London-Melbourne 2014: 119 Piccadilly

MM

MM

Charter Member
Inquiries for Miss Nellie and the Organizing Committee


Piccadilly.jpg

Miss Nellie and her crackerjack staff will be monitoring the race from the Royal Aero Club's headquarters here at 119 Picadilly, Westminster, London. If you would like to communicate with the Committee, please post your questions, reactions, and comments here. (If you prefer a less public channel, please use the forum's Private Message system.)
 
I will "import" the duenna text files into the race tracking site for each leg. While I can find it from the link you posted, it will save me a couple of steps if you post the actual text file.
 
We ask that you do both. The posted jpg and textfile provide an immediate record that everyone can see as they follow your thread. And the authentication is located on the SOH server. The tracking site's record provides the same and more detailed information. And it is located on a different server, although one over which we have no control. Each serves as a backup against the other...in case we have a failure.

If you feel comfortable doing just one or the other, then fine. Others have done so in the past. (Note that your having just one version may make the Committee' work a bit more difficult. We mildly prefer having both sets of authentications.)

Oops, late post. ...as Paul says above.
 
Just to add to Mike's post, imagine Miss Nellie getting "irritated", tapping her pencil on the desk, while taking the extra steps... Not something you need, on top of the airmanship challenges we're already dealing with... :)
 
Last edited:
Using Opus and FSGRW, and a Duenna false report

Rushed upstairs to peer through the glass door to Miss Nellie's office. She was sitting at her desk, staring at the entry list, and humming with the barest hint of excitement. After a quick knock, I entered and handed her the last two inquiries about weather engines. And then added a more curious one about a false report of in-flight refueling. She examined the information, held up her index finger to request silence, and made a quiet phone call.
The weather matters seem easily resolved. The pilots merely need to follow the spirit of the instructions. If they are to use an auxiliary weather program, they need to be sure that it generates live real weather in a manner that is at least as realistic as the default (Jeppesen-sourced) engine. That is to say: The weather engine depicts the current real world weather and it changes over time as weather stations are newly updated. The winds are not made artificially constant for takeoff or landing. Winds aloft, at high altitude, represent those in the real world and are not made artificially constant over the flight path. Program-induced maximum visibility limits are fine, minimum visibility limits are not. The weather at a distant destination aerodrome may change over time as the pilot flies the leg. And so forth.

As far as we know, Opus supplies the winds aloft from its own sources and does not need to have the default engine's "download winds aloft" setting. If we hear otherwise, the ruling will change.

The second request is to use FS Global Real Weather (FSGRW) which also inserts its own weather representation into FSX (and FS2004 and P3D). We do not have a direct source as to its operation or suitability for this event. However, the professional reviews (and forum chatter) indicate that it is comparable to Active Sky and Opus in their development path. Tell the requesting pilot that he may use FSGRW as long as he emphasizes realism and dynamics in his settings. From a distance, that means that he:

​

  • Chooses Dynamic Weather
  • Allows weather updates while on the ground
  • Uses the high altitude realism options (even if he is not flying at altitude, we want to be consistent)
  • Optionally employs natural wind movements (they are ok) if he wishes
  • Enables other options set toward realism -- as he prefers.
We emphasize comparability to the MSFS default weather engines with dynamic weather chosen. Some of these programs have plenty of extra features such as wake turbulence, enhanced mountain thermals, special densities for clouds, hurricanes, and so on. While admirable enhancements for our testing event, these features are not required.

It will be good to have the young fellow tell us his experiences with using FSGRW in this sort of event.

Finally, we have the instance of the Duenna monitor falsely reporting that the Lancair IVP added fuel when it did not. Apparently, some advanced models simulate the fuel flow in a way that works around the standard fuel weight in a way that keys the Duenna's false reports. We have had similar anomalies before. In these instances, as long as the pilot reports the case openly and quickly, then we can closely examine the flight record to insure that the apparent fuel addition did not affect the competition. This work-around suffice until we obtain a technical solution.
​

I smiled and quickly left the office. "This is going to be easy this year," I said to myself. "Everything is going to be routine…"
 
Wow! The efficiency round here is scary! :encouragement: For my part, I'm going to adhere to the original instructions and configure FSX to El Duenna's liking, as I'm pretty certain that Opus and ASN over-ride FSX anyway...I think.

The phantom fuel filling will be negated by the judicious use of properly prepared flight plans that, hopefully, won't necessitate the insertion of an ad hoc waypoint.


That's my weeks supply of big words all used up!
 
Fueling question

If a pilot wanted to fly say the Puss Moth or any of the other range challenged aircraft that actually flew in the real race ... could consideration be made for fueling besides at only the prepared airports that are in the Official Control or Checking Point List?

