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 ....
FLAP 18 = 200 KTS .... ROC adjusted to 2,000 FPM
FLAP 14 = 220 KTS .... ROC adjusted to 2,200 FPM
FLAP 10 = 230 KTS .... ROC adjusted to 2,500 FPM
FLAP/SLATS = 240 KTS
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.
"DC10BOY" ....
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.
Mark C
AKL/NZ
) .... I took one of our L-1011's out for a test drive this afternoon and can't find anything wrong at all.