London-Melbourne NOTAMS
- Thread starter MM
- Start date
Hey All,
First Thank You committee for the 2 kts back on the Me 108.
Now just to be fair I'm also likely gonna fly the PC-12 in this event as I'm flying the Kodiak around the world. Anyway the reference speed for the PC-12 is 271 and I get 274 at 18,000 on my computer. So if you want a kt or two adjustment might be in order although at that speed the difference isn't so important as each kt is about 8 mins not 23 mins like in the 160 kt range of speed.
-Ed-
First Thank You committee for the 2 kts back on the Me 108.
Now just to be fair I'm also likely gonna fly the PC-12 in this event as I'm flying the Kodiak around the world. Anyway the reference speed for the PC-12 is 271 and I get 274 at 18,000 on my computer. So if you want a kt or two adjustment might be in order although at that speed the difference isn't so important as each kt is about 8 mins not 23 mins like in the 160 kt range of speed.
-Ed-
Willy
Administrator
Just a couple of reminders.
If you like to fly with company, the MAPE server is open at mape.gotdns.org If you want to check first to see if anyone's on there the link is http://mape.gotdns.org/
If you don't like to take your chances at "death by chatbox", FlightSim has graciously allowed us to use their TeamSpeak server at 68.47.50.131:8768
I've been using the MAPE server for my flights and I'll have TS on when I resume flying this evening. (even if Mrs Willy does give me funny looks for talking to myself)
If you like to fly with company, the MAPE server is open at mape.gotdns.org If you want to check first to see if anyone's on there the link is http://mape.gotdns.org/
If you don't like to take your chances at "death by chatbox", FlightSim has graciously allowed us to use their TeamSpeak server at 68.47.50.131:8768
I've been using the MAPE server for my flights and I'll have TS on when I resume flying this evening. (even if Mrs Willy does give me funny looks for talking to myself)
MM
Charter Member
Necessary Rules Clarification.
A question arises about the "Simulation Time" for team entries as opposed to solo entries. The rule intends that during a "local real life day" each sequential leg takes off after the previously completed leg--in "local simulation time." This means that a long sequence of legs may end up flying in darkness. At the beginning of a new "local real life day" the pilot may recommence his next leg at an arbitrary "local simulator time"--presumably early in the morning.
The ambiguity arises when the "local real life day" has a different meaning for different pilots on a team. The "local real life day" begins and ends at a different UTC for pilots living in Europe as opposed to California or Alaska.
The solution is to pick a single time zone for the team. You might pick UTC, for example. Or, if most pilots live in California and one in New York, you might pick Pacific Time instead. You may choose the "team local real life day" to suit your needs--but you must pick a single time zone.
A question arises about the "Simulation Time" for team entries as opposed to solo entries. The rule intends that during a "local real life day" each sequential leg takes off after the previously completed leg--in "local simulation time." This means that a long sequence of legs may end up flying in darkness. At the beginning of a new "local real life day" the pilot may recommence his next leg at an arbitrary "local simulator time"--presumably early in the morning.
The ambiguity arises when the "local real life day" has a different meaning for different pilots on a team. The "local real life day" begins and ends at a different UTC for pilots living in Europe as opposed to California or Alaska.
The solution is to pick a single time zone for the team. You might pick UTC, for example. Or, if most pilots live in California and one in New York, you might pick Pacific Time instead. You may choose the "team local real life day" to suit your needs--but you must pick a single time zone.
MaddogK
Sim Junkie
PLease retest the DA Cheyenne, I wasn't unable to duplicate those extremely optimistic test results on the latest sheet. Can you also confirm engine survivability when run at OVER redline to obtain those results ?
Thanks,
Those numbers are correct in the published flight testing parameters for weather settings. 270KTAS @ 18000. I've tested it myself 3 times. And, yes, it will survive with everything full forward; the only way to achieve that 270.:mixedsmi:
Hey All,
I can run test the DA Cheyenne in fs9 as well if desired - later today. The whole idea is to test aircraft going full out - not test them under "realistic" flying conditions. I can do that as it doesn't matter if the throttle sticks which it often does so I don't fly it alot.