Could the pilot maybe submit for approval a list of specified airports from the Unofficial Airports List that would allow covering these spans prior to starting the event and perhaps be held to those airports only without additional minutes added and no consideration if an alternate had to be used?



"My Hildegard" may not make it to Marseille without some pretty stiff tailwinds and there are five more legs that are questionable if not impossible for it to make.

How in the world could young Jimmy make it back home in 2nd place (Handicapped) to a DC-2 .... [the only solo pilot to finish BTW] ... with all those bloomin' penalty (doubled) minutes?

:wiggle:
 
salt_air said:
If a pilot wanted to fly say the Puss Moth or any of the other range challenged aircraft that actually flew in the real race ... could consideration be made for fueling besides at only the prepared airports that are in the Official Control or Checking Point List?

Could the pilot maybe submit for approval a list of specified airports from the Unofficial Airports List that would allow covering these spans prior to starting the event and perhaps be held to those airports only without additional minutes added and no consideration if an alternate had to be used?

"My Hildegard" may not make it to Marseille without some pretty stiff tailwinds and there are five more legs that are questionable if not impossible for it to make.

How in the world could young Jimmy make it back home in 2nd place (Handicapped) to a DC-2 .... [the only solo pilot to finish BTW] ... with all those bloomin' penalty (doubled) minutes?
:wiggle:
Click to expand...

Hmm, but wouldn't that effectively eliminate some of the challenge? My choice is going to be the Caudron C.450. At full throttle I can get anywhere from 440 to 540 nm out of it, depending on altitude. In order to traverse some of the longer legs, I have to throttle it back quite a bit, giving up on my top speed. In fact, some of the strategy becomes whether it's beneficial for me to throttle back and skip optional waypoints, trying to save on ground time at the expense of a slower overall speed. Although, I'm not sure how much is gained by throttling back the Puss Moth... one might be better served by a brisk walk, I suppose!!
 
JimmyRFR said:
Hmm, but wouldn't that effectively eliminate some of the challenge? My choice is going to be the Caudron C.450. At full throttle I can get anywhere from 440 to 540 nm out of it, depending on altitude. In order to traverse some of the longer legs, I have to throttle it back quite a bit, giving up on my top speed. In fact, some of the strategy becomes whether it's beneficial for me to throttle back and skip optional waypoints, trying to save on ground time at the expense of a slower overall speed. Although, I'm not sure how much is gained by throttling back the Puss Moth... one might be better served by a brisk walk, I suppose!!
Click to expand...

Hi Jimmy ...


Agree fully, but in the case of the Puss Moth I'm not seeing any engine settings that would allow for that leg out of Greece into Syria ... especially in any sort of wind.

Any consideration would need to be for all pilots that faced those same conditions.



Hat's off big time to you and the Caudron .... had my hands on it early to see if I could make it work and decided to fly another aircraft.

You'll have your hands full and a big round of applause from me and a cold beverage of choice when you get to Essendon!
 
Again, up the circular stairs to Miss Nellie's domain. Opened the door, whispered Puss Moth, and handed the boss a Western Union telegram.
She opened up the file drawer and pulled out a manila envelope. And nodded.

For Milton Shupe's Puss Moth, the author provides an option to add tanks to reflect the fact that the aircraft was often used in long distance flight via installing increased fuel capacity. From the Installation notes:

"3. I provided many tank options in the aircraft.cfg for mileage ranges stated. Simply comment out the default and uncomment out the desired tankage."

If the young man would like to fly the Puss Moth with the Jimmy Melrose tanks, please let us know. The plane is certainly eligible. We shall send it down to Tex Winter's shop for evaluation. They will work out a handicap number that takes into account the increased range. (If no one wants to fly the Puss Moth, we won't put the demand on Tex's precious time.)

In the papers there is some news about a newly released increased-tank-capacity Miles Falcon Major by Keith Paine. If someone wants to fly that aircraft in the event, he should let us know and Tex will put it through the testing regime.
​

I turned on my heels, closed the door, and whistled my way down the stairs. "Gonna be easy this year…"
 
Ah yes! .... "Read the Book".

I misremembered having that documentation at hand ... thanks Mike!



Appears that there are several tank combinations available.

I will have to run some numbers myself, but please let Tex know that I will post as soon as I can the desired tank option and will be grateful for him putting the new figures through the testing regime.

Proposal for use of TBD tank option should be ready for dispatch to 119 Piccadilly in very short order.



It's as if Miss Nellie knew this was going to happen .... she continues to grow wiser as more events go by.

