This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Air Hauler > Air Hauler 1 General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Cpt Sim Hercules
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Cpt Sim Hercules
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
jflimbach View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew
Avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Location: Billings MT USA
Points: 60 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jflimbach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2009 at 5:52pm
Originally posted by David David wrote:

Jflimbach and John, thanks guys for the info.
 
My airspeed figure was the ground speed obtained from the FSX GPS panel, not the IAS which is, as you say John, low 200's.
 
In FSX, a good altitude I have found is 20,000', the fuel burn drops, without altering the torque setting, but I reduce to below 2000 lbs per hr., per engine and still obtain in excess of 300 Kts ground speed.  I guess the CS guys got the burn figures wrong in the sim.
 
I find that, in A/H,  the external tanks never get filled, but follow your proceedures John, for "cascaded" burn by all pumps on, all valves open.  The problem remains in A/H that the stats page at the end of a flight after multiple legs, show fuel burn at zero?
 
Its good to hear that the JF CS C130 flies like the real bird!, I experience the same ground effect float and consider the flight handling aspect of the sim to be excellent. This is a truly great aircraft to fly in A/H and I guess the RW pilots love the aircraft as well.  Just observe the difference in acceleration when the aircraft is empty, as opposed to full MTOW, its awesome. Accelerates like a rocket.Big%20smile
 
Happy Hercybirding!
 
Yep.  Ours were manufactured in 1954, 56, and 57, average about 14,000 airframe hours or so, and will still knock you over on brake release.  Of course our "A's" are quite a bit lighter (124,200 MTOW) than the "E" and up (155,000 MTOW) with very nearly the same power, so it's somewhat of a hotrod.  Landing at about 85,000 lbs (vs a nominal 105,000 lb with same fuel in an "E" or "H") with the same wing results in quite a bit of float in ground effect.  Sometimes you feel like it needs to be shot down to get it on the ground.  Sitting there floating along at flight idle in ground effect at minimum weight while the runway floats merrily past is a trip.  Easing the flaps up will settle it on but requires some feel on the copilots part as too quick a reduction will cause it to drop on from whatever altitude its at. 
 
 
and
 
 
for more info on the operation and one of our more interesting projects for the Department of Defense
 
John Limbach
Big Sky Aviation International
Billings, MT  U.S.A.
John Limbach
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2009 at 6:58pm

@ David:

Be careful using ground speed - it is affected by winds aloft and is not a true measure of AC performance. TAS is the most reliable figure.  It gets better as you climb because of reduced air density and the Herc does best as high as you can get it with respect to speed and fuel burn.  Your 2,000 pph per engine compares to my 4,200 pph total for all engines.  I'm getting 340 TAS which would be a ground speed of 340 with zero wind.

= = = = = =

@ jaugust:

What you're describing sounds close to the specs for an A model.  The empty weight and MTOW sound about right for an A and the increased cargo capacity no doubt results from a smaller fuel capacity.  If you're not going 5,000 miles you probably don't really it anyway.  The CS C-130 I use is the E model and the AH full-fueled cargo capacity is about 32K.  To the extent that you can forego some of the 66,000 lb fuel load, you can carry quite a lot more.

= = = = = =

King Penguin:

You're right about the A400M.  The prototype hasn't even made the first flight yet and there are serious technical issues including an unanticipated and significant increase in empty weight that severely impacts the planned utility of the thing.  That's looking like a deal-breaker for some of the countries who were interested in it initially.  In the irony of the year category, they're using a C-130 test bed aircraft to certify the engines for it.  It is far from a sure thing that the A400M will ever go into production.

= = = = = =

In all matters Herc, I defer to John Limbach who's been there, done that (and still does) and has a closet full of the t-shirts, not only for the C-130 but also the C-119 and the C-123.  He's the authority in my book.

John
John Allard
Back to Top
jaugust4 View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT


Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Location: Upper Midwest
Points: 148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jaugust4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2009 at 10:30pm
Originally posted by allardjd allardjd wrote:

= = = = = =

@ jaugust:

What you're describing sounds close to the specs for an A model.  The empty weight and MTOW sound about right for an A and the increased cargo capacity no doubt results from a smaller fuel capacity.  If you're not going 5,000 miles you probably don't really it anyway.  The CS C-130 I use is the E model and the AH full-fueled cargo capacity is about 32K.  To the extent that you can forego some of the 66,000 lb fuel load, you can carry quite a lot more.

