a slight and constant oscillation may be observed .... per the IVSI gauge primarily .... but as previously commented in regard to this it seems to possibly be the result of some degree of over-sensitivity with the IVSI gauge indication (which we can't correct) .... since in external viewing mode, and whilst a "very mild" oscillation is definitely evident (in IAS mode only), the simulation's actually doing nothing like/as wild as the IVISI gauge indicates.
Within "SECTION 5" of my forum based L-1011 manual (a couple of minor details of which I do need to further update) I've stated both a MGW loading (per fuel only reduction .... no payload adjustment at all) as well a recommended climb procedure (altitude/ROC adjustments) all the way up to cruising altitude. So long these recommendations are followed .... then no major issues should ever result.
Really need to know precisely what you'e doing .... and more about what you deem to be TO and initial climb performance issues too .... before I can possibly elaborate further.
Also be helpful to know which L-1011 version (and panel) you're using as difference/s do exist among these as is also the case in regard to the performance/s of these simulations too.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jun 12, 2021 4:45:43 GMT
Just for the sake of curiosity (to satisfy myself more than anything since I seem to be the person whom constantly states what we claim ) .... I took one of our L-1011's out for a test drive this afternoon and can't find anything wrong at all.
The L-1011 version I used shouldn't make any major difference though since despite variations in the technical configurations among what we offer each are supported by the same fundamental FDE data (edited/customized for each L-1011 version and does influence performance) .... and basic gauge programming where each of the panels for these simulations are concerned.
For the purpose of this check I used the heaviest of the L-1011 versions we offer .... the -250.
I loaded it as recommended within our flying guide for this particular L-1011 version per fuel only adjustment/s and no payload alteration/s at all .... as follows ....
LEFT TANK = 100% CENTER TANK = 96.8% RIGHT TANK = 100%
OVERLOAD = 51 LBS.
Flaps were set to 18* (4 notches) .... this's one of only 2 changes to the procedures I've previously recommended for our L-1011's and which hasn't yet been incorporated into our flying guides .... as stated within SECTION 5 of our forum based L-1011 manual.
Trim was set to "15 UNITS" (not degrees) .... "as per the Trim Indicator gauge" on the CP panel.
TO speeds were (as best I could calculate for a MGW departure) as follows ...
V1 = 155 VR = 168 V2 = 180
MAX power was applied for TO .... about 96% N2 (or EPR 1.58) for the RR RB-211 turbofan engine version simulated for the L-1011-250 .... and power was applied, and set, "MANUALLY".
TO and rotation were "perfectly normal and smooth" .... using around 3/4 of RWY 34R at the default FS2004 KSEA airport.
After TO gear was selected "UP".
AP CMD was engaged almost immediately .... and as the simulation acquired 1,800 FPM ROC the AP VS MODE was engaged .... a target altitude was also then selected and the AP ALT ARM MODE engaged .... followed by AP HDG MODE too.
All proceeded "perfectly" with the simulation flying precisely as programmed.
After TO the flaps/slats were retracted progressively/in increments with airspeed gain and the ROC also gently adjusted as follows ....
Upon flap/slat retraction 2,500 FPM ROC was maintained .... and the AT then engaged for 250 KTS.
A climbing left turn was effected after clean up .... turning toward a heading of 146* degrees (from the departure RWY heading) in order to capture the 156* radial south. During AP and AT controlled climbing turns as acute as this manoeuvre the AT can, sometimes, struggle to maintain the commanded airspeed (this's an issue with most AT systems in FS and not one with these simulations specifically. Should airspeed ever decline by more than 5 KTS during any such prolonged manoeuvre though then temporarily reducing the ROC can, and usually does, assist avoiding excessive loss of airspeed prior to resetting the original ROC upon acquiring a wings lever attitude), but, "DOES" recover promptly once a wings level attitude is acquired on the selected new heading .... again this's quite normal "in FS".
Throughout the climb to cruising altitude (31,000 FT) I adjusted my ROC and airspeed as per the following procedure and which is also slightly different than is currently recommended within our flying guide .... the following revised procedure/s being based on 11 years of experience gained since first using these simulations ....
