- Messages
- 11
- Country
thx!! oh trust me, there are pilots out there that dont even know how altitude affects mach, read about it on pprune XD
-
Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:
- Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
- Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
- Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
- Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
- Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
- Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.
Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.
By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.
FS2004 Boeing 747 Classic
- Thread starter FSMuseum
- Start date
Wow this is surely going to be one of the most complex ever. I do hope it stays developed. I see a lot of ambitious addons, particularly freeware that end up not seeing the light of day due to complexity and modders losing interest. And I do hope it stays for fs2004 
Looks amazing!
Looks amazing!
arwasairl
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 98
- Country
After reviewing the information for ATA 31, I decided to implement the AIDS and flight recorders.
These are optional settings that will save CSV spreadsheets to your computer that contains recorded flight information about your flight.
The most exciting part in my opinion is the FDR Dump generator. This is a generator in the configurator app that will read this CSV, parse it, and hand you back a PDF file. The text is all generated via code except for the dirt splotches as that was done in photoshop and is being loaded as images in GDI+ and later compressed to JPG before being sent to the PDF. There are 4 randomly selectable dirt masks that the generator also picks so as to make each page and generation not look the exact same.
Below is an example of the FDR dump generator's PDF file. Note that this is not drawn in photoshop, its an actual PDF generated by the configurator app after reading your FDR CSV file.
In addition to this, the FDR supports failures or intermittent bad data writes from the FDR. This simulates the data being saved to magnetic tape which can be distorted or warped upon reading.
Asterisks indicate that a data field was garbled and that the decoder could not parse it correctly.
SYNC LOST indicates that the row was lost until the next valid sync word.
??? indicates that a value was out of range due to corruption.
These are optional settings that will save CSV spreadsheets to your computer that contains recorded flight information about your flight.
The most exciting part in my opinion is the FDR Dump generator. This is a generator in the configurator app that will read this CSV, parse it, and hand you back a PDF file. The text is all generated via code except for the dirt splotches as that was done in photoshop and is being loaded as images in GDI+ and later compressed to JPG before being sent to the PDF. There are 4 randomly selectable dirt masks that the generator also picks so as to make each page and generation not look the exact same.
Below is an example of the FDR dump generator's PDF file. Note that this is not drawn in photoshop, its an actual PDF generated by the configurator app after reading your FDR CSV file.
In addition to this, the FDR supports failures or intermittent bad data writes from the FDR. This simulates the data being saved to magnetic tape which can be distorted or warped upon reading.
Asterisks indicate that a data field was garbled and that the decoder could not parse it correctly.
SYNC LOST indicates that the row was lost until the next valid sync word.
??? indicates that a value was out of range due to corruption.
Am I misremembering, or was this information written on a cassette?
arwasairl
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 98
- Country
It depends on which recorder you are talking about. The 747 had about 6 different flight recorder types spread across several different airline operators. The Atlas consortium, the KSSU consortium, and airlines in Asia all used varying levels of recorders with Japan Airlines using a completely digital system later in their lifetimes with an ACARS printer.
If you are talking about the DFDR crash recorder, this was stored on four-track magnetic tape reels which only gave about 25 hours worth of information. This was fitted on Atlas line numbers 201 to 211, though I should mention this revision document from 1998 marks it as XA.
The second recorder, the DAR, is indeed a cassette loaded PMR that stores up to 50 hours worth of data, which is what our FDR CSV generator is reading from. This is what ground stations used to read flight information.
However, Iberia aircraft did not have either. They had a recorder that scratched information onto 5 inch wide metal foils, which is the older legacy method.
Airlines like KSSU and JAL used a separate tape ejection mechanism and later systems used serial connections instead of tape.
It was a cassette like a VHS tape but smaller; maybe the size of an audio cassette? Flight data values were definitely recorded on it, because I remember it being removed after a rather rough landing.
Edit
I asked my father, and he told me they are QIC cassette. Around the 1990s, the aircraft were retrofitted with QARs similar (or maybe identical?) to those used on the 737-200 or Classic models.
Last edited:
arwasairl
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 98
- Country
The panel now has night lighting. In lieu of some problems with FS9's archaic MAKE macros, the old MAKE macro system has been completely removed in favor for GDI+ rendering.
This was actually completed around a month ago after I was having issues with FS9 constantly ejecting bitmaps partly due to me not using the LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch but also because FS9 owns the MAKE macro system and can forcefully eject bitmaps on its own accord, making them disappear randomly. GDI+ allows several other new things such as sidestepping the poor MAKE macro's bilinear filtering with a much better Lanczos filtering method.
Below are two examples; the left is the older MAKE macros whilst the right is using GDI+. There is a slight difference in filtering which reduces jagged edges on smaller edges.
GDI+ also allowed us to have dimmable nightlighting with GDI+ blending without creating 100 different bitmaps for each lighting level, and have lighting during the day with the same bitmap. It only requires the unlit regular bitmap, and the lit night bitmap for the blending to work.
