Blackburn Beverley Uploaded

Just a follow-up after some more flying. I departed Middle Wallop bound for Akrotiri with 5,000 pounds of freight and about 30 passengers with full tanks. All-up weight was about 132,000 pounds. Got off the 3,800 foot long Runway 17 with room to spare and easily cleared the trees south of the field. Climbed to 9,000 feet in about 10 minutes at 125 KIAS, using max continuous power ( about 50" and 2500 RPM). Settled into cruise using 38" and 2100 RPM burning about 470 gallons an hour.

For more about why I simulated these conditions, read about the Sutton Wick crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Wick_air_crash).

Long story short, the Beverley's pilot notes match all of that almost perfectly. With the cruise power setting I used, the book gives an indicated airspeed of approximately 135 knots. The FSX Beverley settled in at 137 knots indicated! My friends, I can't say enough about this model.

Disclaimer: I did make a change to the aircraft.cfg. The model as published had a total of 3,600 gallons of fuel (four tanks with 900 gals each). As near as I can tell, the Beverley had four fuel tanks in each wing (numbered 1 through 4) totaling 3,375 gallons, for a grand total of 6,750 gallons. So I changed the Mains to be equivalent to Tanks 1 and 2 (combined 2,145 gallons capacity each) and the Auxes to be equivalent to Tanks 3 and 4 (combined 1,230 gallons capacity each). Thankfully, the fuel gauges work in percentages and not gallons, so a quick change and everything works fine.

Hopefully with Manfred's and Wayne's blessing, here's what my [fuel] section looks like now...

LeftMain=-2, -14.0, 0, 2145, 12
LeftAux=-2, -31.0, 0, 1230, 12
RightMain=-2, 14.0, 0, 2145, 12
RightAux=-2, 31.0, 0, 1230, 12

If anyone is wondering, the Centaurus used Boost instead of Manifold Pressure for power settings. There's a formula to convert between the two, but the quick and dirty is (Boost x 2) + 30. That's how I came up with 38" for cruise. (Pilot notes say cruise is normally Boost +4...so (Boost 4 x 2)+30 = 8+30 = 38.

Manfred's modelling is exquisite as usual, and Wayne's flight model is as close to spot-on as I could imagine. Aces, guys! :loyal:
 
nagpaw said:
Just a follow-up after some more flying. I departed Middle Wallop bound for Akrotiri with 5,000 pounds of freight and about 30 passengers with full tanks. All-up weight was about 132,000 pounds. Got off the 3,800 foot long Runway 17 with room to spare and easily cleared the trees south of the field. Climbed to 9,000 feet in about 10 minutes at 125 KIAS, using max continuous power ( about 50" and 2500 RPM). Settled into cruise using 38" and 2100 RPM burning about 470 gallons an hour.

For more about why I simulated these conditions, read about the Sutton Wick crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Wick_air_crash).

Long story short, the Beverley's pilot notes match all of that almost perfectly. With the cruise power setting I used, the book gives an indicated airspeed of approximately 135 knots. The FSX Beverley settled in at 137 knots indicated! My friends, I can't say enough about this model.

Disclaimer: I did make a change to the aircraft.cfg. The model as published had a total of 3,600 gallons of fuel (four tanks with 900 gals each). As near as I can tell, the Beverley had four fuel tanks in each wing (numbered 1 through 4) totaling 3,375 gallons, for a grand total of 6,750 gallons. So I changed the Mains to be equivalent to Tanks 1 and 2 (combined 2,145 gallons capacity each) and the Auxes to be equivalent to Tanks 3 and 4 (combined 1,230 gallons capacity each). Thankfully, the fuel gauges work in percentages and not gallons, so a quick change and everything works fine.

Hopefully with Manfred's and Wayne's blessing, here's what my [fuel] section looks like now...

LeftMain=-2, -14.0, 0, 2145, 12
LeftAux=-2, -31.0, 0, 1230, 12
RightMain=-2, 14.0, 0, 2145, 12
RightAux=-2, 31.0, 0, 1230, 12

If anyone is wondering, the Centaurus used Boost instead of Manifold Pressure for power settings. There's a formula to convert between the two, but the quick and dirty is (Boost x 2) + 30. That's how I came up with 38" for cruise. (Pilot notes say cruise is normally Boost +4...so (Boost 4 x 2)+30 = 8+30 = 38.

Manfred's modelling is exquisite as usual, and Wayne's flight model is as close to spot-on as I could imagine. Aces, guys! :loyal:
Click to expand...

Man, what a very well-informed comment, many thanks. Didn't know about the Boost/Map formula, if I had I would perhaps have done Boost gauges instead of MAPs, or at least listed the Boost data as a tooltip (that can still be done).

Your tanks capacity tweak is also absolutely correct, just tried it and it works well giving her quite a bit more range. At the same time, with these tanks full plus the current default 28,000 lbs payload all-up weight goes to 152,000, which is more than the official 135,000 or the unofficial 143,000 limit. So before take off, some adjustment to weight or fuel should be made. Actually, even on 152,000 the model doesn't care much except for being a bit more than usually sluggish.

Wayne unfortunately is no longer with us, but he would have loved your comments.

--Manfred
 
mjahn said:
Man, what a very well-informed comment, many thanks. Didn't know about the Boost/Map formula, if I had I would perhaps have done Boost gauges instead of MAPs, or at least listed the Boost data as a tooltip (that can still be done).

Your tanks capacity tweak is also absolutely correct, just tried it and it works well giving her quite a bit more range. At the same time, with these tanks full plus the current default 28,000 lbs payload all-up weight goes to 152,000, which is more than the official 135,000 or the unofficial 143,000 limit. So before take off, some adjustment to weight or fuel should be made. Actually, even on 152,000 the model doesn't care much except for being a bit more than usually sluggish.

Wayne unfortunately is no longer with us, but he would have loved your comments.

--Manfred
Click to expand...

Sweet! I helped! :jump:

If you're interested, the formula I have to convert from Boost to Hg" is (Boost x 2.036021)+29.92126. The question I have for someone else is whether that is only true with standard atmospheric pressure (29.92" Hg). Do with it what you will!

And, yes, the Beverley can quite quickly become payload limited with the new fuel loading! But check this out. The commonly stated performance numbers for the Beverley give a range of 1,100 nautical miles with a 29,000 pound payload at 8,000 feet. So using your model, with an empty weight of 82,100 pounds and a maximum gross weight of 135,000, a 29,000 pound payload leaves us 23,900 pounds for fuel, which is 3,983 gallons. Using my flight from before for reference, 3,983 gallons at 470 gallons/hour gives an endurance of 8.47 hours, which at 150 knots true airspeed, gives a distance covered of 1,270-ish miles, which is awfully close to the published 1,100 miles, especially if you consider the accuracy of the published number. Another win!

Thanks again for a wonderful model of an obscure but totally awesome aircraft! And my apologies. I was unaware of Wayne's passing. I've used his stuff for years, and don't know how I missed that fact :dejection:
 
Hi,

Just wanted to say a big thank you to Manfred and all the team for this most unusual aircraft. It flies lovely and feels really heavy, just as I would expect a big beast like this to behave.

I have a couple of questions though, first, why did you originally pick such a relatively unknown, rare aircraft to build a model for, it is very quirky, which I like in my aircraft hanger. Also how did the real thing steer on the ground, was it through differential braking and a free castoring nose wheel, or through a tiller wheel like modern jets and the B97? I only as so I can set up my FSUIPC profile properly.


attachment.php

attachment.php

Thanks again for this massive amazing beast!
 

Attachments

  • 2020-5-27_14-17-29-914.jpg
    2020-5-27_14-17-29-914.jpg
    72 KB · Views: 26
  • 2020-5-27_14-15-26-408.jpg
    2020-5-27_14-15-26-408.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 26
Hi Nick,

Oh my that was such a funny read about the development of the Beverley. I read the comments below too, which are also just as funny, especially the ones about Court Line buying one with the intention of flying RB211 engines around for their Tristar fleet. They apparently gave up trying to get a civilian registration for it.

Thanks for that link, a real classic.
 
Beautiful, Ugly, Aircraft!!

ncooper said:
Hello David, I found this which not only answers your question but is the most amusing read I have had in a while. https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-76608.html
Click to expand...

Thanks Manfred and all the Team. I have always loved beautiful, ugly, aircraft, and they are very high on my favourites with FSX. (Bristol Freighter, Shorts 330/360, C119, Do228, etc.). Great machine, very impressive short field performance. I consulted my copy of “Aircraft of the World, 1965 edition” which gave me only the basic specs, so thank also to the gentlemen who provided power settings and performance figures etc. all extremely helpful. Looking forward to some great textures. Thanks again all.
 
Re: Beverly reference in Propliner Mag. No. 11

Just following up my previous post. I don’t know if you can still get hold of it, or have access to it, but Propliner Magazine No.11, July to September 1981, has a great article by Alfred Price of a posting he did on Hastings as an A.E.O. in 1958. A number of references to the Beverley, “unfortunate Beverley crews, arriving hot, sweaty, and tired, after their low slow and noisy forced marches to the panic area, and missing out on the normal overnight accommodation being already taken by Hastings, Britannia, and Comet crews, they had to sleep in tents pitched on the airfield”. “Whenever Beverley’s wandered far from their home base, the big Centaurus engines did not take kindly to this type of flying, consequently there was a trail of them stranded along the route, replacement engines. It was not uncommon to send a Hastings out after the Beverley’s with spare engines on board”. A great article of R.A.F. Transport flying during that period, with great photos, including one of 14 Beverleys on the apron at Nicosia.
 
mjahn said:
Man, what a very well-informed comment, many thanks. Didn't know about the Boost/Map formula, if I had I would perhaps have done Boost gauges instead of MAPs, or at least listed the Boost data as a tooltip (that can still be done).

Your tanks capacity tweak is also absolutely correct, just tried it and it works well giving her quite a bit more range. At the same time, with these tanks full plus the current default 28,000 lbs payload all-up weight goes to 152,000, which is more than the official 135,000 or the unofficial 143,000 limit. So before take off, some adjustment to weight or fuel should be made. Actually, even on 152,000 the model doesn't care much except for being a bit more than usually sluggish.

Wayne unfortunately is no longer with us, but he would have loved your comments.

--Manfred
Click to expand...

Manfred,

I seem to remember if you want MAP in boost you just have to use (A:RECIP ENG MANIFOLD PRESSURE:index, boost inHg) for the animation code and the sim does the conversion for you. Obviously you'll still have to scale for the animation length etc.

Skippy
 
The animation on the MLG fairing over the torque link is interesting. Blackburn didn't give it retractable gear, but it looks like they did the most to streamline what was hanging out in the breeze! The seating position gives you quite a view too, looking down on all the commoners on the ramp! Fun add on guys!
 
Beverley Repaints

Thanks for the preview of your texture for the Beverley, Jan Kees. Any chance of it being available for FSX, as I have just gone from Windows 7 to Windows 10, and will be staying on FSX Acceleration, until I find out what is happening with Microsoft next year.

Very Best Regards
 
MAP - boost - torque

SkippyBing said:
I seem to remember if you want MAP in boost you just have to use (A:RECIP ENG MANIFOLD PRESSURE:index, boost inHg) for the animation code and the sim does the conversion for you. Obviously you'll still have to scale for the animation length etc.
Skippy
Click to expand...

Skippy,

Well spotted, that does the conversion for you and it produces the positive and negative boost values suggested by @nagpaw. So one could easily have 'boost' gauges instead of MAPs, or at any rate add the boost values to the tooltips of MAPs and Monitor. According to the thread linked by Nick/ncooper above, torque gauges were actually fitted as a later mod, and it wouldn't be difficult to replace the MAPs by TORQUE meters either. All of this wouldn't be more than a cut and paste job. Maybe not worth the effort of an official update ... as far as the average simmer is concerned MAP seems to be wider known and understood.

--Manfred
 
Maybe not the place to post shots, but may be of interest.

I was working on the Hastings in 1958, and they didn't have an AEO on the flight crew. Pilot, co-pilot, navigator, engineer, and radio operator. Maybe they gave the radio man a fancy title?


bev3.jpg


bev4.jpg


Den.
 
stretch1365 said:
Hi Nick,

Oh my that was such a funny read about the development of the Beverley. I read the comments below too, which are also just as funny, especially the ones about Court Line buying one with the intention of flying RB211 engines around for their Tristar fleet. They apparently gave up trying to get a civilian registration for it.

Thanks for that link, a real classic.
Click to expand...