= = = = = =


In all matters Herc, I defer to John Limbach who's been there, done that (and still does) and has a closet full of the t-shirts, not only for the C-130 but also the C-119 and the C-123.  He's the authority in my book.

John



Understood. My point was that if one is going to have their AI's fly the C-130, the CS version would be overkill and not be able to carry the same cargo load. Why not have them fly, say, the Alphasim version with a modified config file with cargo positions or the one which I use which is Eduardo Fadul's version which he actually converted to an "H" model from Simshed's version. Your AI's would be able to carry about 10,000 lbs more of cargo.
Back to Top
jflimbach View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew
Avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Location: Billings MT USA
Points: 60 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jflimbach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2009 at 8:08pm
Originally posted by jaugust4 jaugust4 wrote:

Originally posted by allardjd allardjd wrote:

= = = = = =

@ jaugust:

What you're describing sounds close to the specs for an A model.  The empty weight and MTOW sound about right for an A and the increased cargo capacity no doubt results from a smaller fuel capacity.  If you're not going 5,000 miles you probably don't really it anyway.  The CS C-130 I use is the E model and the AH full-fueled cargo capacity is about 32K.  To the extent that you can forego some of the 66,000 lb fuel load, you can carry quite a lot more.

= = = = = =


In all matters Herc, I defer to John Limbach who's been there, done that (and still does) and has a closet full of the t-shirts, not only for the C-130 but also the C-119 and the C-123.  He's the authority in my book.

John



Understood. My point was that if one is going to have their AI's fly the C-130, the CS version would be overkill and not be able to carry the same cargo load. Why not have them fly, say, the Alphasim version with a modified config file with cargo positions or the one which I use which is Eduardo Fadul's version which he actually converted to an "H" model from Simshed's version. Your AI's would be able to carry about 10,000 lbs more of cargo.
 
One thing we need to realize is that Capt. Sim models the max gross weight for takeoff at 174,000 pounds, which is incorrect.  The normal (2.5G load factor) gross weight for the "E" and "H" models is 155,000 pounds.  This is the heaviest that Air Force crews are allowed to operate these aircraft on a routine basis.  In extreme circumstances, the aircraft can be operated at 175,000 pounds.  This is the 2.0G maneuver load factor weight, that in my AF days was called the EWP, Emergency War Plan weight.  AF crews require a waiver from the headquarters Air Mobility Command to do this.  It takes an act of Congress and favorable alignment of all the planets to get this.  The last time I remember it being done on a long term basis was during the Cambodian resupply missions of the early 70's.  So, in order to be accurate, CS should have set their config file figure to 155,000.  Maybe someone should tell them.  This is a pretty big deal, although maybe not so much if FS.
 
 
I've modified my config file to make it as close to an "A" as I can.  So, empty weight of 70,000 pounds, max gross weight for takeoff of 124,200 lbs, no aux tanks and no external tanks.  Also, the T-56A-9 engines on the "A" each produce 300 less shp than the -7 engines on the "E".
 
The problem with max payloads (RW) is that when I put a 35,000 lb payload on, it only leaves me about 17,000 lbs of fuel and since I want to have 8-10,000 lbs remaining when I land, I can only fly for 45 min to an hour depending on how high I need to climb.  Since we're operating at max gross weight, the fuel burn will be high.  Note that all fuel is assumed to be JP8 at 6.8 lbs/gal.
 
The operating weight on the RW "A" that I'm on most often is 72,000 pounds, so this is what I've modeled into the Capt. Sim config file.  If my AI pilot puts on max fuel of 35,700 lbs., then the max payload he can carry is 16,500 (max T/O weight of 124,200 - (72,000 + 35,700).  Better than the "E", but since in AH I don't fly many super long distance legs, I've modified the config file to do away with the two 450 gal. external tanks thus reducing the max fuel to 29,580 and the max (AI pilot) payload to 22,620.  That's a reasonable payload and the no wind range with 10,000 lbs of fuel remaining on landing will be about 2,000 nm, which is plenty.
 
The "E" model has much the same problem.  It's empty weight is about 15-20,000 lbs more than the "A" and max takeoff weight is 155,000 vs 124,200 for the "A" so there is about a 10,000 max payload advantage.  But...........only if you fly it yourself.  Since your AI pilot always flys with full fuel (65,824 lbs since we don't plan to fly in combat, we can take the fire suppression foam out of the tanks and use all the volume for fuel).  For instance, assume that the operating weight of your "E" model is 82,000 pounds (reasonable considering all the mission equipment it carries).  Your AI pilot fills it up with fuel, so 155,000 - (82,000 + 65,824) = 7,176 pounds of payload.  It will cost you more in fuel bills than you can collect for hauling 7,000 lbs.  Hardly worth it, but you could carry it close to 4,500 nm (no wind).
 