This was actually completed around a month ago after I was having issues with FS9 constantly ejecting bitmaps partly due to me not using the LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch but also because FS9 owns the MAKE macro system and can forcefully eject bitmaps on its own accord, making them disappear randomly. GDI+ allows several other new things such as sidestepping the poor MAKE macro's bilinear filtering with a much better Lanczos filtering method.
Below are two examples; the left is the older MAKE macros whilst the right is using GDI+. There is a slight difference in filtering which reduces jagged edges on smaller edges.
GDI+ also allowed us to have dimmable nightlighting with GDI+ blending without creating 100 different bitmaps for each lighting level, and have lighting during the day with the same bitmap. It only requires the unlit regular bitmap, and the lit night bitmap for the blending to work.
Last edited:
arwasairl
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 98
- Country
The General Electric CF6-50E2 has now been implemented.
This is a full simulation of the GE CF6-50E2. Thrust, ram-air drive, and windmilling drag were sourced from a CF6-50/45 engine manual from the Evendale Technical school along with N1 performance charts from Atlas Air. The engine core itself was also changed to include the MEC, variable stator and variable bleed vanes (VSV/VBV), oil and fuel systems as well as changing the autothrottle to use N1 instead of EPR. This required changing servomotor rates for the throttle box as the JT9D has a different response rate to throttle inputs especially at low power compared to the CF6. It's power scheduler is based upon TLA versus N1 which of course means I cannot reuse the JT9D figures as they use TLA versus EPR. The thrust reversers also have two independent halves per engine with a hydraulically assisted pneumatic drive motor that can fail and cause only part of the reverser to open. The CSD gearbox and anti-ice rules were also undersped slightly for the CF6 to prevent an overspeed trip; if you fit a JT9D gearbox in the CF6, it will kill the CSD due to overspeed.
This all results in little changes in the cockpit except for a few places; the main panel's engine instrument stack has N1, EGT, N2, and FF instead of EPR, N1, EGT and FF. The EPRL computer has been replaced for an N1 LIM computer, with N1 derates instead of EPR. The oil gauges were also changed as the CF6 has different oil quantity, pressure, and temperature ranges than the JT9D.
Finally, I also want to mention that the -100 will be getting the CF6-45 and the JT9D-7A. The -7A has already been completed with its EGT gauges changed slightly and its flight model already changed, as well as some features like tandem bleed and some sensor changes compared to the -3A and the -7R4G2.
However, the RB211 will not be included at any point in the future unless I can find documentation about it. Unfortunately, whilst maintenance documents are plenty for it, the actual engine manual for it is nowhere to be found publicly. The EASA references this document as E-211 (524)-2RR, if you are able to find this, then I will be more willing to do an RB211. Maintenance documents do not give rotor speed relationships, thrust charts, fuel flow charts, or other specifications needed for the flight model. This is typically found in the engine manual, which I have not been able to find publicly. The best I can find are some NASA technical reports on the engine but it is concerning deterioration of components, not exactly super useful there. It is also not as easy as just fitting a different engine model to the RB211's flight performance mainly due to the fact that Rolls Royce uses integrated EPR and not "regular" core EPR like what P&W used. IEPR requires flight parameters at high and low mach for the fan blades, which are probably in that engine manual but are not described in maintenance manuals. Without them, estimating them becomes an incredibly difficult task and can cause large deviations in performance at high mach. Due to the lack of documentation because of this, the RB211 will not be implemented until this documentation surfaces.
This is a full simulation of the GE CF6-50E2. Thrust, ram-air drive, and windmilling drag were sourced from a CF6-50/45 engine manual from the Evendale Technical school along with N1 performance charts from Atlas Air. The engine core itself was also changed to include the MEC, variable stator and variable bleed vanes (VSV/VBV), oil and fuel systems as well as changing the autothrottle to use N1 instead of EPR. This required changing servomotor rates for the throttle box as the JT9D has a different response rate to throttle inputs especially at low power compared to the CF6. It's power scheduler is based upon TLA versus N1 which of course means I cannot reuse the JT9D figures as they use TLA versus EPR. The thrust reversers also have two independent halves per engine with a hydraulically assisted pneumatic drive motor that can fail and cause only part of the reverser to open. The CSD gearbox and anti-ice rules were also undersped slightly for the CF6 to prevent an overspeed trip; if you fit a JT9D gearbox in the CF6, it will kill the CSD due to overspeed.
This all results in little changes in the cockpit except for a few places; the main panel's engine instrument stack has N1, EGT, N2, and FF instead of EPR, N1, EGT and FF. The EPRL computer has been replaced for an N1 LIM computer, with N1 derates instead of EPR. The oil gauges were also changed as the CF6 has different oil quantity, pressure, and temperature ranges than the JT9D.
Finally, I also want to mention that the -100 will be getting the CF6-45 and the JT9D-7A. The -7A has already been completed with its EGT gauges changed slightly and its flight model already changed, as well as some features like tandem bleed and some sensor changes compared to the -3A and the -7R4G2.
