Hei guys.
After the AutoUpdate I'm currently working on the failure-system.
Engines already damage when pushed to the limits (> 95% of Maximum RPM) in my developer version. I hope I can publish it at the end of the week, cause next week I'll be in London. (if someone is from London we could meet there...would be great ^^)
If you have more detailed wishes or thoughts about this topic post them here!
greetings DaKurt
Progress ;)
Moderator: FSAirlines Staff
-
CAPFlyer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
- Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
- Contact:
DK - Engine damage should only occur when the engine is run more than 110% of maximum rated RPM (which is what the sim works off of). Not only that, but engine damage due to excessive speed is less of a problem than damage due to excessive engine temperature which can occur well below maximum RPM depending on temperature.
The other problem you run into is that may airplanes (especially with CBFS) have gauges that cause engine damage and failure if you abuse the engines, so your damage could come into direct conflict with those gauges causing some very serious issues.
Maybe if engine damage is detected instead of a failure, just have additional points taken off the maintenance so that when people abuse the engines they have to repair the aircraft more often.
I personally would like to see the hour-based maintenance system proposed several months ago implimented before additional failure modes because the failure modes would need the new maintenance system to be truely effective in making people take care of the airplanes.
The other problem you run into is that may airplanes (especially with CBFS) have gauges that cause engine damage and failure if you abuse the engines, so your damage could come into direct conflict with those gauges causing some very serious issues.
Maybe if engine damage is detected instead of a failure, just have additional points taken off the maintenance so that when people abuse the engines they have to repair the aircraft more often.
I personally would like to see the hour-based maintenance system proposed several months ago implimented before additional failure modes because the failure modes would need the new maintenance system to be truely effective in making people take care of the airplanes.
I also think that an egine is damaged if it is operated at 110% for a significant amount of time and a very short operation at that rate would not cause any damage if needed (like in an emergency). Pleaes correct me if I am wrong but this should be taken into consideration if engine damaged is to be included in FlyNet.
CEO
Ionathan Airlines
Ionathan Airlines
Hi DaKurt,
I have to agree with CapFlyer. Damage being caused at 95% is totally unrealistic. Many of our aircraft we fly at CBFS already have accurate 'damage profiles' which WILL give an engine failure if abused, regardless of what FlyNET throws at us. Many airports require maximum managed power which is above what you would intend will cause damage. This would severely restrict our operations if you implemented this as planned.
I would also prefer that time is spent on updating the maintenance system to work on hours as opposed to vertical velocity at touchdown. We are just about to start BAe146 operations into London City plus other short runway airports and we don't want to be pussy footing around trying to get a smooth landing when we need to make sure the aircraft is firmly planted on the runway to avoid running off the end. The 146 plus other aircraft we operate were designed for short field/firm landings and the current FlyNET approach to maintenance conflicts with these.
There has already been discussion about failures and the % maintenance of an aircraft at which time random failures may occur as well as the hours maintenance issue plus many other requested improvements to FlyNET as a whole . It sounds like you have already gone some way forward with your ideas and are almost ready to publish. My understanding was that any changes to failures etc would be with some sort of agreement/discussion as opposed to an enforced policy. Could I please ask that FlyNET address other more pressing issues before we meddle with the failures?
Rgds
John
I have to agree with CapFlyer. Damage being caused at 95% is totally unrealistic. Many of our aircraft we fly at CBFS already have accurate 'damage profiles' which WILL give an engine failure if abused, regardless of what FlyNET throws at us. Many airports require maximum managed power which is above what you would intend will cause damage. This would severely restrict our operations if you implemented this as planned.
I would also prefer that time is spent on updating the maintenance system to work on hours as opposed to vertical velocity at touchdown. We are just about to start BAe146 operations into London City plus other short runway airports and we don't want to be pussy footing around trying to get a smooth landing when we need to make sure the aircraft is firmly planted on the runway to avoid running off the end. The 146 plus other aircraft we operate were designed for short field/firm landings and the current FlyNET approach to maintenance conflicts with these.
There has already been discussion about failures and the % maintenance of an aircraft at which time random failures may occur as well as the hours maintenance issue plus many other requested improvements to FlyNET as a whole . It sounds like you have already gone some way forward with your ideas and are almost ready to publish. My understanding was that any changes to failures etc would be with some sort of agreement/discussion as opposed to an enforced policy. Could I please ask that FlyNET address other more pressing issues before we meddle with the failures?