10,000 FT .... reduce ROC to 2,000 FPM .... increase airspeed to 260 KTS AT 14,000 FT .... reduce ROC to 1,800 FPM .... increase airspeed to 270 KTS AT 18,000 FT .... reduce ROC to 1,500 FPM .... increase airspeed to 280 KTS AT 22,000 FT .... reduce ROC to 1,200 FPM .... increase airspeed to 290 KTS AT 24,000 FT .... reduce ROC to 1,000 FPM .... increase airspeed to 300 KTS AT 26,000 FT .... reduce ROC to 800 FPM .... increase airspeed to 305 KTS AT 28,000 FT .... reduce ROC to 500 FPM .... increase airspeed to 310 KTS AT 30,000 FT .... reduce ROC to 200 FPM .... increase airspeed to 315 KTS AT 21,000 FT .... "ALT CAPTURE" .... increase airspeed to 320 KTS AT
The simulation performed "perfectly as commanded" via its selected AP pitch and AT speed inputs .... no problems, at all, were encountered throughout the entire climb toward cruising altitude.
Cruise performance (at 31,000 FT) was observed as follows ....
EPR = 1.38 N1 = 74.8% EGT = 583*C N2 = 86% FF = 7,845 LBS (per engine = 23,535 LBS total per all 3 engines) IAS = 320 KTS GS = 491 TAS = 524 (320 X 1.64 = 524) MACH 0.83 PITCH = 3* (on the AI gauge but was somewhat less than this when observed in external FS viewing mode)
Fuel burn will further reduce with altitude increase, but, 31,000 FT is a good initial cruising altitude.
Flight performance indications will also vary in accordance with altitude gain .... as should be expected.
The engine N1/N2 indications are a little lower than we'd like, but, what we have is the best that can be achieved for these L-1011 simulations. Any further adjustment/s to the AIR.FILE stated engine data will risk screwing/destabilizing our current sound packs for these simulations .... so .... such adjustments shouldn't ever be contemplated.
Using non-HJG panels with these L-1011 simulations could well result in issues. These simulations (in fact all HJG simulations) are intended to be used with the panels and sound packs we provide rather than other options .... HJG can't provide support in cases where non-HJG files are employed.
Again .... "no problems at all" were encountered during this test.
The simulation was observed to perform very well and precisely as it should do.
A list of "Known Issues" is stated within the "KNOWN ISSUES" statement near the end of SECTION 1 of our forum based L-1011 manual.
Those issues that are known to us (since 2010) are "VERY MINOR" and "DO NOT" affect the performance of any of these L-1011 simulations.
like you to try'n describe precisely what you're your doing (in a similar fashion as I've described above) in order to experience the issues you mention experiencing. Only then can we really assess your situation and advise accordingly.
Maybe I had some sort of weather/glitch going on. Your data is much better collated than mine. I departed LAX at a weight of about 365,000 and with a T/O N1 of 96% it took off like a rocket, getting off 25R in about 3,000 ft and blowing past 200 KIAS with an 18 degree deck angle before I could even get the flaps in. It was climbing at over 6,000 FPM and unable to stay under 250 KIAS. later in the climb, and in cruise it settled down and flew normally. This was L-1011-1. I'll do some further testing, but it sounds like I had something else going on.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jun 12, 2021 18:22:39 GMT
I departed LAX at a weight of about 365,000 and with a T/O N1 of 96% it took off like a rocket, getting off 25R in about 3,000 ft and blowing past 200 KIAS with an 18 degree deck angle before I could even get the flaps in. It was climbing at over 6,000 FPM and unable to stay under 250 KIAS.
If your TOW was around 365,000 LBS then that represents "quite a substantial weight reduction" considering each of the L-1011 versions we offer have MGW statements ranging from 430,000 (for SHIP ONE) LBS to 510,000 LBS (for the -250) .... from memory the L-1011-1 has a MGW stated of 450,000 LBS, so, you were apparently flying this simulation some 85,000 LBS below its stated maximum weight assignment.
Any substantial weight reduction "IS" going to result in performance enhancement.
Similarly .... the stated engine thrust ratings for each of the L-1011's we offer range from 36,000 LBS thrust for the derated SHIP ONE to 42,000 LBS, 48,000 LBS, and 50,000 LBS thrust for each of the other simulated aircraft versions.
Following any substantial weight reduction one simply doesn't need to use maximum power for T/O, so, under such circumstances "a reduced power T/O setting" would be more appropriate .... since a combination of both substantial weight reduction and maximum power will only result in the simulation scooting off like scalded cat and then climbing like APOLLO 11.