However, the RB211 will not be included at any point in the future unless I can find documentation about it. Unfortunately, whilst maintenance documents are plenty for it, the actual engine manual for it is nowhere to be found publicly. The EASA references this document as E-211 (524)-2RR, if you are able to find this, then I will be more willing to do an RB211. Maintenance documents do not give rotor speed relationships, thrust charts, fuel flow charts, or other specifications needed for the flight model. This is typically found in the engine manual, which I have not been able to find publicly. The best I can find are some NASA technical reports on the engine but it is concerning deterioration of components, not exactly super useful there. It is also not as easy as just fitting a different engine model to the RB211's flight performance mainly due to the fact that Rolls Royce uses integrated EPR and not "regular" core EPR like what P&W used. IEPR requires flight parameters at high and low mach for the fan blades, which are probably in that engine manual but are not described in maintenance manuals. Without them, estimating them becomes an incredibly difficult task and can cause large deviations in performance at high mach. Due to the lack of documentation because of this, the RB211 will not be implemented until this documentation surfaces.
arwasairl
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 98
- Country
Unfortunately no. The AMMs are maintenance manuals and not engine manuals, these are two separate things. The engine manual is published by Rolls Royce and not Boeing hence why they are different.Lets go!, here in the netherlands we've got a preserved 747-200 SUD, cf6 and tape gauges cant wait to fly in fs9 with this
Maybe a stupid question, but would the manuals for the L-1011 or 767/757 work?
arwasairl
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 98
- Country
Engine manuals are independent of aircraft type. It is like this because power and bleed extraction can influence engine performance. 757 and 767 uses completely different FADEC controlled RB211-535 not RB211-524. If I use figures from other aircraft the bleed extraction will be wrong since bleed air system is different on all aircrafts.
All engine manual performance is usually given with no bleed or power extraction. This creates a clean baseline floor for performance, and besides rotor performance for specific aircraft is usually not recorded unless there is a specific need to like a NASA study.
To be very clear engine manual is made only by Rolls Royce and not by aircraft manufacturer. Somebody from Rolls Royce needs to leak this information, although sometimes it is given to airlines. The engine manual for JT9D is from P&W themselves where they recorded the JT9D inside a test bench detached from any aircraft. I dont have original engine manual for CF6 but luckily the Evendale technical school and the FAA published parts of it in their documents. I have not seen the same for Rolls Royce.
Last edited:
Ah check, how about the AFM? Its not like the fcom, more of a data document I believe from the FAA.
arwasairl
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 98
- Country
That one only gives EPR values, the method in which they are calculated is not known and as it has no N3 blade chart, it cannot be recreated with confidence.
The engine manual is pertinent info. Without it, I am guessing performance to the point where I cannot be confident in the value of its simulation.
arwasairl
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 98
- Country
The best way I can describe this is like trying to find out a person's workout routine based on their track times. You can make inferences but accuracy is not guaranteed.
Information such as spool timing charts are proprietary and are generally kept by the engine manufacturer unless airlines need them in terms of documentation. Line maintenance procedures dont need to use this info, they simply check maximum values in checks instead of run up gradients, as there is the expectation that these will work and issues are revealed in the specific maintenance checks.
Information such as spool timing charts are proprietary and are generally kept by the engine manufacturer unless airlines need them in terms of documentation. Line maintenance procedures dont need to use this info, they simply check maximum values in checks instead of run up gradients, as there is the expectation that these will work and issues are revealed in the specific maintenance checks.
arwasairl
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 98
- Country
The 747SR-81 has also been implemented as its own aircraft. The SR-81 is ANA's CF6-45 powered 747, with both cable stops in the push-pull cables shortened to create a "derated" version of the CF6-50. The CF6-45 also now has different RATING programs, with RTG I netting a -6% thrust derate and RTG II netting a -14% thrust derate. The CF6-50 on the other hand has -4% and -10% respectively.
MTOW and fuel tank quantities have also been changed to fit the SR-81's configuration. Interestingly, JAL's 747SR-46 does not have the same engine derate cable changes, they instead had a jumper wire that made the EPRL computers fly 3A dry ratings constantly. However many late stage SRs had the CMC PMS which had specific programs in the SRs to derate thrust for that aircraft type. I believe manual thrust operations on SR-46s were probably done by manually limiting its total power, as I could not find any evidence of JAL changing the length of their cables for any of their aircrafts in their manuals.
MTOW and fuel tank quantities have also been changed to fit the SR-81's configuration. Interestingly, JAL's 747SR-46 does not have the same engine derate cable changes, they instead had a jumper wire that made the EPRL computers fly 3A dry ratings constantly. However many late stage SRs had the CMC PMS which had specific programs in the SRs to derate thrust for that aircraft type. I believe manual thrust operations on SR-46s were probably done by manually limiting its total power, as I could not find any evidence of JAL changing the length of their cables for any of their aircrafts in their manuals.
- Messages
- 11
- Country
pls release an alpha or beta