Rgds
John
CEO - Classic British Flight Services
Classic aircraft on Classic routes
Classic aircraft on Classic routes
I have to agree with Quantum that some kind of discussion/poll should precede any serious modification in how FlyNet works. After one year of presence we all feel as a community rather than visitors.
There are for sure more important developments to do in FlyNet in both the client and the website like the zero fuel weight, the additional lights usage penalties (strobe etc.) as it concerns the client and the ability to massively maintain the schedules, the insurances, the automated grounding of a pilot after a crash until released again by the CEO as it concerns the website and I think it is better to close issues before potentially open new ones. Let me remind the multiplier and the time compression issues of the past and how they affected FlyNet.
To support Quantum for his statement about his VA's operations impact, I would like to add that any modification in FlyNet should not hit any existing VA's operations provided that these operations are realistic and above all we are here to enjoy our loved hobby to that degree of realism which does not have a negative effect to the good time we all have in FlyNet.
There are for sure more important developments to do in FlyNet in both the client and the website like the zero fuel weight, the additional lights usage penalties (strobe etc.) as it concerns the client and the ability to massively maintain the schedules, the insurances, the automated grounding of a pilot after a crash until released again by the CEO as it concerns the website and I think it is better to close issues before potentially open new ones. Let me remind the multiplier and the time compression issues of the past and how they affected FlyNet.
To support Quantum for his statement about his VA's operations impact, I would like to add that any modification in FlyNet should not hit any existing VA's operations provided that these operations are realistic and above all we are here to enjoy our loved hobby to that degree of realism which does not have a negative effect to the good time we all have in FlyNet.
CEO
Ionathan Airlines
Ionathan Airlines
-
joefremont
- FSAirlines Developer
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
- Location: KSFO
Just to add my voice to the chorus, I don't think running the engines at too high RPM should cause failure during flight as there are already some systems in place in FS to replicate that. As an alternative maybe if you run the engines for too long at too high an RPM it could effect the repair level of the aircraft.
Addressing an issue Ionathan brought up, I don't think we need more penalties on the lights, if fact I think we should drop the penalties on lights above FL100 since there are no regulations that require that. If you want more penalties it should be on things like stalling, flying over speed, not starting or ending the flight at an airports gate or approved parking spot, not taking off or landing on the approved runways.
Addressing an issue Ionathan brought up, I don't think we need more penalties on the lights, if fact I think we should drop the penalties on lights above FL100 since there are no regulations that require that. If you want more penalties it should be on things like stalling, flying over speed, not starting or ending the flight at an airports gate or approved parking spot, not taking off or landing on the approved runways.
I've sworn an oath of solitude until the pestilence is purged from the lands.
-
cmdrnmartin
- FSAirlines DB Admin
- Posts: 1343
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:54 am
- Location: CYWG
Well... I think the gates etc issue: Since we have different AFCADS from the default, this would be very difficult to implement.joefremont wrote:Just to add my voice to the chorus, I don't think running the engines at too high RPM should cause failure during flight as there are already some systems in place in FS to replicate that. As an alternative maybe if you run the engines for too long at too high an RPM it could effect the repair level of the aircraft.
Addressing an issue Ionathan brought up, I don't think we need more penalties on the lights, if fact I think we should drop the penalties on lights above FL100 since there are no regulations that require that. If you want more penalties it should be on things like stalling, flying over speed, not starting or ending the flight at an airports gate or approved parking spot, not taking off or landing on the approved runways.
Landing on approved runways: When I fly offline, I land on the correct runway, since the ATC can be quite retarded sometimes (to the point of endangering my aircraft)
Flying Over Speed: Wind shear/buffets, can cause overspeed in some models, even if you were flying at the correct speed before the event (ie rapid change in atmospheric conditions)
As to the lights: Some aircraft dont have strobes
Landing Lights: Need to be on when landing, the 10 000ft issue, well, that's debateable
Engines: I'll let you guys duke it out.
-
Safari Air
- FSAirlines DB Admin
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:58 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
I think all statements expressed here are correct. I mentioned about the light penalties not because I am in favour of such a modification but because many pilots would like more realism. I don't care about a new penalty (in fact I would prefer not to have it) and thinking it twice I agree with Justin that not all aircrafts have strobe lights as well as many of us use third party sceneries. About the RPM issue I would like to add that in some models the autopilot will push the engine to 100% during phases of climbing and it is a standard practice in many real life aircrafts climbing nitialy at very high RPM, see Boeing 737-200 as an example.
