The Aircraft Performance Thread!! |
Post Reply | Page <12345 9> |
Author | ||
Hank
Check-In Staff Joined: 21 Oct 2008 Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
After surfing the net......all info about the DHC-4 Caribou (brochure) :
http://www.dhc4and5.org/Caribou_Brochure.pdf And on the main site of above all info (incl.manuals (!)) about both the DHC-4 and DHC-5 !! http://www.dhc4and5.org/ Cheers |
||
|
||
Herege
First Officer Joined: 10 Mar 2009 Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Very useful Hank, I was a long time looking the official specs of caribou, and now it's here, great!
If you find more offical brochures, are more than welcome!
|
||
Paragon
Check-In Staff Joined: 28 Mar 2009 Location: KNQA Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Unless I overlooked it, any specs for the ATR 72 yet? I have not had any luck finding them on the net.
|
||
David "Paragon" Mays
|
||
Herege
First Officer Joined: 10 Mar 2009 Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
ATR 72-200F
Max cruising speed (at 15,000ft): 526km/h (284kt)
Economical cruising speed: 460km/h (248kt) Range with reserves at max optional weight 1195km (645nm) Service Ceiling: 25,000ft (7,620m) Normal Cruising Altitude: 14,000 - 18,000 feet (4,267 - 5,486m) Max Payload: 8,500kg (18,739lbs)
Max takeoff: 22,000kg (48,502lbs) Max landing: 21,850kg (48,171lbs) Max ZFW: 20,000kg (48,502lbs) 8,500kg (18,739lbs) payload comprising of nine compartments
|
||
fritchka
Check-In Staff Joined: 06 Mar 2009 Location: KTOC, Georgia Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Cessna P210 Centurion
Production 1957 to 1985
P210R - One 240kW (325hp) turbocharged and fuel injected TSIO-520-CE
Normal cruise 150-170 kts
Max speed 225kt at 20,000ft
max cruising speed 213kt at 23,000ft
Initial rate of climb 1150ft/min
Service ceiling 25,000ft
Range with reserves and optional fuel 1190nm
Empty wt 2470lb
MTOW 4100lb
Estimated Cargo 1160 lb
Estimated fuel consumption 20gal/hr
|
||
Paragon
Check-In Staff Joined: 28 Mar 2009 Location: KNQA Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks Herege
|
||
David "Paragon" Mays
|
||
JD-LincsUK
Ground Crew Joined: 10 Apr 2008 Location: Pluto Points: 72 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
withdrawn
|
||
uler Beta Test Team
|
||
Paragon
Check-In Staff Joined: 28 Mar 2009 Location: KNQA Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks JD for this wealth of information and your work into gather it all. Much appreciated!
|
||
David "Paragon" Mays
|
||
TiggerToo
Check-In Staff Joined: 28 Mar 2009 Points: 31 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
For the Citation Mustang:
AH will do the rest but Range is 1,150nm : Fule burn is 89USG p/h also, it's a really fun little plane!! ;o) |
||
GTOMW
Check-In Staff Joined: 13 Apr 2009 Points: 15 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Has anyone tried to import the FSD Porter PC6? For some reason it only has a cargo capacity of 27.1001 lbs???
|
||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Copy the Weigth and Balance section and the Fuel section of the aircraft.cfg file into this thread, please. John
|
||
John Allard
|
||
hobofat
Check-In Staff Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Location: Honolulu, HI Points: 42 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Just to be aware, the MAAM-SIM DC-3 comes in at about 92-116 gallons/hr rather than the 216 JD lists as default. This is much more consistent with real world numbers than the default, so if you're a serious DAK driver, you might consider purchasing their DC-3!
|
||
|
||
JD-LincsUK
Ground Crew Joined: 10 Apr 2008 Location: Pluto Points: 72 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Most, if not all, of the default aircraft seem to be rather thirstier than their real-world counterparts.
I forgot to mention that the fuel burn figures were calculated immediately the aircraft was settled into the cruise, rather than an average over the entire range - so they were quite heavy. In this way, the fuel burn figures should always be considered a maximum, and therefore safe to use for calculations - rather a smidgen too much in the tank than trying to glide a loaded 747...! JD |
||
uler Beta Test Team
|
||
Killieboy64
Check-In Staff Joined: 04 Apr 2009 Location: Scotland Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Can anyone help sort out the Wilco Airbus A400M? AH reads the cargo capacity as minus 44541lbs! Here are the weight & balance and the fuel sections of the cfg
[weight_and_balance] max_gross_weight = 264550
empty_weight = 154321 reference_datum_position = 0, 0, 0 empty_weight_CG_position = -2, 0, 0 empty_weight_pitch_MOI = 3400000 empty_weight_roll_MOI = 3300000 empty_weight_yaw_MOI = 3800000 empty_weight_coupled_MOI = 0 CG_forward_limit = 0.000 CG_aft_limit = 1.000
max_number_of_stations=50 station_load.0=6804, 0.0000, 0.0000, 0.0000, Payload Payload_type=1 Payload_Vehicles=1 [fuel] //Longitudinal (feet), Lateral (feet), Vertical (feet), Usable(gallons), Unusable (gallons) fuel_type = 2 number_of_tank_selectors = 1 electric_pump = 0 Center1 = -1.0, 0.0, 0.00, 7700, 3 LeftMain = -1.0, -10.00, 0.00, 7700, 3 RightMain = -1.0, 10.00, 0.00, 7700, 3 Thanks in advance if you're able to assist.
(Also, if anyone has worked out the fuel burn already?)
Derek |
||
Killieboy64
Check-In Staff Joined: 04 Apr 2009 Location: Scotland Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hang on I've just spotted it has a load manager. I'll try loading it via this and then re-importing it.
|
||
Killieboy64
Check-In Staff Joined: 04 Apr 2009 Location: Scotland Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Nah, that didn't work. I've just worked out the fuel burn from a test run though: 1800 Gal/hr ( full load at 30000ft 315kts). So over to you guys again.
Cheers
Derek
|
||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The engines burn what they burn at a given air density and power setting. The engines are unaffected by whether the AC is light or heavy. If the measure is fuel consumed per unit of time (as opposed to fuel consumed per unit of distance) it's not going to vary as you burn off fuel. John |
||
John Allard
|
||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I agree with the AH figures...
Cargo Cap'y = MTOW - Empty Weight - Full Fuel Weight
Cargo Cap'y = 264,550 - 154,321 - (7700 X 3 X 6.7)
Cargo Cap'y = 264,550 - 154,321 - 154,770
Cargo Cap'y = - 44541
Your beef is with the developer of the AC. According to his figures, it's 22 tons overweight with full fuel tanks and no cargo.
John
EDIT: According to Wiki
MTOW = 310,852 lb
Total Internal Fuel = 103,000 lb
Applying those will make quite a difference. Since the real AC hasn't flown yet the publicized figures are probably a bit fuzzy and may be changing as the design is tweaked by Airbus.
JDA
|
||
John Allard
|
||
Killieboy64
Check-In Staff Joined: 04 Apr 2009 Location: Scotland Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Many thanks for your swift reply, that has worked a treat.
PS. I didn't really have a beef with anyone.
|
||
hobofat
Check-In Staff Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Location: Honolulu, HI Points: 42 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
This is very true, and especially important with regards to piston powered aircraft. Power management is key, and the numbers fluctuate depending on power settings, altitude, temperature etc. I did not mean my post to denigrate in any way the hard work you put in compiling those numbers JD! Your performance table is brilliant. I Just wanted to highlight the difference for users of the MAAM-SIM DC-3. |
||
|
||
Post Reply | Page <12345 9> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |