Hmm..
Managed to get a first flight in a 500 with v1.0.3 and for some reason, the aircraft burned from the LH tank only. Didn't realise this until landing/unhooking the AP (AP covering tank gauges when open) when the aircraft slewed to the right in a big way. Also.. FS crashed when closing the client (module fs9.exe). Fortunately, the flight was recorded and not lost. Will have to investigate further
Decent cargo and pax income. FSA esdur indicating within 4mins of actual flight time so once again.. the client reporting an accurate flight duration for a jet flight
ATB
DaveB
Problem with 1-11
-
- Ticket Agent
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:22 pm
- Location: EPWA / LZTT
- Contact:
Re: Problem with 1-11
I did 9 flights since client 1.0.3 on 400/500 and never had any problems.DaveB wrote:Managed to get a first flight in a 500 with v1.0.3 and for some reason, the aircraft burned from the LH tank only. Didn't realise this until landing/unhooking the AP (AP covering tank gauges when open)...
So to speak I have had never any problems with DM 1-11.Thanks man.
Fuel gauges in 1-11 are in the middle of cockpit and AP controls at the bottom
You know that Dave
BTW
Phoenix Airways of Switzerland ordered brand new 500 with 114 seats in 1971
Best regards
Tomasz
Re: Problem with 1-11
Hi Tomasz..
I was flying a 510ED in which the fuel gauges are at the bottom of the centre panel.. but you knew that didn't you Fuel gauges on every version EXCEPT the 510ED are where you described .BEA had a different flightdeck layout which used Smiths instruments rather than the 'basic fit' Collins gear.. this was to allow easier pilot training from the One-Eleven to Trident. Of course, when all the other UK One-Eleven operators folded and BA found themselves with a fleet of assorted 500's.. it meant that 510ED trained pilots couldn't jump into a non-BA One-Eleven and fly it
I think the problem with the flight I did last night may be down to two entries for the same aircraft.. a story I won't bore you with but it's something for me to look into
ATB
DaveB
I was flying a 510ED in which the fuel gauges are at the bottom of the centre panel.. but you knew that didn't you Fuel gauges on every version EXCEPT the 510ED are where you described .BEA had a different flightdeck layout which used Smiths instruments rather than the 'basic fit' Collins gear.. this was to allow easier pilot training from the One-Eleven to Trident. Of course, when all the other UK One-Eleven operators folded and BA found themselves with a fleet of assorted 500's.. it meant that 510ED trained pilots couldn't jump into a non-BA One-Eleven and fly it
I think the problem with the flight I did last night may be down to two entries for the same aircraft.. a story I won't bore you with but it's something for me to look into
ATB
DaveB
-
- Ticket Agent
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:22 pm
- Location: EPWA / LZTT
- Contact:
Re: Problem with 1-11
Ahhh You got meDaveB wrote:I was flying a 510ED in which...
I completely forgot about those ED with Trident style instruments. It was funny 2 different rating for normal 1-11 and ED.
Something like for 737-200 and for rest of 737.
But If we are here, one question. ED had also AP from Trident, but it didn't have autoland capabilities???
Or did it??
Best Regards
Tomasz
- CAPFlyer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
- Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Re: Problem with 1-11
It had the AP Control Head from the Trident, but BAC didn't want to go through the procedure of having the aircraft certified for Autoland and BEA wouldn't pay for it anyway so it was a mute point.
The 737-100 and 200 had the same Type Rating, so the -200 wasn't a "solo" act. Also, remember that the -300/400/500 came some 15 years later with a completely different engine and at a time when the airlines were asking for more "advanced" flight decks. This is not really because of the EFIS/EICAS fit, but rather because the 737-300/400/500 came standard with autothrottle and FMS while the 100/200 did not. As such, you will never see a common type rating between the two just as there is not a common type certificate between the 747-100/200/300 and the 747-400 where the first 3 had INS and the fourth has FMS.
The 737-100 and 200 had the same Type Rating, so the -200 wasn't a "solo" act. Also, remember that the -300/400/500 came some 15 years later with a completely different engine and at a time when the airlines were asking for more "advanced" flight decks. This is not really because of the EFIS/EICAS fit, but rather because the 737-300/400/500 came standard with autothrottle and FMS while the 100/200 did not. As such, you will never see a common type rating between the two just as there is not a common type certificate between the 747-100/200/300 and the 747-400 where the first 3 had INS and the fourth has FMS.
Re: Problem with 1-11
Yo
Yup.. pretty much as Chris said.. the 73's being a good comparison. The control unit itself on the pedestal was very much different to the Trident.. more similar in fact to the 'Standard' One-Elevens but with more functionality and importantly.. Autothrottle. It really wasn't a problem when the aircraft were released.. only when the other airlines aircraft became absorbed into BA. There were other small detail changes too that made a difference. Some switch positions were the opposite way round (done purposely as many of the smaller, earlier types were made specifically for the U.S. market and this is how they wanted them) so yeh.. while the basic reading of the instrumentation was very similar, there were enough changes for common TR's between types to be a non-starter
TBH with you Tomasz.. I much prefer the Collins fit.. even without Autothrottle Odd really because I LOVE the Trident panel Perhaps it just seems right in a Trident and not in a One-Eleven
ATB
DaveB
Yup.. pretty much as Chris said.. the 73's being a good comparison. The control unit itself on the pedestal was very much different to the Trident.. more similar in fact to the 'Standard' One-Elevens but with more functionality and importantly.. Autothrottle. It really wasn't a problem when the aircraft were released.. only when the other airlines aircraft became absorbed into BA. There were other small detail changes too that made a difference. Some switch positions were the opposite way round (done purposely as many of the smaller, earlier types were made specifically for the U.S. market and this is how they wanted them) so yeh.. while the basic reading of the instrumentation was very similar, there were enough changes for common TR's between types to be a non-starter
TBH with you Tomasz.. I much prefer the Collins fit.. even without Autothrottle Odd really because I LOVE the Trident panel Perhaps it just seems right in a Trident and not in a One-Eleven
ATB
DaveB