-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Is It Too Late To Run This Just Released Gem?
- Thread starter Moses03
- Start date
Bry Rosier
Charter Member 2014
I`m always interested . Lets see what it`s like in FSX 
Bry Rosier
Charter Member 2014
I`ve done some testing for the committee and all to peruse for this girl . She`s got some range
KTAS @ 12,000 = 216
KIAS @ 12,000 = 182
KTAS @ 19,500 = 228 (Critical )
KIAS @ 19500 = 170
Range @ 12,000 = 2320 nm !!!
Time for full fuel @ max throttles @ 12,000 10hrs 45 mins
Went to FSX no problems .
I thought my SM.79 was going to be "Mothballed" but no I lifted the "Race prepped" 2d panel and put it in the Pander and replaced the VC in the config with the Pander VC . Works a treat . Also using the SM.79 sound
KTAS @ 12,000 = 216
KIAS @ 12,000 = 182
KTAS @ 19,500 = 228 (Critical )
KIAS @ 19500 = 170
Range @ 12,000 = 2320 nm !!!
Time for full fuel @ max throttles @ 12,000 10hrs 45 mins
Went to FSX no problems .
I thought my SM.79 was going to be "Mothballed" but no
I lifted the "Race prepped" 2d panel and put it in the Pander and replaced the VC in the config with the Pander VC . Works a treat . Also using the SM.79 sound
Thanks Bry. I dug up some specs searching over in the Flight Archives:
On a Russian site I found these numbers:
Top speed 224 mph / Cruise speed 186 mph
Looks like she is hot with a top speed of 248 mph at 12k. MM PM'ed some specs coverted from a Dutch site that match the speeds from the Russian site. The range given is 1311nm (converted from kilometers). So range is a bit optimistic as well.
On a Russian site I found these numbers:
Top speed 224 mph / Cruise speed 186 mph
Looks like she is hot with a top speed of 248 mph at 12k. MM PM'ed some specs coverted from a Dutch site that match the speeds from the Russian site. The range given is 1311nm (converted from kilometers). So range is a bit optimistic as well.
Lets not call it "dodgy" lets call it borrowed. Milton made it. :lol:
Until Henry or Tom can get an accurate FM done lets just get her in the air.
As its not a candidate for winning its all in the spirit of the event.
I plan on testing her tonight so I am up for a team effort.
Until Henry or Tom can get an accurate FM done lets just get her in the air.
As its not a candidate for winning its all in the spirit of the event.
I plan on testing her tonight so I am up for a team effort.
Yes I have one in the works as well
Lets not call it from scratch.
I basically took the old one and threw out 75% of the information that was based on the A-26C but was in its self also modified.
I got confirmation from Tom that what I thought was an error is not so I have some tweeking and testing to do and it will be ready.
If all goes well and right now it is you will get
950 nm (about) range @ around 194 kias @ critical altitude which was changed to 9,500. This power setting will not be full power and full prop as it is now. Full power and full prop will give you around 690 nm around 210 kias.
1550 nm (about) range @ around 163 kias @ critical altitude or above
We (Rob and I) are using the FAA current regulations on aircraft to determine the Never Exceed Speed. Which makes it SWAG or 223 KIAS (about). This part still needs testing.
Yes I am listing KIAS verse KTAS or GS. The reason for this is all the specs I could find on the aircraft point to 162 cruise speed, 194.4 Maximum operating speed. If those numbers were recorded from flight tests in the aircraft they would have been indicated airspeed not true airspeed. All testing is being done in no weather conditions to work out the fine details.
The critical altitude of 9,500 was arbitrarily chosen to provide the aircraft sufficient power to get up to the Service Ceiling of 17,700. This still needs tested depending on how that goes the critical altitude may come down more.
I cut the fuel capcity back down to almost the real aircraft specs. The model has three fuel selectors with three tanks on it and I do not want to dig into the model to change those to two tanks. Tank number 3 has been cut down to 50 US gallons. The total fuel 330 gallons US. Which is 50 gallons more than it should have. (what the heck we put extra tanks in the Puss Moth why not this
)
I changed the contact points by trial and error and a lot of reading the aircraft container manual. Right now you can taxi, land and mat the brakes and you will stop with out nosing over. It will not bring you to a screeching halt. I still want to add a few scrape points to the contact points that will be this weekend.
The payload section is going to get changed. I have room for payload so I am going to try and add those sections so you all can carry the Mail as it were. (or what ever else you Moon Runners feel like).