For all of the trips up and down the circular stairs I have manged to orchestrate or otherwise be responsible for over the years .... I feel that I should donate a large portion of the proceeds (prize money) towards the installation of a lift at 119.



To be clear .... Can any of the tank options that Milton wrote can be utilized?

Also would it suffice to include the intended tank option in the registration post or would Tex rather I reply with that info here ..... or both?



Thanks again Mike .... please give a tip of the hat to Miss Nellie for me .... off to the drawing board.
 
Ahem... A nervous telegram has hastily been delivered to the offices at 119 Piccadilly.

It reads:

Please check Jimmy's flight from EGUN into LIRU [stop]
Many inconsistencies in flight log [stop]
Flight topped thirteen thousand nine hundred feet [stop]
Crash landed [stop]
Pilot survived [stop]
 
Another message for 119 Piccadilly!

Skippy reports climbing to 12222' avoiding a thunderstorm on the coast of Turkey[stop]
Requests clarification if this is sufficient mitigation for exceeding 12000'[stop]
Will return Athens forthwith if required[stop]
 
@SkippyBing. Miss Nellie seems busy and I dare not disturb her. Here my own quick judgment subject to further review.

You (or any pilot) may not exceed a ceiling in order to climb over a storm. If a storm thrusts you upward momentarily and you get back down to your cruising altitude quickly, then all is fine. The Duenna log will report your cruising altitude and indicate whether you are maintaining that "high"altitude or just got bounced for a few seconds.

If the event is as you described -- that you intentionally flew above the ceiling for a storm -- you would normally have to return to Athens and re-fly the leg. If you were bumped upward for just a moment, then you would not.

In this case, make your own judgment. Were you purposefully flying above the ceiling (for several minutes) or did you just "pop up"? If the latter (or close to the latter), then proceed. You exceeded the limit by only 200 feet. If you were above the ceiling for quite a while (cruising high), then please return to Athens.

(Making a real time suggestion: if you can "catch yourself" so that you are above the limit for less than 10 minutes, in this one instance, you may return to a proper altitude and proceed. We are all on the learning curve. But if you have been maintaining that altitude for a while, you will want to start over...without penalty.)


SkippyBing said:
Another message for 119 Piccadilly!

Skippy reports climbing to 12222' avoiding a thunderstorm on the coast of Turkey[stop]
Requests clarification if this is sufficient mitigation for exceeding 12000'[stop]
Will return Athens forthwith if required[stop]
Click to expand...
 
MM said:
Miss Nellie seems busy and I dare not disturb her. Here my own quick judgment subject to further review.

You (or any pilot) may not exceed a ceiling in order to climb over a storm. If a storm thrusts you upward momentarily and you get back down to your cruising altitude quickly, then all is fine. The Duenna log will report your cruising altitude and indicate whether you are maintaining that "high"altitude or just got bounced for a few seconds.

If the event is as you described -- that you intentionally flew above the ceiling for a storm -- you would normally have to return to Athens and re-fly the leg. If you were bumped upward for just a moment, then you would not.

In this case, make your own judgment. Were you purposefully flying above the ceiling (for several minutes) or did you just "pop up"? If the latter (or close to the latter), then proceed. You exceeded the limit by only 200 feet. If you were above the ceiling for quite a while (cruising high), then please return to Athens.

(Making a real time suggestion: if you can "catch yourself" so that you are above the limit for less than 10 minutes, in this one instance, you may return to a proper altitude and proceed. We are all on the learning curve. But if you have been maintaining that altitude for a while, you will want to start over...without penalty.)
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike,

I'll continue to Baghdad at this stage and await the final verdict there. I think it was only a momentary climb as I was aiming to be at 11,500', where I could just about make out blue above, but was momentarily distracted and then realised I'd bust the soft ceiling so quickly dropped down to 10,000' at which point I broke clear of the weather system!
Still could have been worse, I could have misidentified a lake in Turkey and made an unnecessary course correction...

Skippy
 
Landed in OR1A, official scored correctly[stop]
Took off exact same place as landed[stop]
MacRoberston official says T/O was at Z15O[stop]
No such airport Z15O in 9/X[stop]
 
Log for the flight where I exceeded 12000' attached, as I thought a one off as the rest of the recorded altitudes are around 10000' apart from one at 11787'. I really should have paid for something more than a basic pitch hold autopilot...

I respectfully await Miss Nellie and the committees decision, if needed I shall be in Baghdad's souk district.

View attachment FlightLog_15-20-33.TXT
 
@spokes2112. No worries. The race officials at the Jaap van Hees aerodromes will often be confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top