Speaking of Starliners...

Tom Clayton

Tom Clayton

Administrator
Staff member
Yesterday, I finally got to actually finish a flight for the first time in a long while! I've always liked challenging landings, so with the weather coming through Florida, I decided to find me an airport right in the middle of the action. I decided to fly from Greensboro to Tallahassee in the Starliner by Manfred Jahn and his team. This plane is a dream to fly! I really should have looked at my destination airport a little closer though - it has fairly short runways and the Starliner is a BIG plane! I got her stopped, but I left a tire mark in the grass at the far edge of the very last turnoff!
 
Thanks for the compliments Tom....as they say your appreciation is our pay (or something like that....sometimes our german sayings don't quite translate 100%)

With a lot of practice the L-1649A can get into some relatively short runways....provided she is not near MLW. But of course you have to be right on Vref and then slow her down just right so she stalls as the mains touch.:ernae:
Stefan
 
I've done that sort of thing before, but I think that it tends to be a little unrealistic. I don't have pedals, so my braking is done with the "trigger" on my stick. Unfortunately, that means that I'm using absolute max braking. If that were done in real life, the brakes would heat to the point of blowing tires apart! Fortunately, that braking force takes a couple of seconds to come up, so I find that tapping the trigger gives more realistic braking. The only other option is to decrease the braking force scalar, but then you lose that emergency braking force if you need to abort.

But enough rambling! Has anyone seen any bare metal paints for this one? I looked on Flightsim, but didn't see any.
 
I did take a look at the runways at Talahassee and with 6000 and 8000 they are actually not that short.
She should get in there just fine without trickery...as long as you hit the target speeds.

Stefan
 
The problem was that ATC vectored me in for a VFR approach to 18, but visibility was less than two miles - and I was WAY too high! I had to pitch over and practially dive in to hit the runway!:isadizzy:

And on a slightly related note, I just realized last night that I was running version 2.0 because of a recent :C recovery. I redownloaded 2.2 and installed it, then went looking for a beare metal paint. I found the original 1.1 release with the prototype bare metal and the model that had the XML pitot spear on the wing. I installed the paint and made sure to apply the correct registration and was pleased to discover that the pitot spear was still included in the current model! I vastly prefer private liveries as opposed to commercial paints, so this will now be my "go-to" when I'm looking for big piston iron!
 
Hmmm, might have to go find those skins, I love the bare metal... Where might one look? Had a great flight in the old girl last night too... Friend over, so he flew and I periodically checked the FE settings. Departed Whenuapai for Tauranga, but that was clagged in and with my friend not familiar with the aircraft, deemed it prudent to divert to Rotorua - no go again, ...starting to have to shift fuel around now as we started with 50%...try New Plymouth, vis 2nm, eventually ended up at Wellington, then a hop over to Blenheim...great stuff! I must start using that feature in ASV that allows you to check wx at destination airports :)

LPXO
 
Tom Clayton said:
The problem was that ATC vectored me in for a VFR approach to 18, but visibility was less than two miles - and I was WAY too high! I had to pitch over and practially dive in to hit the runway!:isadizzy:

And on a slightly related note, I just realized last night that I was running version 2.0 because of a recent :C recovery. I redownloaded 2.2 and installed it, then went looking for a beare metal paint. I found the original 1.1 release with the prototype bare metal and the model that had the XML pitot spear on the wing. I installed the paint and made sure to apply the correct registration and was pleased to discover that the pitot spear was still included in the current model! I vastly prefer private liveries as opposed to commercial paints, so this will now be my "go-to" when I'm looking for big piston iron!
Click to expand...

Tom:

ATC can and will of course on many occasions ruin the best laid plans. Depending on my mood I will then decide to either realistically go around for another try or say "heck with it, it's only bits and bites" and try to make it work.

LPXO:

As Tom pointed out the original factory bare metal skin was only included in the V1.1 release of the aircraft. [FONT=verdana, sans-serif]l1649-11.zip should be the file name at AVSIM ...hope it's there :D
But this was the first go at the 1649....so you should also download starliner22.zip which is the so far latest version of the last of the Connies.

Just don't confuse her with the L-1049 series...it's a bit of a different animal. And we did learn a few tricks since making her.

