ADF navigation panel for SW Pacific Race

[PRB]

Here is a panel you can add to your plane for the upcoming SW Pacific Tour event. I cobbled this together for the last MacRobertson (London-Melbourne) Race we did in 2009. It has a couple of stop watches, a clock, Sperry autopilot, ADF radios and gauge, and even a signal strength gauge. See the readme for instructions for adding it to your favorite plane.

[salt_air]

That's perfect Paul ... I remembered that panel, just couldn't find it.

Thank You!

[salt_air]

I don't remember opening a can-o-worms in a long time ... so let me apologize for that straight away.

Maybe there's a quick and easy solution, but there's a marked difference between the air/cfg files on the two DC-4 models I see widely available for free.

One is from modeler Jens B. Kristensen and the other is from the FS-Design Berlin group.

Minor differences in models ... matter of taste .... panel, smoothness of exterior textures, available paints, etc..

My question is about a major difference with the air/cfg files as it pertains to Max Indicated Speed.

The FSDZ is forty kts faster ... that's 40kts ... a huge difference in top end ... 258 as opposed to 218.

10 - 15 ... even 20 would just make things more interesting, but 40 is a little much, yeah?

[PRB]

Interesting about the DC-4. Looked it up in a couple of books I have, and on the Internet, and every souce I found said the "top speed" of the DC-4 was between 250 and 280 MPH. I assume all these "top speed" figures are supposed to mean how fast the plane can actually get to, not the "do not exceed" speed that is in the [reference speed] section of the aircraft.cfg. So it looks like the JBK one is slow, and the FSDB one is more accurate.

[srgalahad]

Apples, oranges and grapefruit...
Knots, MPH
TAS, IAS

Maximum Indicated Airspeed--- in a MSFS context, or aircraft certification documents? Since a large percentage of the people who quote these figures don't specify what is being used, or miss doing the conversions, or use 'informal' sources instead of the engineering data sheets (because they can't find them) I'll go out on a limb and say that it's a near-miracle that most MSFS planes even come close to the historical record.

Just for the exercise, the numbers from Salt_air (Kts) and PRB (MPH) above : 280 MPH = 244 Kts; 250 MPH = 218 Kts
--but are those True A/S (the engineering side) or IAS (for pilot info & manuals)
--is "maximum' what the a/c will achieve or where it reaches stress limits?
--is the Max Speed quoted or Sea Level or at operational altitudes? (and if so, what altitude - meaningless without that info)

In MSFS, did the modeler toss a random number in, or use a reliable source (press releases are NOT reliable). Was it adequately tested to see if it matches what the model will do or just picked to be close - or it's accurate data but the model won't come close...

Well, I was going to save this for another time in a few weeks, but it might as well be now..

.Attachment 35589

In events like this, or the RTWR or any other where performance becomes an issue -either relative to other a/c or to the historical record - there is really only one way to resolve these questions:

After you determine which SPECIFIC model/version you want to 'approve' --
1. acquire trustworthy historical/test data (and likely not just from the internet)
2. test fly the model in question and get speeds (and range) at various altitudes (and power settings)
3. determine whether questionable practices (like unlimited WEP) are used in the model
4. have another pilot do comparison tests
5. compare the flight test data to the known specs and establish the degree of error
6. establish a database to be used for race entries ( and to help detect 'cheater' airfiles)

For us, the only difficult part of the above is getting the real-world data- some is pretty obscure. Most aircraft are available to a multitude of pilots so comparison tests can be done (and even head-to-head online). Are some popular models going to fail? - wouldn't surprise me! Not every modeler spends as much time researching the specs as they do building the model and then the airfile has to be built and tested to fit.

So, if we want accuracy and fair comparisons, Who's going to do it? In the past it's been the 'race committee' as they've wanted fair and impartial tests done as expeditiously as possible. I offer that the people who should be doing it are the pilots who want to use a particular plane...
A. Make up a report form that has to be completed (speed, altitudes, range at a minimum);
B. anyone ask "Can I use the XXXX?" and submit their test data and supporting research
C. At least one other pilot must test the same model and submit the results.
D. Test x and test y can be compared and then measured against the historical info
E. The "Race Committee" can then rule on admissibility and record the info in the database.

BTW, this would also go a long way to resolving the "subsonic" dispute and variances between two different models of the same aircraft. We don't care what the numbers in the read-me and config files say -- we would have 'actual' performance data for the specific model in question. Can't do the research on your favorite plane? - ask a friend for help. There IS a lot of good data online if you dig and compare several sources, and we have some people with extensive printed libraries who might help, or even visit your local library.

Anything less will just perpetuate the arguments, doubts and suspicions.

(Oh Paul, this discussion should get split out into a new thread )

[salt_air]

While flying in spot view ... with the Shift+Z numbers across the top left of the screen in red letters ...One of those values displayed is airspeed.

Whether it's true or indicated ... whether it's kts or mph ... the values should be the same for each plane ... I guess?



The only time I ever get into duenna issues related to overspeed is when the overspeed warning goes off ... whether or not that coincidental to anything that's written anywhere ... I don't know.



As soon as the overspeed warning lit up on every plane I tested, I looked up to see what speed was displayed.

The look at the cfg file was prompted by the findings in the "red letter" test.

Swapping the air files between models netted another confirmation that there is a 40 (whatever) differential on the two planes.




Nope ... didn't want to get a discussion brewin' ... apologies again, but with out a work through like sharing the same air/cfg files ... pass the P-38 over here Capt'n ... another can-o-worms just hit the fan! ...

I reckon this should just be for info to all who are still looking for an aircraft and are short on time for testing and are considering the DC-4/C-54 platform.

All models of that aircraft are not the same ... the (FSDZ) Skymasters are quite a bit faster than the (JBK) Skymasters.

[Tako_Kichi]

As an ex-pat Brit I just have to say thanks to Paul for the chuckle he gave me when I saw the perfect oxymoron in the top right corner of his panel!

[PRB]

As an ex-pat Brit I just have to say thanks to Paul for the chuckle he gave me when I saw the perfect oxymoron in the top right corner of his panel!

Hehe, it was Willy's idea to add that. It's fun when people get the joke...

As to the C-54 performance, I have some PDF files of C-54 range and cruise power settings vs. speed, at various altitudes and such. As soon as I figure out how to test the FS planes against this data I will arrive at a conclusion. And I'll start another thread called Aircraft Disputes, Challanges, and Other Food Fights.

[Willy]

It works better when applied to an electrical panel as a confidence builder :d.

The JBK DC-4s are more fun. Especially since we added Gunter's Real Engine to the panel.

[AussieMan]

Here is a panel you can add to your plane for the upcoming SW Pacific Tour event. I cobbled this together for the last MacRobertson (London-Melbourne) Race we did in 2009. It has a couple of stop watches, a clock, Sperry autopilot, ADF radios and gauge, and even a signal strength gauge. See the readme for instructions for adding it to your favorite plane.

One thing that would make me think twice about using this panel is the word "LUCAS" in the top right corner.

Cheers
Pat

[smilo]

thanks Paul, that should do the trick.
being as i can't seem to leave well enough alone,
i'm sure that i will just have to tweak it a little.

[PRB]

thanks Paul, that should do the trick.
being as i can't seem to leave well enough alone,
i'm sure that i will just have to tweak it a little.

Heck, I cobbled it together in the first place, and I've already tweaked it for the plane I will fly!