Flight wise it handles very nice probably too nice.
The Flaps generate lift but they do not generate much drag. I have always thought too many FS aircraft generate too much drag from the flaps.
Of course once you get past the general performance specs there is very little data to find on this aircraft. For that reason I have added a few things like flaps damage speeds and gear damage speeds that I think/feel is right, or fun.
Still lots of work to do
Lets not call it from scratch.
I basically took the old one and threw out 75% of the information that was based on the A-26C but was in its self also modified.
I got confirmation from Tom that what I thought was an error is not so I have some tweeking and testing to do and it will be ready.
If all goes well and right now it is you will get
950 nm (about) range @ around 194 kias @ critical altitude which was changed to 9,500. This power setting will not be full power and full prop as it is now. Full power and full prop will give you around 690 nm around 210 kias.
1550 nm (about) range @ around 163 kias @ critical altitude or above
We (Rob and I) are using the FAA current regulations on aircraft to determine the Never Exceed Speed. Which makes it SWAG or 223 KIAS (about). This part still needs testing.
Yes I am listing KIAS verse KTAS or GS. The reason for this is all the specs I could find on the aircraft point to 162 cruise speed, 194.4 Maximum operating speed. If those numbers were recorded from flight tests in the aircraft they would have been indicated airspeed not true airspeed. All testing is being done in no weather conditions to work out the fine details.
The critical altitude of 9,500 was arbitrarily chosen to provide the aircraft sufficient power to get up to the Service Ceiling of 17,700. This still needs tested depending on how that goes the critical altitude may come down more.
I cut the fuel capcity back down to almost the real aircraft specs. The model has three fuel selectors with three tanks on it and I do not want to dig into the model to change those to two tanks. Tank number 3 has been cut down to 50 US gallons. The total fuel 330 gallons US. Which is 50 gallons more than it should have. (what the heck we put extra tanks in the Puss Moth why not this
)I changed the contact points by trial and error and a lot of reading the aircraft container manual. Right now you can taxi, land and mat the brakes and you will stop with out nosing over. It will not bring you to a screeching halt. I still want to add a few scrape points to the contact points that will be this weekend.
The payload section is going to get changed. I have room for payload so I am going to try and add those sections so you all can carry the Mail as it were. (or what ever else you Moon Runners feel like).
Flight wise it handles very nice probably too nice.
The Flaps generate lift but they do not generate much drag. I have always thought too many FS aircraft generate too much drag from the flaps.
Of course once you get past the general performance specs there is very little data to find on this aircraft. For that reason I have added a few things like flaps damage speeds and gear damage speeds that I think/feel is right, or fun.
Still lots of work to do
Bry Rosier
Charter Member 2014
Thanks for the hard work so far Dave , much appreciated . I imagine it will be a simple aircraft.cfg change to update .
MM
Charter Member
Dave, all this sounds really great.
Note that the published numbers for maximum speed will almost always be in True Air Speed, not Indicated Air Speed. For obvious reasons.
So if you model the airfile to achieve the published maximum speed as the the maximum in KIAS, you might translate that to KTAS at critical altitude. You will then note that the aircraft will go much faster than the published maximum speed. (For example, 194 KIAS at 9,500 ft will yield something like 230 KTAS.)
Just a thought.
Best,
Mike
Note that the published numbers for maximum speed will almost always be in True Air Speed, not Indicated Air Speed. For obvious reasons.
So if you model the airfile to achieve the published maximum speed as the the maximum in KIAS, you might translate that to KTAS at critical altitude. You will then note that the aircraft will go much faster than the published maximum speed. (For example, 194 KIAS at 9,500 ft will yield something like 230 KTAS.)
Just a thought.
Best,
Mike
Aircraft.cfg and .air file change.
I don't know what affect it has on the airfile but I just built a second one for FSX Acceleration. As I have that sim as well I will start to basic test it.
Again Stupid me
I have been working in Air Wrench with the settings set to KTS
I have been flying in FS9 and reading the KIAS not KTAS so my numbers are still close to correct
164 KTS is Vno
194 is Vmo but FS uses that number for VNE (almost) What it does is overspeed at 198 which is not a large enough buffer from Maximum Operating Speed and Never Exceed Speed.
According to the FAA there is a required buffer between Vmo and Vne. We discussed the the equation last night and concluded 223 and the more I look at it I might bring it down to 215.
Thats the numbers I am testing tomorrow.
162 VNO
192 VMO (even though there seems to be some discrepency on VMO and Vmc) 194.4
216 VNE 216 * .9 = 194.4
Does that sound logical?
Milton did not make it. The air file was borrowed from the A26, that's it, and that's fine. I had no hand in the A26 FM either BTW; that was Tom's work.
srgalahad
Charter Member 2022
Actually, the placarded (Vmo, Vne, Vs, etc.) speeds are expressed in KIAS for pilot reference while the speeds listed in the Type certificate (when one can be found) will be the tested values measured in KTAS.
"The actual speeds represented by these designators are true airspeeds specific to a particular model of aircraft, and are expressed in terms of the aircraft's indicated airspeed, so that pilots may use them directly, without having to apply correction factors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds
That's where some of the differences come when building models.. with no standard mentioned the modeler guesses which is which. If read from the Certificate it should be TAS, if read from pilot notes it's often IAS. With most of these antiques, who knows. With a lot of the WWII a/c it depends on whether the data comes from actual flight test data or the Press Officer's blurb. All of which likely explains some "overly hot" airfiles.
http://www.fliegerweb.com/geschichte/flugzeuge/lexikon.php?show=lexikon-239
Höchstgeschwindigkeit in Bodennähe: 342 km/h (Max Speed at Sea Level - 184.6 KTAS) -that would be tested, level flight
Höchstgeschwindigkeit in 4.000m: 364 km/h (Max Speed at 15300 - 196.5 KTAS [151 KIAS])that would be tested, level flight
Reisegeschwindigkeit in 4.000m: 300km/h (cruise speed at 15300 - 162.KTAS [125KIAS]) that would be the speed at which it meets the 11 hour endurance number. With a fuel burn of .40 pounds/hp (a guess but a bit under the larger Cyclone figures) it is .4*395*11 / 6 = 290 gals.
198 KIAS as a Vne is therefore probably close but it would seem that an aircraft designed as a fast mail plane would have a bit more margin than 14 Kts over it's max level IAS - hence the 220-ish Vne.
With planes like this it's all in how you squint...
Rob
"The actual speeds represented by these designators are true airspeeds specific to a particular model of aircraft, and are expressed in terms of the aircraft's indicated airspeed, so that pilots may use them directly, without having to apply correction factors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds
That's where some of the differences come when building models.. with no standard mentioned the modeler guesses which is which. If read from the Certificate it should be TAS, if read from pilot notes it's often IAS. With most of these antiques, who knows. With a lot of the WWII a/c it depends on whether the data comes from actual flight test data or the Press Officer's blurb. All of which likely explains some "overly hot" airfiles.
http://www.fliegerweb.com/geschichte/flugzeuge/lexikon.php?show=lexikon-239
Höchstgeschwindigkeit in Bodennähe: 342 km/h (Max Speed at Sea Level - 184.6 KTAS) -that would be tested, level flight
Höchstgeschwindigkeit in 4.000m: 364 km/h (Max Speed at 15300 - 196.5 KTAS [151 KIAS])that would be tested, level flight
Reisegeschwindigkeit in 4.000m: 300km/h (cruise speed at 15300 - 162.KTAS [125KIAS]) that would be the speed at which it meets the 11 hour endurance number. With a fuel burn of .40 pounds/hp (a guess but a bit under the larger Cyclone figures) it is .4*395*11 / 6 = 290 gals.
198 KIAS as a Vne is therefore probably close but it would seem that an aircraft designed as a fast mail plane would have a bit more margin than 14 Kts over it's max level IAS - hence the 220-ish Vne.
With planes like this it's all in how you squint...
Rob
"I cut the fuel capcity back down to almost the real aircraft specs. The model has three fuel selectors with three tanks on it and I do not want to dig into the model to change those to two tanks. Tank number 3 has been cut down to 50 US gallons. The total fuel 330 gallons US. Which is 50 gallons more than it should have. (what the heck we put extra tanks in the Puss Moth why not this )
Just to clarify, we added tanks to match the information from C.J. Melrose's aircraft description.
I also added optional tanks that could be activated for the Atlantic crossings based on information from those documents.
As far as we could determine, both are accurate to get the miles stated in those adventures.
Just to clarify, we added tanks to match the information from C.J. Melrose's aircraft description.
I also added optional tanks that could be activated for the Atlantic crossings based on information from those documents.
As far as we could determine, both are accurate to get the miles stated in those adventures.