Stefan
[/FONT]
 
Tom Clayton said:
The problem was that ATC vectored me in for a VFR approach to 18, but visibility was less than two miles - and I was WAY too high! I had to pitch over and practially dive in to hit the runway!:isadizzy:
Click to expand...
I've had the same thing happen. FS atc doesn't seem very intelligent in this respect. There's a VOR approach for R18 at Tallehassee, but FS atc never seems to assign non-ILS approaches unless you specifically request one using the atc menu. For IFR flying I much prefer Radar Contact, which is more realistic and has more options than the default atc.
 
In this case, the airport probably should have been closed. The remnants of Hurricane Ida were blowing in straight up 18 at about 20 knots with higher gusts. I had the option of doing the ILS approach northbound with a circle-to-land at the end, but the visibility would still have been an issue.
 
Tom Clayton said:
The problem was that ATC vectored me in for a VFR approach to 18, but visibility was less than two miles - and I was WAY too high! I had to pitch over and practially dive in to hit the runway!:isadizzy:
Click to expand...

MSFS ATC is moronic, unsafe and designed to give people a way to get to an airport in bad weather even if it sets you up for a crash. (OK, it's one of my pet peeves:banghead:) so the cure is to ignore what they give you, turn the radio off and fly your own (safe) choice of published approaches. In this case those choices are close to "none"... it's decision time!

A visual approach in less than 2 miles.. couldn't/shouldn't be offered without an instrument approach being specified as part of it and...

FAR 91.175(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used;

VOR Rwy18 Approach minima for a Category "C" airplane is 760-2 on a straight-in approach so less-than 2 miles vis. would indicate a diversion to an alternate...

--unless you would accept an ILS 36/circle 18 for which the minima are 580-1 1/2. Tight for a large aircraft but certainly within the realm of possibility - just warn the pax that the wingtips are not going to hit the buildings!
Just remember that a circling approach requires the airport be kept in sight at all times. Loss of visual contact requires a missed approach.

ILS Rwy 27 - well, a 90* x-wind at 20 kts... that's probably right at the limit for a Starliner and might make a good You-Tube video:applause:

(Diversions are hard to swallow, but.. :kilroy: )
Valdosta Reg'l (KVLD) might have made a good alternate (VOR Rwy17 840-1). Charter buses would get the pax to KTLH in comfort :icon_lol:


BTW, approach plates for most US airports can be found at:
http://www.airnav.com/airports/

Fly safe!
 
Tom Clayton said:
AvSim's copy was lost in their last crash, but I found a copy at FS2000:

http://www.fs2000.org/index.php/dow...--fs2004-lockheed-l-1649a-starliner-prototype

Edit: Have you or any of your team ever considered uploading the files to our library here?
Click to expand...

As far as I know Manfred had started only with AVSIM and then Flightsim.com and figured sooner or later the files migrate around anyways. When it comes to that part it is all his baby.

Since the V1.1 was really only meant to tide folks over until the actual product was released I don't think he would have wanted it spread out too far anyways.

I have them all in my hangar ( there's probably 50 variations of the FDE for the Starliner and L-1049s alone ) which is quite fun to go back to and see how they progressed through the flight test phase.

Stefan

Stefan
 
Believe me - I've seen some pretty stupid things when it comes to MS ATC. But since I'm not all that into the "As Real As It Gets" kind of thing when it comes to procedure, I just go with it. I'm surprised that they got it as good as they did. If you're flying a seaplane into Honolulu, you can even set things up to where you use 4's ILS and then make a last minute turn to 8W - all with the blessings of ATC.

But this flight into TLH was more for dusting out the cobwebs and enjoying some interesting weather. I get bored flying into flat terrain in clear skies. I either want interesting scenery like the Rockies or a good addon airport, or interesting weather to challenge my landing skills. I think next time I'll head into Telluride...
 
Tom Clayton said:
Believe me - I've seen some pretty stupid things when it comes to MS ATC. But since I'm not all that into the "As Real As It Gets" kind of thing when it comes to procedure, I just go with it. I'm surprised that they got it as good as they did. If you're flying a seaplane into Honolulu, you can even set things up to where you use 4's ILS and then make a last minute turn to 8W - all with the blessings of ATC.