Under these circumstances one certainly shouldn't use the built-in TOGA facility .... since it'll only ever apply "MAX POWER". Instead one should reduce TO power to around N2 90% to 92% .... and which will tend to keep the reduced weight promoted performance enhancement under control .... but .... the climb procedure would also have to be significantly adjusted too.
At significantly reduced weight cruise performance will also then result in lower engine N1/N2/EPR/and FF indications as well .... but .... one will be able to go much higher, and at a much earlier stage of the cruise, than is the case following any MGW departure.
I generally only test our simulations at MGW.
ALSO .... be sure to use the correct/recommended panel versions with you L-1011-1 (and any other) base pack as recommended within our forum based manual .... as follows ....
Each L1011 aircraft base pack and panel file must be used in accordance with the following recommendations ....
L1011 PANEL GAUGES/CORE FILES .... to be used with .... "ALL" L1011 panels
L1011 TRISTAR "Ship One 1970" Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only
L1011 TRISTAR 1 Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only.
L1011 TRISTAR 1(F) Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only.
L1011 TRISTAR 50 Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only.
L1011 TRISTAR 100 Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only.
L1011 TRISTAR 100(F) Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only.
L1011 TRISTAR 150 Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-22B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only.
L1011 TRISTAR 200 Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-524B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-524B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only.
L1011 TRISTAR 200(F) Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-524B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-524B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only.
L1011 TRISTAR 250 Aircraft Base Pack .... to be used with either .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-524B (round/analogue engine gauges) .... or .... L1011 TRISTAR Panel RR RB211-524B (vertical/tape engine gauges) only.
Using the wrong panel version can result in "indicated performance" related issues.
Once again .... using alternative and non-HJG supplied panel options may (possibly) result in performance issues too .... since George's (our own) gauge programming is "pretty finely tuned" and probably more than most other options.
From your description I'd say the reason for the over performance you've experienced, and described, is a direct result of both "weight reduction and excessive power being applied" .... and which is what I'd expect to happen under the described circumstances
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jun 12, 2021 21:49:08 GMT
I reinstalled the whole 1011 and everything works perfect
FS can, sometimes, become "FICKLE" for any number of inexplicable or other perplexing reasons
I too have seen/experienced some oddities .... which fail to materialize within a subsequent recheck during testing .... and which emphasizes the need for more than 2 or 3 tests of everything before anything's ever released.
Just bear in mind the "initial post clean up" ROC (2,500 FPM) at MGW .... stated within my "revised altitude/ROC adjustment profile" (above) .... should be interpreted as the maximum ROC ever allowed "at MGW" and for the L-1011 version specified. In reality this ROC could, and probably should, be set "a bit lower" (2,000 FPM "at MGW") .... I'm still experimenting with these refined procedures and which is why it's not, yet, been incorporated into any of the L-1011 flying guides.
The slightly lower than desirable engine N1/N2 indications within the high altitude/high speed cruise regime will probably have to be tolerated though (similar applies to the DC-10's too) .... since they're more a reflection of the recommended reduced high altitude cruise MACH. MACH 0.82 through MACH 0.83 is probably the best/most economic high altitude cruise velocity. L-1011's .... and our simulation of these aircraft .... are actually capable of much superior performance, but, only for the of imposition of increased fuel burn.
I could increase the drag parameters (in order to force the engine N1's/N2's "UP" a bit), but, the extent of increases required to achieve this would only result in further increased (beyond reality) fuel burn rates plus additional adjustment/s also then needing to be applied to the recommended climb profile too .... both of which are probably best avoided. Using real world TSFC data we first establish precise fuel burn rates at SL .... and the calculated value is then stated accordingly (this's how we address fuel burn rates for all of our simulations) .... so .... whatever progressively happens to FF indications inflight, and all the way up to cruising altitude, is then determined "by FS itself" and has to be accepted.
"A lot of factors" need to being taken into consideration with regard to the compilation of all flight modelling in order to achieve acceptable results .... but .... even as good as FS can be in some respects it does also leave a lot to be desired in others. It therefore needs to be understood that real world and FS aviation sciences are often in conflict with each other given the number of parameters available within FS that can easily be manipulated is "limited" (and such can become a real can of worms), so, we can only then do what we can best achieve .... and which is normally well within the ball park of real world performance/s anyway.