So, you have a couple of choices:
 
1.  Fly it yourself and only put on the fuel you need for the mission.  Remembering that you need some fuel in the wings when you land to keep the wing bending moments to some reasonable level.
 
2.  Modify the config file to change the max T/O weight to the EWP (Emergency War Plan or 2.0 G manuever load factor) max gross of 175,000 lbs.  Word to the wise:  Have plenty of runway available and keep your FE's hands on the dump valves during takeoff and initial climb.  Surviving an engine loss on takeoff at this weight (assuming you do survive) may well be the biggest thrill you have in a lifetime.
 
3.  Modify the config file to change the max fuel value, i.e. eliminate the external tanks.  This will help some but is still inefficient.
 
4.  Pray that the AH code is eventually changed to only load the required fuel (plus reserve) for the leg to be flown.  I'd sure like to see this happen as it would be a very worthwhile improvement and closer to a RW operation.
 
Right now the only way to make the Herc really payoff for you in AH is to fly it yourself.  But heck, my AI pilots always break it a lot anyway.
John Limbach
Back to Top
jaugust4 View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT


Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Location: Upper Midwest
Points: 148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jaugust4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2009 at 12:05am
I believe what is needed is a slider to have more control over the weight you can carry. On a couple of occasions, I've carried 90,000 lbs and the Herc (CS) was unweildy. Is this the case in RW? The only other thing that I could see was to load a lot of fuel to the point of requiring two cargo trips,  load the cargo,and then scale back your fuel to only the amount necessary to make the trip. 
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2009 at 4:43am

Quote I believe what is needed is a slider to have more control over the weight you can carry. On a couple of occasions, I've carried 90,000 lbs and the Herc (CS) was unweildy. Is this the case in RW? The only other thing that I could see was to load a lot of fuel to the point of requiring two cargo trips,  load the cargo,and then scale back your fuel to only the amount necessary to make the trip.

I don't have any RW experience in the C-130.  In my CP days, however, I've flown the CS C-130E trans-Atlantic (several times) with a MTOW take-off - more fuel, less cargo than the 90,000 lbs you mention, but still a 174,000 TOW.  I don't recall having any problems with it in FS9 with all the reality sliders maxed out.  It's never been an easy AC for me to hand-fly, except in approaches, where it behaves pretty well.  The AP takes a lot of the pain out of it and that's what it's for.  It's a primitive AP, but it does the basic things OK.

For those very long, very heavily loaded flights I'd go to 35,000 as soon as I could get there, but quickly learned that step-climbs were necessary to get the last 3,000 feet or so.  You have to be very patient to get a heavy Herc to it's service ceiling cruise altitude - it just needs to be nursed the last few thousand feet.  Once there the TAS goes to 340, the fuel burn to about 4,200 pph and you can fly just about forever.

John Limbach advises above that 155,000 lbs. is the normal RW MTOW and that it is almost never exceeded except in very special circumstances.  In the interest of reality, I'm going to reset the MTOW in mine to that figure and live by it.  With full fuel that's going to make the AH-derived cargo capcity go down to around 15,000, but how often do you need to carry 15 hours of fuel anyway?  Unless your really need 66,000 lbs of fuel, you can carry more cargo.

You could solve the problem you're describing, if you're having difficulty flying it at 174,000 lbs, by resetting the MTOW in the aircraft.cfg file.  No slider needed.  If you already own it in AH, however, you'd have to sell it and re-import it to get AH to recognize the new MTOW.

John
John Allard
Back to Top
jflimbach View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew
Avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Location: Billings MT USA
Points: 60 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jflimbach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:05pm
Originally posted by jaugust4 jaugust4 wrote:

I believe what is needed is a slider to have more control over the weight you can carry. On a couple of occasions, I've carried 90,000 lbs and the Herc (CS) was unweildy. Is this the case in RW? The only other thing that I could see was to load a lot of fuel to the point of requiring two cargo trips,  load the cargo,and then scale back your fuel to only the amount necessary to make the trip. 
 
Yikes.  90,000 lbs.   Now that's scary.  I'm not sure what you could find that's dense enough to get that heavy in the volume you have in the cargo compartment.
 