But this flight into TLH was more for dusting out the cobwebs and enjoying some interesting weather. I get bored flying into flat terrain in clear skies. I either want interesting scenery like the Rockies or a good addon airport, or interesting weather to challenge my landing skills. I think next time I'll head into Telluride...
Click to expand...

Actually the outcome would have probably been better if you had simply slowed her down more by adding drag early (of course this only works up to a point) which means at the same rate of descent you don't travel as far over the ground. In this case the strong wind would have worked in your favor. Diving for the runway doesn't usually work out all that well.

Of course if you are 2000ft AGL as you cross the threshold even that can not get you down into the touchdown zone anymore (at least not without crashing into it.

The FS ATC system is pretty good for a "static" system working off fixed parameters. RC4 is quite a lot better as Sid testified and is continually being improved, where the FS ATC unfortunately did not get any better at all with FSX.

But of course neither one can be quite as good and occasionally flexible as the real thing. There are also no personalities such as one will eventually learn to love or fear when flying for real in one area for a while.

For example we have an exceptionally good female controller working a sector north-west of Ontario,CA. When I am out to shoot some practice approaches in the real Saratoga to stay IFR current I always check her frequency first to see if Tina is on. If she is I do all my flying in her sector.

On the other hand we had a very grumpy guy working the tower at nearby Riverside Airport....and everyone I talked to would rather go somewhere else when he was on duty.

Personally I don't let the FS ATC dictate which approach I am going to use in situations like this, but request the procedure I think is the best one available at the time.

Stefan
 
Tom Clayton said:
Believe me - I've seen some pretty stupid things when it comes to MS ATC. But since I'm not all that into the "As Real As It Gets" kind of thing when it comes to procedure, I just go with it....
Click to expand...

Hi,

it might be actually more realistic to just mentally clear yourself for some procedure and fly it accordingly (no matter whether it is a simple pattern or some complex IFR approach) than to rely on FS ATC.

Best regards,
Volker
 
I was plenty slow - even to the point of having to keep a nose-up attitude to keep airborne. But I was so high when saw the airport I had to dive. I ended up touching down at about 155 KIAS with full flaps! I know that in real life, that I probaly would have blown the flaps clean off the plane, but that's the good thing about flying a PC - you always have a "Reset" button!:isadizzy:
 
Well the Starliner Flaps can take quite a bit....

100% < 160 KIAS
80% <185 KIAS

so that should work out OK.

Stefan
 
There I go again, not reading the entire manual! Now I know what the small white speed bugs are on the indicator!:applause:
 
Sunny9850 said:
On the other hand we had a very grumpy guy working the tower at nearby Riverside Airport....and everyone I talked to would rather go somewhere else when he was on duty.
Stefan
Click to expand...
HEY!!!! I swear.. I've never worked KRIV Twr!! I promise!! (but it is an essential part of ATC training - the grumpy old guy mode - and I worked hard for 30 years to perfect it!)

Sunny9850 said:
But of course neither one can be quite as good and occasionally flexible as the real thing. There are also no personalities such as one will eventually learn to love or fear when flying for real in one area for a while.

For example we have an exceptionally good female controller working a sector north-west of Ontario,CA. When I am out to shoot some practice approaches in the real Saratoga to stay IFR current I always check her frequency first to see if Tina is on. If she is I do all my flying in her sector.
Click to expand...

We had one like that when I was learning to fly too.. and her alter-ego (Helene) who only lacked the deeper voice to qualify as a grumpy old guy :blind:.
In fact, it's the personalities that make the system work better than the authorities give you the tools for...

I had hoped that the FSX version would allow (instead of a cute "control tower" module) the ability to select the criteria that ATC used: a)active runway determined by wind ("real mode"), b) active runway determined by wind, then approach, c) active runway selected by biggest, easiest approach with autopilot ("game mode")... which would have solved the unreal issues. Alas...

Now you know why I am peeved by MSFS-ATC :icon_lol:

There I go again, not reading the entire manual! Now I know what the small white speed bugs are on the indicator!:applause:
Click to expand...
Tom, that's why they are called "bugs"... it'll really bug you when you find out what happens on the wrong side of the little white indicator :isadizzy:

Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top