-Ed-
I can run test the DA Cheyenne in fs9 as well if desired - later today. The whole idea is to test aircraft going full out - not test them under "realistic" flying conditions. I can do that as it doesn't matter if the throttle sticks which it often does so I don't fly it alot.
-Ed-
MaddogK
Sim Junkie
Thanks Ed, I also will re-run the tests with duenna tracking to confirm my tests last night, but it makes NO sense to me to base the 'handicap' on a speed thats only achievable outside the normal operating envelope- ask teson how he feels to fly a plane handicapped at a speed thats maintainable for 10 minutes before his engine self destructs.
Hey All,
Maddogk I believe the issue is that most aircraft don't model engine damage at all and so are being flown throttle "firewalled" with people using fuel/range gauges and engine lean to fly far enough while not sacrificing too much speed. Is that real? No but it is a game and it is a race. Should fuel/range gauges be allowed in non-modern aircraft? That too is a good question.
Also the committee doesn't want aircraft that are too fast and it is their party so that is fine - so testing at max possible makes sense to me. As for aircraft with engine damage modeled - that would be interesting to see what conditions the committee would want that kind of plane tested under. Normal operating parameters is probably the best option - lots to think about here.
I'm sure the committee will be along to express their opinion meanwhile see what the Cheyenne gives you "firewalled". If necessary I can fly it later.
-Ed-
Maddogk I believe the issue is that most aircraft don't model engine damage at all and so are being flown throttle "firewalled" with people using fuel/range gauges and engine lean to fly far enough while not sacrificing too much speed. Is that real? No but it is a game and it is a race. Should fuel/range gauges be allowed in non-modern aircraft? That too is a good question.
Also the committee doesn't want aircraft that are too fast and it is their party so that is fine - so testing at max possible makes sense to me. As for aircraft with engine damage modeled - that would be interesting to see what conditions the committee would want that kind of plane tested under. Normal operating parameters is probably the best option - lots to think about here.
I'm sure the committee will be along to express their opinion meanwhile see what the Cheyenne gives you "firewalled". If necessary I can fly it later.
-Ed-
epwatson
Charter Member
Hopefully they don't ban my "fuel/range" guage.. Mine is a pen and paper.. 
fly between city A and city B that's 50 miles apart, i used 10 gallons of fuel to get ther so im getting 5 miles to the gallon. Thats how i work out my range.. nearly screwed it up on my leg from EGUN to LRBS in the Spartan.. I made it to austria and still had quite a bit of fuel left so i worked the numbers and i had just enuf to make it to Romania, and OMG I thought i was gonna sputter all the way down.
fly between city A and city B that's 50 miles apart, i used 10 gallons of fuel to get ther so im getting 5 miles to the gallon. Thats how i work out my range.. nearly screwed it up on my leg from EGUN to LRBS in the Spartan.. I made it to austria and still had quite a bit of fuel left so i worked the numbers and i had just enuf to make it to Romania, and OMG I thought i was gonna sputter all the way down. 
Eamon nothing wrong with that at all.
Willy
Administrator
I just don't push it on fuel. I take a guesstimate and add extra for safety. The flight planner will give an idea, but is not the most accurate thing in the world. I know the Twin Beech is good for about 800-850nm when pressed hard. So I try to keep my legs down to no more than 600nm to allow for headwinds or other unpleasantness. If you know your aircraft's approximate range, fuel shouldn't be an issue.
I've had the fuel status gauge installed as a pop up in the Beech for a couple of years now but rarely look at the thing as the readings constantly jump all over the place rendering it mostly useless. I'm going to replace it with something else I think.
Just don't expect me to get rid of the "8-track" aka Radio/CD gauge. One must retain some semblance of civilization.
I've had the fuel status gauge installed as a pop up in the Beech for a couple of years now but rarely look at the thing as the readings constantly jump all over the place rendering it mostly useless. I'm going to replace it with something else I think.
Just don't expect me to get rid of the "8-track" aka Radio/CD gauge. One must retain some semblance of civilization.
srgalahad
Charter Member 2022
First of all we're wandering off the "NOTAM" issue here. However it's a great discussion in itself and should find a thread of it's own about navigation, route and fuel planning (Not in the Racing forum but in the FS2004 or FSX forums so everyone sees it) and handicapping in general in the Racing Forum.
--------------------------------------------------------
As for the test/reports... The Committee has to use one universal standard to allow/disallow an aircraft. This was determined to be "Max speed at pertinent altitude as long as it's historically correct". There you get the spreadsheet.
From there each pilot has a choice of what to fly. If, after testing (not just reading the "read me") you find the aircraft cannot maintain the reported performance, then it's your choice whether that a/c is still competitive to your satisfaction. Certainly models that simulate damage etc. are likely to lose some desirability if that has a detrimental effect.
As for the accuracy of FS (or real) handicap racing, the real-world organizers had far more test data to use, and as time went on, more accurate and in-depth records (race after race) to calculate with. I fought hard to get a handicapping system in for this event (and can show the bruises
), knowing that it wouldn't be perfect, but should demonstrate that FS racing can be handicapped.
Each event adds to the database of performance (think of all those Duenna reports we'll have!) and eventually we'll be able to almost guarantee our numbers work. We will have recorded speeds that can be applied to the next events (and probably reduce the 'unfairness' of some aircraft).
Should we factor in "normal performance" in a race? Not in all cases! Sometimes entrants will be willing to risk blown engines etc. For some events we can and will build rules that disallow "firewalled" operation (the Evita event was a step along that road). There are other steps going forward to make things like engine damage possible for all FS aircraft, or possible just monitor the excesses.
Should we build events that must be flown according to "the book"? I'm not being mean or rude when I say that most FS pilots, even after years of running the sim have much, if any concept about 75% power, fuel consumption, proper leaning techniques, allowances for speed or fuel in the climb, etc. Heck, look how much this event is challenging the navigational skills for most of us. Will we do it? Eventually I suspect so... it's all part of learning more about flight as opposed to the sim.
For now, some will get an advantage, some will lose out... but it's not like any of us are going to sacrifice horribly and most have made great strides in learning the fine points of aviation. Some have learned how to lean or fly proper altitudes for those few extra miles. Some have tested their aircraft to "dry tanks" to know a real limit of range and how much extra fuel is used climbing hills. If their curiousity makes a difference, more power to them!
For now, enjoy the event, the scenery, the camaraderie, the learning and if you don't win remember that we've given you an excuse to fill a lot of hours with your friends. :ernae:
As I said, let's carry this discussion on.. elsewhere.
Rob
--------------------------------------------------------
As for the test/reports... The Committee has to use one universal standard to allow/disallow an aircraft. This was determined to be "Max speed at pertinent altitude as long as it's historically correct". There you get the spreadsheet.
From there each pilot has a choice of what to fly. If, after testing (not just reading the "read me") you find the aircraft cannot maintain the reported performance, then it's your choice whether that a/c is still competitive to your satisfaction. Certainly models that simulate damage etc. are likely to lose some desirability if that has a detrimental effect.
As for the accuracy of FS (or real) handicap racing, the real-world organizers had far more test data to use, and as time went on, more accurate and in-depth records (race after race) to calculate with. I fought hard to get a handicapping system in for this event (and can show the bruises
), knowing that it wouldn't be perfect, but should demonstrate that FS racing can be handicapped.Each event adds to the database of performance (think of all those Duenna reports we'll have!) and eventually we'll be able to almost guarantee our numbers work. We will have recorded speeds that can be applied to the next events (and probably reduce the 'unfairness' of some aircraft).
Should we factor in "normal performance" in a race? Not in all cases! Sometimes entrants will be willing to risk blown engines etc. For some events we can and will build rules that disallow "firewalled" operation (the Evita event was a step along that road). There are other steps going forward to make things like engine damage possible for all FS aircraft, or possible just monitor the excesses.
Should we build events that must be flown according to "the book"? I'm not being mean or rude when I say that most FS pilots, even after years of running the sim have much, if any concept about 75% power, fuel consumption, proper leaning techniques, allowances for speed or fuel in the climb, etc. Heck, look how much this event is challenging the navigational skills for most of us. Will we do it? Eventually I suspect so... it's all part of learning more about flight as opposed to the sim.
For now, some will get an advantage, some will lose out... but it's not like any of us are going to sacrifice horribly and most have made great strides in learning the fine points of aviation. Some have learned how to lean or fly proper altitudes for those few extra miles. Some have tested their aircraft to "dry tanks" to know a real limit of range and how much extra fuel is used climbing hills. If their curiousity makes a difference, more power to them!
For now, enjoy the event, the scenery, the camaraderie, the learning and if you don't win remember that we've given you an excuse to fill a lot of hours with your friends. :ernae:
As I said, let's carry this discussion on.. elsewhere.
Rob
MaddogK
Sim Junkie
I re-ran the test of the DA Cheyenne with duenna logging and was able to achieve a steady 270kts on a test flight to New York City from Chicago with 'calm' set as the weather theme when a strange thing happened, I turned the plane around and headed west and noticed my top speed was a MAX of 268kts and I only was able to re-achieve 270 after 100 gallons of fuel were used.
My initial request for a retest stemmed from a test flight from Chicago to Los Angeles last night under the same conditions and I could only get 267.5 kts @18k ft within 10 minutes after takeoff.
Seems this plane is faster west to east then from east to west. I'll run a lengthier test later, but attached is the duenna log from tonights test. I know I'm quibbling about a couple of kts, but as Ed pointed out- a couple KPH over 10000 miles ends up hours in lost/gained time.
My initial request for a retest stemmed from a test flight from Chicago to Los Angeles last night under the same conditions and I could only get 267.5 kts @18k ft within 10 minutes after takeoff.
Seems this plane is faster west to east then from east to west. I'll run a lengthier test later, but attached is the duenna log from tonights test. I know I'm quibbling about a couple of kts, but as Ed pointed out- a couple KPH over 10000 miles ends up hours in lost/gained time.
MM
Charter Member
Required Crew and Payload.
Just a reminder for everyone. Here is the rule on required crew and payload.
Just a reminder for everyone. Here is the rule on required crew and payload.
The standard weight for a crewmember is 170 pounds. Thus, the typical entrant will carry a pilot and co-pilot or at least 340 pounds of crew. Where appropriate, you may add a radio operator and/or navigator. Single-seat aircraft, obviously, carry only the pilot.
MM
Charter Member
Danger Lurks at Altitude
Just a reminder to everyone about the hard ceilings of 18,000 feet (Modern General Aviation) and 15,000 feet (Golden age). The rules provide:
Note that the hard ceiling indicates that you want to fly somewhat below 18,000 feet to give yourself a safety margain against sudden fluctuations in atmospheric pressure and the turbulence of storms. (You can be thrown hundreds of feet above or below your cruising altitude--almost without notice. Danger lurks especially for those who hand the controls to "Otto," the autopilot.)
If you want to cruise at a high altitude in the Modern General Aviation category, then you will have to judge the tradeoff between a high speed cruising altitude and the margin of safety that you need. Higher altitudes imply risk.
We have had two instances of pilots' being unaware of busting (or almost busting) the hard ceiling. Some caution is warranted.
Just a reminder to everyone about the hard ceilings of 18,000 feet (Modern General Aviation) and 15,000 feet (Golden age). The rules provide:
The rule does not penalize violations--it merely cancels invalid legs.
Note that the hard ceiling indicates that you want to fly somewhat below 18,000 feet to give yourself a safety margain against sudden fluctuations in atmospheric pressure and the turbulence of storms. (You can be thrown hundreds of feet above or below your cruising altitude--almost without notice. Danger lurks especially for those who hand the controls to "Otto," the autopilot.)
If you want to cruise at a high altitude in the Modern General Aviation category, then you will have to judge the tradeoff between a high speed cruising altitude and the margin of safety that you need. Higher altitudes imply risk.
We have had two instances of pilots' being unaware of busting (or almost busting) the hard ceiling. Some caution is warranted.