|
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 3:17 pm
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Ken CVA868
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:29 am |
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 2:25 am Posts: 112 Location: Vancouver
|
I downloaded the CVA 767ER from the fleet page for use in FS9. That dog just don't hunt. It stalled in the climb and could not gain airspeed in the step climb. I eventually switched to the 777 to do the flight I was on.
Are these aircraft not tested before being endorsed for a FS version? They should be. If they don't work, they shouldn't be there.
I am not meaning to criticize the development team, they do marvellous work! I am suggesting that we tighten things up a bit.
_________________
Senator - No Job, No Phone, No Office, No Money
|
|
|
|
|
DS
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:27 am |
Site Admin |
|
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 3:11 am Posts: 433 Location: CYVR
|
Yep. I agree Ken.
Fleet testing is a big part of the VA - mind you, the LDS767 is the only 76 anyone should be flying...
I have had discussions with Tom McCall and Bill Haystead, and am planning a get together for CVA management types (even if there is no President) - who cares, let's just get some stuff cleared up and rolling, is what I thinks.
So, I'd like to get the interested parties together after Christmas (perhaps via ICQ) to bash out some plans.
So, current H/C's, Fleet team, etc. Please be ready.
|
|
|
|
|
Ken CVA868
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:43 am |
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 2:25 am Posts: 112 Location: Vancouver
|
As I recall, Keith, I did do what I could with fuel, but the loading made no sense. IIRC, the load would not sit in the envelope so I chalked it up to an incompatible model.
_________________
Senator - No Job, No Phone, No Office, No Money
|
|
|
|
|
84-1091752987
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:44 pm |
|
There has been an issue with this Posky release as long as I can remember, dating back to FS2K2 as well. Even virtually empty it just doesn't like going above FL300 or thereabouts. It would be nice if someone, somewhere could get this bird fixed while we wait for the LDS since the PIC won't fly in 2K4!:blues:
|
|
|
|
|
Ken CVA868
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:15 am |
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 2:25 am Posts: 112 Location: Vancouver
|
Alrighty then. I will forget the history and try it again and post back; hopefully by the end of the week.
_________________
Senator - No Job, No Phone, No Office, No Money
|
|
|
|
|
Ken CVA868
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:34 am |
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 2:25 am Posts: 112 Location: Vancouver
|
Okay, I tried again with no pax and 50% fuel and the climb still...well, didn't.
I remembered that one of the pilots in our CASARA group flies for AC (Airbus) and just started his upgrade to the 767; so I wrote to ask him about the actual climb rates. He replied that he has not yet started his simulator training, but passed on the following information. I thought I would share it with you even though it is far from complete, and I will update this forum when I hear more:
Hi Ken;
I can't answer your question from personal experience - yet. But I dug into the performance manual, and under ISA to ISA +10 conditions, a fully loaded B767-300 (184,600 kg) would be somewhat less than 180,000 kg at initial cruise altitude of approx FL310. If I read the charts correctly, weight for optimum altitude of FL330 would be down around 160,000 kg. A weight of 140,000 kg would show an optimum altitude near FL350, and a weight of 130,000 kg indicates an optimum altitude of FL370 with a capability of FL390 if needed.
We use the FMC (flight management computer) to give us performance predictions for this sort of stuff as it also considers entries for increasing/decreasing winds, temperature deviations from ISA, etc.
Climb rates down low apparently are pretty good, but anywhere near optimum it get's to be close to a cruise climb scenario where the climb peters out to 500 fpm or so.
When I get into the real airplane I'll have access to a lot more data and can probably give you a better answer at that time, (or at least appear to be a bit more credible.)
_________________
Senator - No Job, No Phone, No Office, No Money
|
|
|
|
|
CVA303
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:47 am |
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 1:56 am Posts: 632 Location: Halifax
|
Ken give me a few days and I'll build you a 767-300 that works in FS2004
_________________ --> Bill VC
|
|
|
|
|
CVA303
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 4:38 pm |
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 1:56 am Posts: 632 Location: Halifax
|
Ken,
Tell me a bit about yourself.
I need some ideas for the nose art.
Until then, it looks like this. She ain't PIC767 or LVD767, but I made FL410 with 60% fuel in 21 minutes. No stall and .81M. Fin number 868 and Reg C-GCKM.
I'll release it before the multi flight on the 5th. so everyone has a B767 for FS9
_________________ --> Bill VC
|
|
|
|
|
Ken CVA868
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:56 pm |
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 2:25 am Posts: 112 Location: Vancouver
|
Gee, thanks a@@h@@@, er, Keith. But you did sum it up pretty well. How about the CA goose on the nose?
_________________
Senator - No Job, No Phone, No Office, No Money
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|