Stretch1365, Off topic but if folk are interested the reason the Court Line could not get a civilian registration is the same reason the ex RAF Belfasts really never went civil either (Except two and then one of those ended up in Cairns QLD with RP rego,the other was left in the UK for spares) bureaucratic intransigence and bloodymindedness. In short aircraft certified for the military had to be re-certified for civilian use that meant a brand new type certificate in short all the dramas and paperwork and testing etc etc as if it was a brand new aeroplane, a ruinous prospect for anybody. The second part of that Catch 22 was that the registering country then owned the responsibility for the type certificate and all that entails in terms of Airworthiness Directives and safety monitoring etc etc. How do I know I had the misfortune to be involved here in OZ with the dramas and fights over the Shorts Belfast which was originally rebuilt at considerable expense in the UK and they were fully airworthy when the CoA expired the UK CAA cancelled the type certificate. The people who owned them managed to get the poor buggers in Sierra Leone and then the Phillipines to accept the type (not they were going to comply with airworthiness issues) the aircraft were very well maintained and plied the world trade routes for years. But the Australian CAA/CASA absolutely refused to take up the type certificate. It was a long and protracted battle with the air safety and regulatory authorities that had nothing to do with air safety. In the end they won. An yep it was literally financially ruinous for the folk who owned them.

Thats another reason to love flight sim, you get to fly these weird and wonderful aircraft and you never never have to deal with the FAA, CAA and CASA. That in itself is well, priceless.
 
Flight Data, Gauges, and Other Stuff

I'm fine either way on the gauges, personally. For anyone interested, here's the power settings stated in the Bev's Pilot's Notes, with the appropriate conversions applied for manifold pressure (rounded down to the nearest whole number):

Max Takeoff (Wet)..........+14 Boost (58" MP) / 2800 RPM
Max Takeoff (Dry)...........+13 Boost (56" MP) / 2800 RPM
Max Continuous (Rich).....+10 Boost (50" MP) / 2500 RPM
Max Continuous (Lean)....+4 Boost (38" MP) / 2400 RPM
Max Reverse..................+9 Boost (48" MP) / 2800 RPM

"Wet" takeoff power (e.g. using water-methanol injection) was the standard power. "Dry" takeoffs were apparently only used in extreme situations where water-meth wasn't available. Note that the max RPM is 2800. I tried changing that in the aircraft.cfg and it seemed fine. Again, splitting hairs! And while torque gauges were eventually fitted, the boost gauges remained and seem to have been the primary means of setting power.

I've been using +4(38")/2100 or 1800 RPM for cruise. The throttles had a position called ECB that was the dividing line between rich and lean automixture. Setting cruise power involved reducing to 2100 or 1800 RPM and then moving the throttles to the ECB position. If the resulting boost was less than +4, you could then advance the throttles to obtain +4 boost, but only if torque gauges were fitted. All that is well beyond what's modeled, so I just push to +4! The resulting airspeed is pretty close to expected.

I've also been manually leaning. A fuel/air ratio of 0.075 on the monitor display gives approximately peak EGT and an additional 150 nautical miles range at max fuel. Using the monitor display's "set best" function gives a fuel/air ratio of 0.081 and approximately 15C rich of peak. Using the Enable Automixture function gives a constant 0.083 fuel/air ratio and approximately 20C rich of peak. At 9,000 feet, Manual leaning gives me about 135 KIAS, Set Best about 137 KIAS, and Enable Automixture about 138 KIAS.

Sorry...that ran out of control! :dizzy: Hopefully someone finds all that useful!

511Flyer...Apparently the RAF called the radioman the "Signaller." Sounds very nautical! The station in the nose compartment was for the "Supply Aimer." Does anyone know if that person was part of the aircraft crew with second duties (i.e. the Navigator or Signaller), or was that a member of the Air Dispatch team?

JanKees...Beautiful paint! Can't wait to see more of her.

Manfred and/or JanKees...is there a paintkit or blank texture either of you would be willing to share? I've been honing my painting skills, and I've got a few ideas for the Beverley!
 
SkipptBing, Nagpaw, et al. Neat find about the MP-Boost conversion, never came across that before either (What else is buried in the SDK one wonders!) I always assumed Boost was used by the Brits because of their imperial measurement systems v the US measurements. LIke Nagpaw i also worked out the conversion for another pre WWII type when tweaking the eng air data and aicraft engine config parameters (The S23).

Yes a curious design and really a STOL aircraft very very similar in concept to another english oddity the BN Islander.

MJ I woudl agree the current guages are fine not many in sim world, except here (LOL) would be bothered to understand the differences or what they mean. Once again never stop learning!

Jankees - nice paint. Installed fine looks great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top