It seems the Introduction to the flightdeck of the Learjet 45 has been released. I didn't have noticed until today on the wiki pages.
Thanks to those involved in the effort!.
Cheers, Ed
It seems the Introduction to the flightdeck of the Learjet 45 has been released. I didn't have noticed until today on the wiki pages.
Thanks to those involved in the effort!.
Cheers, Ed
Excellent. I think the Lear is the best plane in AF2 without propellers. It still needs lots of work inside but, even as is it is very flyable. Having a flight tutorial will go a long way toward exposing this great plane to the users.
Regards,
Ray
I just had a quick look at the Learjet flightdeck data at the wiki site. Very, very nice and easy to read with the highlighting and plenty of screenshots. Well done, Jan.
Regards,
Ray
Ouch. Since the release of the Dash8 this really hurts!
Oops, that should have read I consider the Lear the best planes in AF2 without propellers. Sorry.
Regards,
Ray
without propellers. Sorry.
Fortunately, the lear has two jet turbines!.
Cheers, Ed
Fortunately, the lear has two jet turbines!.
Cheers, Ed
Yep, fortunately fan jets are not considered propeller driven.
Regards,
Ray
How about the the UDF? Still remember the unducted fan on the MD80 30 years ago. The A400M engines look a bit similar today.
BUT the best fuel saver ever is the UFD, the unfaned duct, saves 100%
Too deep for me. Every A400M picture that I have ever seen had those super modern looking curved propellers.
Ray
Now that surely in a very rare bird. Amazing. Thanks for the link.
Regards,
Ray
I just had a quick look at the Learjet flightdeck data at the wiki site. Very, very nice and easy to read with the highlighting and plenty of screenshots. Well done, Jan.
Regards,
Ray
Thanks, yeah I'm working on the flight tutorial for the Learjet. A320 is next in line
But I do not understand one thing: why in Cessna you can refuel with fuel at the required distance of flight, and the fuel is properly consumed, but there is no fuel in Learjet at all? Fantastic engines - perpetuum mobile!
But I do not understand one thing: why in Cessna you can refuel with fuel at the required distance of flight, and the fuel is properly consumed, but there is no fuel in Learjet at all? Fantastic engines - perpetuum mobile!
Because the fuel system is not complete yet and we have other topics to work on.
It's not difficult to just make the fuel level go down on the display, I could add that to the Learjet in a few hours. The tricky part is reducing the mass of the aircraft dynamically thus changing it's inertia dynamically. So at the moment it is not yet implemented because it doesn't have any effect yet when the level decreases or hits zero. The engines are not shutting down and the aircraft is not yet getting any lighter. So there is no reason to implement it other than: the fuel number went down :O
But it is nice to hear that you guys want something like this, has been a while since anyone talked about fuel. And just for that I'm actually going to look into the fuel system of the Learjet and may be able to quickly add this in.
Fake fuel flow or real fuel flow with the associated weight change?
Real fuel flow without mass changes. I'm saying mass changes cause we won't just change the gravity force "a.k.a. weight" but add inertia due to the position of the mass and the dimensions of the fuel tank. So with full fuel tanks the roll inertia will be higher for example. Not just the aircraft needs more lift for level flight...
I can implement the entire fuel system, with pumps, cross feed and what not. It's just that the tanks don't yet add any inertia or mass to the wings. The rest of the system is working, I can create a full fuel line networks with multiple fuel tanks and connect them together to my liking.
In the C172 this is already implemented fully, and with my cold and dark mod of this aircraft the engine is also shutting down if you fly one tank empty or select the cut off. Now, I can't yet kill the LJ45 engines but I can make it so that you can draw more fuel from one tank if you idle one side and add full thrust to the other... stuff like that is doable.
The mass and therefore inertia change are very important, roll inertia is just one example, there is might not be as noticeable. But you can't tell me an empty 747 and a fueled up 747 accelerate in the same time on the runway. Weight is carried by the wheels then and the friction isn't that high to play that much of a difference. The difference in acceleration comes from the mass not just weight. Weight is so boring it just points towards earth and doesn't actually do much only in terms of lift and downhill force component, etc. That is just the gravity force of the aircraft, doesn't say anything in terms of physics. Mass is what comes up in all the equations, centripetal force, acceleration (newtons laws), even the gravity forces are described in terms of masses.
I'm not sure if you quite understand where I'm going with this, weight is a gravitational force, a by product of mass. Which is why if we simulate mass, its gravity and weight will be a by-product but only tell a small portion of the story. So no just adding weight to the aircraft is not going to cut it, that would just break the laws of physics we programmed
. . . it is nice to hear that you guys want something like this, has been a while since anyone talked about fuel. And just for that I'm actually going to look into the fuel system of the Learjet and may be able to quickly add this in.
jan,
I would love to see the fuel system added to the Lear. Any of your special work would be greatly appreciated. Having a more realistic range is even more important than before because we now how so many new destination airports thanks to Rodeo and GeoConverter.
I have been asking for this since day one.
How about adding simple verbal callout for 80 kts and Vr? Now that would really add more realism.
Regards,
Ray
Confirmed. That's why I mentioned that a lightweight 747 performs/accelerates much better than a heavy one.
I thought that FS2 already does these calculations automatically and simply putting the fuel (weight) into the correct locations is the only thing needed.
It works that easy in FSX, x-plane etc.
Well the user interface will allow you to do that but the fuel tanks in the aircraft will be defined by their positions and dimensions in the tmd file. We're not just arbitrary going to add "some generic value" to the aircraft's mass and some inertia, for us it is actually easier to just specify the tank positions and then work from there.
If you really need these, the most important one should be included, V1!
And please make them deletable. That's the first thing I'm doing with every add-on. Delete the pnf voices.
V1 and Vr are so close together time wise that you probably can't hear both so I would opt for Vr. This is a simulation and not real world.
Regards,
Ray
The pressure is off after V1, there is only one thing to do. V1 please.
Bad decision as V1 is THE important decision (action) speed. Especially if these two are very close together it's V1 that's most important.
Don't understand what this has to do with the difference between real world and simulation.
IRL if these two are very close together or even identical you simply combine the V1/R callout.
FYI, V1 is very important and the callout must be completed upon reaching V1.
VR on the other hand is rather flexible. During certification the actual rotation speed range is +10kts.
unh hu. When was the last time you aborted a takeoff run in this simulator? Geez Louise.
Regards,
Ray