Well, there's a couple reasons you don't really want to do that.  Most importantly is that even if you get it off the ground at 174,000 lbs, you'd only have about 8,000 pounds of fuel and a:  you can't get around the block, and b:  the wings will fall off very soon.
 
There is a RW aircraft limitation that prevents you from loading excessive cargo.  In this case it's the minimum Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW), about 119,000 pounds for the "H" model.  This simply means that anything above 119,000 pounds has to be fuel.  So, to figure the maximum possible cargo load you simply subtract the operating weight, nominally 76 to 80,000 pounds from the  ZFW.  So, the actual max cargo load you could carry, regardless of what the takeoff weight is, would be 38 to 42,000 pounds depending on your operating weight.
 
 
These figures are from Lockheed documents and the Air Forces probably vary a bit but should be close.
 
If I'm getting so realistic for you that it's not fun anymore, just disregard.  I'm cursed by the fact that I do this for a living.
 
 
 
You can trade off fuel for cargo, but only up to the ZFW limitation.
John Limbach
Back to Top
jflimbach View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew
Avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Location: Billings MT USA
Points: 60 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jflimbach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:09pm
Originally posted by allardjd allardjd wrote:

John Limbach advises above that 155,000 lbs. is the normal RW MTOW and that it is almost never exceeded except in very special circumstances.  In the interest of reality, I'm going to reset the MTOW in mine to that figure and live by it.  With full fuel that's going to make the AH-derived cargo capcity go down to around 15,000, but how often do you need to carry 15 hours of fuel anyway?  Unless your really need 66,000 lbs of fuel, you can carry more cargo.

You could solve the problem you're describing, if you're having difficulty flying it at 174,000 lbs, by resetting the MTOW in the aircraft.cfg file.  No slider needed.  If you already own it in AH, however, you'd have to sell it and re-import it to get AH to recognize the new MTOW.

John

 
Hey John:
 
Since I'm not bright enough to figure out how to insert the info in a post, I've e-mailed you scans of a couple of pages out of a Lockheed document that gives specifications for the various models.  They are a bit different than AF since a bunch of weight gets added once the units get the airplanes, but these data are the real deal.
 
 
John Limbach
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2009 at 4:15pm
John,
 
I'll put these in a text format and post them here.  Thanks - good stuff.
 
John
John Allard
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2009 at 6:34pm
Tables from John Limbach...
 
John Allard
Back to Top
jaugust4 View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT


Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Location: Upper Midwest
Points: 148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jaugust4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:47am
Originally posted by jflimbach jflimbach wrote:

Originally posted by jaugust4 jaugust4 wrote:

I believe what is needed is a slider to have more control over the weight you can carry. On a couple of occasions, I've carried 90,000 lbs and the Herc (CS) was unweildy. Is this the case in RW? The only other thing that I could see was to load a lot of fuel to the point of requiring two cargo trips,  load the cargo,and then scale back your fuel to only the amount necessary to make the trip. 
 
Yikes.  90,000 lbs.   Now that's scary.  I'm not sure what you could find that's dense enough to get that heavy in the volume you have in the cargo compartment.
 
Well, there's a couple reasons you don't really want to do that.  Most importantly is that even if you get it off the ground at 174,000 lbs, you'd only have about 8,000 pounds of fuel and a:  you can't get around the block, and b:  the wings will fall off very soon.
 
There is a RW aircraft limitation that prevents you from loading excessive cargo.  In this case it's the minimum Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW), about 119,000 pounds for the "H" model.  This simply means that anything above 119,000 pounds has to be fuel.  So, to figure the maximum possible cargo load you simply subtract the operating weight, nominally 76 to 80,000 pounds from the  ZFW.  So, the actual max cargo load you could carry, regardless of what the takeoff weight is, would be 38 to 42,000 pounds depending on your operating weight.
 
 
These figures are from Lockheed documents and the Air Forces probably vary a bit but should be close.
 
If I'm getting so realistic for you that it's not fun anymore, just disregard.  I'm cursed by the fact that I do this for a living.
 
 
 
You can trade off fuel for cargo, but only up to the ZFW limitation.


I'm cursed because I don't want to invest a lot of time on minute details but I find the CS C-130 fun because of all of its details. When I had that 90,000+ lb load I pancaked on approach doing 135 IAS. Apparently not enough flaps?

Also, AH doesn't allow you to carry a more desirable cargo load, e.g. a job is 90,000 lbs, go to the cargo screen and load the cargo, it loads all 90,000 lbs. Great, don't have to make two trips. In the end, it should have been two trips, according to your information. Hence, why I suggested a "cargo" slider to go with the fuel slider.
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:49am

Interesting situation....

Guessing your weight around 165,000 lbs and going by the AC charts (way over what's allowed in RW, but the stall speed charts do go that high)...

Stall Speed (standard atmosphere, sea level, outside ground effect)...

No Flaps: 128 KIAS

50% Flaps: 112 KIAS

100% Flaps: 104 KIAS (pretty incredible)

Higher, hotter or more humid would increase the stall speed, being in ground effect would lessen it.  These were the only tables I had.

By the table in the post above, the Max Landing weight is 155,000 and that's limited to a 300 fpm sink rate.  If the weight is below 130,000 a sink rate up to 540 fpm is permitted (that would be a pretty abrupt arrival).

It sounds as if you were off in a far, lonely corner of the performance envelope, well outside the thick, black lines. 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

As for the cargo slider there's a work-around.  I just tested it in a throw-away test company and it works.

If you want to limit the amount of cargo that AH loads to something less than the full load (forcing a split load), you can accomplish it by using the fuel slider first.  Temporarily set it high enough so that the remaining capacity is whatever the cargo weight you want to carry.  Load the cargo - it will only put enough in to put you at MTOW.  Then, before committing to the flight, pull the fuel slider back to whatever amount of fuel you really want to carry.  You don't get charged for the fuel by moving the slider, only when you click "Fly Now" or "Return to Flight Sim". 

I tested this and ended up with a split load, even though the AC had the capacity to carry all of it after I reduced the fuel amount.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The crux of the problem with the C-130 is an AC whose aircraft.cfg file has a too-high MTOW.

As John Limbach points out, and as shown by the second table in the post above, the Zero Fuel Weight becomes limiting for large loads that are not going very far (thus requiring relatively little fuel).  The MTOW says you could carry more, but the ZFW says not.

John
John Allard
Back to Top
LINZ View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff


Joined: 03 Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Points: 31 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LINZ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:48pm
G,day
A dumb question for all u C130 haulers
Just purchased Captain sim and installed but cant find start up flights (such as cold and dark, hot start etc)which they say should be in (My Saved flights)
anyone else had this problem
Thanks guys
any ideas
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 4:40pm

I've found CS C-130 flight plan files (*.flt) in all the following locations.  Unfortunately I don't know which ones were  placed by the installer and which I copied or created...

C: -> Program Files -> Microsoft Games -> Flight Simulator 9 -> Captain_Sim -> 130 -> ace
C: -> Program Files -> Microsoft Games -> Flight Simulator 9 -> Captain_Sim -> 130 -> flights
C: -> Program Files -> Microsoft Games -> Flight Simulator 9 -> Flights -> c130
C: -> Documents and Settings -> Administrator -> My Documents -> Flight Simulator Files
C: -> Documents and Settings -> Administrator -> My Documents -> Flight Simulator Files -> C-130 Hercules
John Allard
Back to Top
LINZ View Drop Down
Check-In Staff
Check-In Staff


Joined: 03 Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Points: 31 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LINZ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 4:46pm
Many Thanks
Will check these Locatiions and reply
Time to crash (sleep) now
Cheers
Back to Top
jflimbach View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew
Avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Location: Billings MT USA
Points: 60 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jflimbach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 6:10pm
 
[/QUOTE]

I'm cursed because I don't want to invest a lot of time on minute details but I find the CS C-130 fun because of all of its details. When I had that 90,000+ lb load I pancaked on approach doing 135 IAS. Apparently not enough flaps?

[/QUOTE]
 
More likely not enough power.  At heavy weights you will need to carry a lot of power on final.  Otherwise you will develop a prodigious sink rate that will get you to the ground in a hurry. 
 
Most often we only use three flap positions:  UP - 50% - 100%
 
50% flaps are used for takeoff and in the initial landing stage after you've slowed to 180KIAS.  Slow to 150 and put the gear down.  Adjust the power as required.  Once you turn final and have the field made, go to flaps 100% (F8) and trim and add a handful of throttle.  Use pitch to maintain the final approach airspeed while at the same time adding or reducing power to control the descent rate which has the result of getting you to the desired touchdown point.  A simple tip from the RW is that if your desired touchdown point if moving up on the windshield then you are going to land short and need to add power.  Remember to keep adjusting pitch to maintain the desired airspeed.  Conversely, if your touchdown point is moving down the windshield, then you are going to overshoot and need to reduce power (and of course adjust pitch, etc.).  It's a continuous process of evaluation and adjustment that involves both hands, and, when you have gusty winds, both feet as well.
 
If you find things getting out of control go around and try again.  Max power, pitch up to positive rate of climb, and bring the flaps up to 50% (All more or less at the same time of course) and either raise the gear or leave it down if you're going to do a closed pattern.  Accelerate to about 150 KIAS and level off at 1,500 ft AGL and try it again    Remember to stay on top of the trim because all of these actions will cause the nose to pitch up and if you're not  trimming nose down you could quickly wind up in a power on stall, which is 100% unsurvivable at low altitude.
John Limbach
Back to Top
jaugust4 View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT


Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Location: Upper Midwest
Points: 148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jaugust4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2009 at 5:59pm
John and John, thanks a whole lot for all of that useful information. As such, I have "repurchased" the CS C-130 and have greased every landing thus far and have been more disciplined in loading cargo. Have limited myself to around 50k lbs with no problems.

Thanks again!

The "zero" fuel problem is still there but am able to work around that.
Back to Top
jaugust4 View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT


Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Location: Upper Midwest
Points: 148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jaugust4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2009 at 6:11pm
The fuel problem is getting maddening now. After a short hop with over 12,000 lbs of fuel there was barely 2000 lbs left in the tanks. Don't know which ones; didn't think to look. When I go to the  AH screen to load cargo it also shows that there's zero fuel on board. I go to the FS fuel screen to check how much I actually have on board. It shows about 10,000+ lbs. But because AH won't let me go back to flight monitoring with "zero" fuel I have to add fuel, maybe 3000 lbs because I already have 10,000. So the "ground crew" adds the 3000 lbs and I go back to FS to check the fuel load. Now instead of the 13,000 lbs I should have expected, my fuel is now down to 3000 lbs. In my latest flight debriefs, I've made flights with "zero" fuel on board and "zero" fuel burned. The one thing I can't tell is if I'm spending the extra cash on fuel as a result of all of this. 
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2009 at 6:34pm
I think it has something to do with tanks that have "Center" in the name in aircraft.cfg.
 
Mine shows a small one as Center1, but also has Center2 and Center3 at centerline lateral locations and that's incorrect.  The RW AC doesn't have any centerline tanks.  FS requires one for certain fuel valve operations to work correctly and I think the Center1 tank is put there to accomplish that.  It's only 100 gallons.
 
Center2 and Center3 seem to actually be the inboard wing tanks.  On the RW AC there is an AUX tank near the wing root, and then two internal tanks in each wing.  The outboard one seems to be represented by RightTip and LeftTip, but there is no inner one modeled.  I think the fuel is accounted for in Center2 and Center3, but the location sand names are incorrect.
 
Anyway, AH has had some difficulties with centerline tanks.  It's a furball of details, part of which I think comes from a specific list of fuel tank names that are accepted by FS. I think your disappearing fuel may actually be there but is in tanks that aren't yet recognized by AH, probably Center2 and Center3.  You should be able to see that on the FS Fuel & Payload menu.  Unfortunately, if you shut down FS and restart, it's probably gone, or at least comes back with the default quantity, not necesarily what you actually had when you shut down.
 
This is a convoluted explanation full of speculation and educated guesses.   I'm not flying the CS Herc yet in AH (except in a test company) but am hopeful Duncan will get to the bottom of this.
 
John
 
EDIT:
Though there's some discrepencies in the actual formatting of their names in the FS9 SDK documents, I believe these are the only tanks that FS can see or use...
 
MAIN RIGHT
MAIN LEFT
AUX RIGHT
AUX LEFT
TIP RIGHT
TIP LEFT
CENTER
CENTER2
CENTER3
EXTERNAL1
EXTERNAL2
 
The naming discrepencies may be at the root of the problem.
 
JDA
John Allard
Back to Top
jaugust4 View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT


Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Location: Upper Midwest
Points: 148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jaugust4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 May 2009 at 7:58pm
Thanks for that info, John. I might try some more experimentation based on this.

The problem stems from having plenty of fuel left over only to have it disappear when loading  fuel from AH. And it does disappear- i.e. it doesn't show up in any of the other fuel tanks. When I go to the FS fuel screen it will show the fuel that AH loaded, but anything that I had after shutting down and going to AH to load/unload cargo disappears.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down