Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums

LecLightning56

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About LecLightning56

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Yorkshire

Recent Profile Visitors

534 profile views
  1. This happens after a significant turn at a waypoint. The aircraft seems to oscillate around a bit laterally until it finally settles down on the NAV track determined by the flightplan.
  2. I have this problem still with the v3 aircraft in the SP1 update. The aircraft seems to respond slowly to the NAV course almost as if it is hunting for the right track. Does anyone else have this issue and has anyone managed to resolve it?
  3. I cannot say that I am in any way encouraged by your comments.
  4. Guys, With the recent release of the SP1 update I have revisited the steep approach scenario again (London City EGLC) and have made some interesting discoveries. First and foremost, the A/T maintains constant speed throughout the steep descent once having captured the localizer and glideslope with the SP1 release, whereas previously the speed increased quite dramatically. I do appreciate of course that the FeelThere EJets are not strictly steep-approach compliant on account of an inability to deploy the speedbrakes for such approaches, as is the case for real-world aircraft which have gained such certification. Secondly, as an experiment I happened to note that the response of the FeelThere aircraft to capturing the glideslope was slightly sluggish and the aircraft would remain slightly high on the glideslope initially (i.e. above the prescribed flightpath for the approach) and with a consequent higher vertical speed than should be the case if following the glideslope correctly. I then decided to experiment with the Touch Control Steering (TCS) with interesting results. If you arm the localizer and glideslope and wait until the glideslope diamond indicator has dropped to just one notch above its centered position for the correct glideslope then immediately use TCS to drop the aircraft gradually (but not too abruptly) to a flightpath angle of about 4 to 5 degrees pitch down (with autopilot still on), there reaches a point where the glideslope is captured completely and no further TCS inputs have any effect. If you then release the TCS button on your yoke or joystick, the aircraft follows the glideslope exceptionally well. Whereas I am sure that this may not be a correct procedure for glideslope capture in the real-world for very good safety reasons (correct me if I am wrong), but the use of TCS with the FeelThere EJets does seem to be beneficial in maintaining the correct glideslope on a steep approach. For London City there is no certification for autoland, but the approach can be flown safely if you fly to the minimum decision altitude before manually landing the aircraft and with the autothrottle selected throughout by the means described.
  5. Thanks Bjorn for the benefit of your own personal experience with the real aircraft, which is only for the good in terms of educating we earthbound mortals about how things really are. The weight in my scenario is indeed low, with about 35% fuel and no passengers and cargo, (approximately 55,300lbs GW, sorry about imperial units). I am inclined to agree that for turning flight at such a low speed of 115 kts that the A/T may be endeavoring to maintain the speed but at the cost of not being able to provide the increased thrust to counter the increase in drag and hence the corresponding loss in altitude in order to maintain the speed itself, which I hope is correct A/T logic under such circumstances although certainly not to be entertained under real-world conditions. On the subject of the RNAV transition to London City EGLC RW09 (ODLEG 1G), I have repeated this with more realistic speeds for the turns associated with intercepting the localizer and things do play out very much better now. I need to practice this more carefully to get to grips better with the automation within the EJets but otherwise I am satisfied that I may have simply been putting impossible demands on the aircraft which probably even a real-world aircraft would struggle with to say the least (best not to live dangerously at low speed, low altitude when already at high power anyway).
  6. Interesting indeed. I did note that, although the FeelThere EJets are not configured for such procedures, for a steep approach to e.g. London City, the A/T manages to keep constant speed throughout the glideslope capture whereas previously the speed increased significantly during the descent. It would however be useful if your real-world contacts could verify my findings that real EJets suffer such issues in reality, or if further tweaking may be required in the FeelThere flight dynamics to tighten up on the aircraft's ability to remain stable in a turning manoeuvre under automated control.
  7. Progress at last. It would appear that if I disarm A/T and control speed with the throttle lever, irrespective of considerations of v+10 knots for full flap (e.g. maintaining VAPP=115 knots), then altitude remains fairly constant in a turn or at least what could be determined as acceptable. So A/T seems to be the key player in the problem I have got, and is best disarmed when tight turns are flown at low speed and low altitude. This does seem a bug of sorts since I have proved that there is no necessity to increase speed with A/T off in order to maintain constant altitude in a turn. Puzzling why the A/T has this influence when it otherwise maintains constant airspeed as selected (as it should).
  8. Yes it does look as if increasing speed maintains constant altitude in a turn with AP and A/T on but I am not convinced that this is standard procedure and would be aghast if I had to be quite so alert with e.g. the 2000 feet turn for London City (the problem has nothing to do with steep approaches).
  9. No. I am surprised that aircrew may have to be alert to this on a fully automated system particularly when their workload is excessive positioning the aircraft on the final stages of an approach. I am not aware of any other airliner which would require this degree of intervention in order to maintain constant altitude with an automated system. Is your recommendation in keeping with real world practice for this aircraft?
  10. Lost me there. Please explain what asni recommend is.
  11. Not being a real world pilot but I might have expected that the AP might be man enough to keep the flight parameters within tight bounds. Is it normal practice to increase speed even with AP selected in order to maintain constant altitude in a turn with the EJets?
  12. No, the aircraft is configured in the approach configuration with flaps fully extended. I am merely executing a turn using the heading select knob with AP and A/T on and the aircraft suffers excessive height loss. I am prepared to accept if I am doing something wrong which is causing this issue, but at the moment the behaviour seems disconcertingly unsafe. I just tried a fairly major heading change at 3000 feet which resulted in a height loss of 1000 feet. The aircraft eventually recovers back to 3000 feet in due course.
  13. Unless I am doing something very wrong, but I am experiencing significant height loss in a turn with the 170 in the full flap, gear down configuration with the autopilot and autothrottle on. I took the 170 up to 3000 feet, slowed down to approach speed (about 115 knots), selected full flap and gear down and then changed the heading. This resulted in a very significant height loss of about 500 feet. I recently tried a STAR arrival to London City EGLC with the 175 and experienced the same dramatic behaviour, which approaching EGLC at 2000 feet for an ILS to RW09 (again full flap gear down at 115 knots) is just not safe. With the latter case I was using LNAV and VNAV from a flight plan driven by the CDU. Hopefully I am doing something wrong which explains everything easily and I sincerely hope that this is not a major shortcoming of the product.
  14. Close to release? I am eager to experience the improvements SP1 will bring.
  15. Thanks Reinhard. I had missed the availability of ipc.control in the FSUIPC Lua Library manual to send a control and in this case it has solved my problem: I can now automatically decrement the flap setting based on height above ground level. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. Guidelines Privacy Policy We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.