CEO
Ionathan Airlines
Ionathan Airlines
I will agree with the previous speakers.
It is not an unusual phaenomenon to run the engines in 110% for a limited period of time. The machines actually are designed to work like this. The limit is 110% !
If you were lucky enough in your life to take off with a B732 from LGAT (where the pilot had to quickly take altitude and make a steep turn to avoid flying over Athens and the Acropolis-you can understand why!) or LGKR, you know how it is.
AFAIK, older planes did not have today's sofisticated FMS/FMCs to calculate the min needed takeoff power based on the runway length, the weather, the gross weight of the aircraft and so on. The only way was to get speed the soonest possible.
Furthermore of course... an emergency is always an emergency.
Finally, I do believe too that, if such a serious change is to be implemented, that affects not only the economics but also the operations of the VAs, it should be brought to the table before its implementation.
Just expressing my opinion and adding my voice. Do not want to get offensive to anyone!
btw:Geoff, love your signature plane! B732 is my personal fanorite-and an old source of tease between me and Ionathan!!!
It is not an unusual phaenomenon to run the engines in 110% for a limited period of time. The machines actually are designed to work like this. The limit is 110% !
If you were lucky enough in your life to take off with a B732 from LGAT (where the pilot had to quickly take altitude and make a steep turn to avoid flying over Athens and the Acropolis-you can understand why!) or LGKR, you know how it is.
AFAIK, older planes did not have today's sofisticated FMS/FMCs to calculate the min needed takeoff power based on the runway length, the weather, the gross weight of the aircraft and so on. The only way was to get speed the soonest possible.
Furthermore of course... an emergency is always an emergency.
Finally, I do believe too that, if such a serious change is to be implemented, that affects not only the economics but also the operations of the VAs, it should be brought to the table before its implementation.
Just expressing my opinion and adding my voice. Do not want to get offensive to anyone!
btw:Geoff, love your signature plane! B732 is my personal fanorite-and an old source of tease between me and Ionathan!!!
Yes indeed. Vintage.
And, as with most vintage stuff, a plane with personality from an era that not everything was computerized!
A plane that could(and would) take off as a fighter - or aPorsche (sticking you to the seat).But most of all,
A plane inspiring its crew ("Olympic SX-BLA ROLLING"!) and flown by airmen.(literally and metaphorically)
But then again, someone could call me biased!!!!
And, as with most vintage stuff, a plane with personality from an era that not everything was computerized!
A plane that could(and would) take off as a fighter - or aPorsche (sticking you to the seat).But most of all,
A plane inspiring its crew ("Olympic SX-BLA ROLLING"!) and flown by airmen.(literally and metaphorically)
But then again, someone could call me biased!!!!
-
CAPFlyer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
- Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Well, if you call the DC-10, 747-100/200/300/400, and MD-11 "Vintage", then yes, you could say those airplanes fit in the category.
With the GE CF6, takeoff power readings are commonly over 100% N1 and in excess of 98% N2. Being that N2 is not a controlling consideration when setting a CF6's power settings (you use N1), you have to be aware of the aircraft you're operating. The engine is designed to shut itself down over 120% N1, but it's safe to run the engine at up to 115% N1 without any undue wear to the engine, although there is a time limit after which some engine components will begin to get excessively hot which can lead to failures. Other engines set takeoff power using EPR, but N1 is the backup setting. With more modern FADEC-controlled high-bypass turbofans, it's not unusual to see N1 settings for takeoff of 96%-98% or even slightly higher depending on temperature although the engines are usually run at lower settings because you don't always need full power for takeoff.
With the GE CF6, takeoff power readings are commonly over 100% N1 and in excess of 98% N2. Being that N2 is not a controlling consideration when setting a CF6's power settings (you use N1), you have to be aware of the aircraft you're operating. The engine is designed to shut itself down over 120% N1, but it's safe to run the engine at up to 115% N1 without any undue wear to the engine, although there is a time limit after which some engine components will begin to get excessively hot which can lead to failures. Other engines set takeoff power using EPR, but N1 is the backup setting. With more modern FADEC-controlled high-bypass turbofans, it's not unusual to see N1 settings for takeoff of 96%-98% or even slightly higher depending on temperature although the engines are usually run at lower settings because you don't always need full power for takeoff.