+- FsPassengers Forums (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Flight Simulators (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: FS2004 General (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? (/showthread.php?tid=12146)
Pages:
1
2
This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - Fritz Bayerlein - 09-09-2005
The POSKY 757-200 has a maximum fuel load of over 11,000 gallons, but with NO payload and a maximum fuel load, the plane's MTOW
is in excess of 142%. :-(
You can see my dilema when I have a full load of passengers. The most fuel I can take is about 50% and that restricts the range of my
plane to about 1500 nm, maximum, to be safe.
I don't quite understand how a plane can be designed to carry way more fuel than it can safely take off with. SWAFO, your thoughts!
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - EDawg - 09-09-2005
I just posted the same concern regarding overloaded Posky 757-200's and FFX's 737-300. Hopefully we can get answer as to how this can be fixed
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - nem - 09-09-2005
Quote:Fritz Bayerlein wrote:
The POSKY 757-200 has a maximum fuel load of over 11,000 gallons, but with NO payload and a maximum fuel load, the plane's
MTOW is in excess of 142%. :-(
Damn these cheapskates at Boeing. They forgot to put the jerry can in the trunk again? "/(%§(/"%§(!!!!
Quote:You can see my dilema when I have a full load of passengers.
Not really. Depending on the aircraft when carrying a full load of PAX you won't be able to use the craft's whole range because you can't
take 100% fuel as well. Common dilemma. Airlines would be dancing on the roofs if it were otherwise.
Post Edited ( 09-09-05 13:40 )
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - DanSteph - 09-09-2005
It might be also that the aircraft.cfg is wrong (POSKY does good work usually but who know ?)
Check if the number are consistant:
Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb),
medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb).
Here the full 757-200 page:
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101
Dan
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - Jetflyer - 09-09-2005
Posky's 757 is ok but their 767's are wrong in the aircraft.cfg.
They have the empty weight as 295,000lbs instead of the normal 195,000lbs, making it very under powered
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - Fritz Bayerlein - 09-09-2005
Well unfortunately POSKY's AIRCRAFT.cfg is spot on. It has the maximum MTOW listed as 256,000lbs. I just find it hard to believe that
this plane is completely incapable of taking more than half of its maximum fuel load for takeoff. The POSKY model's got a LOT of power,
too! I can maintain a great cruise speed at 34,000ft with no more than 83% N1 and it's just fast all around. Why can't we tack on
20,000lbs more for takeoff with the Power:weight ratio?
I am looking at the POSKY empty weights on the 767-200 and 300 and none of them are over 200,000lbs so unfortunately that's not the explanation for the incredibly underpowered 767s they make. And if you go to their site to ask them about it they'll block and close your post. They refuse to acknowledge it.
Post Edited ( 09-09-05 19:16 )
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - Jetflyer - 09-09-2005
Er that's what you think, dude.
So keep it quiet.
This is raw data from a Posky Boeing 767-300. I have not touched any of it and I say that on my life. All the weight data is WRONG get it?
[WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]
reference_datum_position= 0.000, 0.000, 0.000
empty_weight_CG_position= 0.000, 0.000, 0.000
max_number_of_stations=50
station_load.0=0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000
empty_weight= 295000.000
empty_weight_roll_MOI= 4378085.000
empty_weight_pitch_MOI= 7971735.000
empty_weight_yaw_MOI= 12879901.000
empty_weight_coupled_MOI= 0.000
max_gross_weight= 456737.995
CG_forward_limit= 0.000
CG_aft_limit= 1.000
[flight_tuning]
cruise_lift_scalar = 1.00
parasite_drag_scalar = 1.45
induced_drag_scalar = 1.45
elevator_effectiveness = 1.00
aileron_effectiveness = 1.00
rudder_effectiveness = 1.20
pitch_stability = 1.00
roll_stability = 1.00
yaw_stability = 1.00
elevator_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
aileron_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
rudder_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
CORRECT information:
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=104
And incase you DO insist I edited it, go to http://www.projectopensky.com and download a version 3 767 for yourself. The version 4 ones have it corrected, however, but I'm talking about the version 3. No matter what version it is, it's still WRONG, is it not?
Post Edited ( 09-09-05 20:33 )
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - Fritz Bayerlein - 09-09-2005
I don't use the Version 3 so that's the problem. I was looking at V4, which is correct. In any event, even the V4 is virtually unflyable at
altitude because of -something- wrong with the FDE.
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - Jetflyer - 09-09-2005
What's wrong with the version 4? Apart from the roll rate it seems OK at altitude.
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - SWAFO - 09-09-2005
11,000 LBS of JET A weighs roughly 66,000LBS. I believe the specs Dan gave are correct (to my knowledge... I
haven't flown or studied the 757/767).
So basically if the aircraft is about 130,000LBS empty, it should be able to take off with a full fuel load (no
PAX/Cargo) with weight around 195,000LBS. This is much lower than the standard basic MTOW of 220,000LBS.
If the weights are different in that particular aircraft model, perhaps you should edit them to the real world specs.
Sorry I can't be of much help on this series of aircraft.
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - olseric - 10-09-2005
Hmm, I have that model and never had that problem. Even with a heavy load I am able to maintain 4000 fpm or better past FL180...yes,
you read that right, 4000 fpm climbout.
What version of the FDEs do you have from POS? I know the downloadable planes and the like are ALL configured FS2002. If you go
into the POS forums, flight dynamics discussion, there is a sticky in there that tells you where you can download the current ones for
FS2004.
The easy way to see if you have FS2002 or 4 ones is to load up your aircraft, check the weight and balance section. If the COG is sitting
WAYYY forward of the nose, you have a 2002 model. If it's somewhere close to where it should be, you have the 2004 model.
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - Fritz Bayerlein - 10-09-2005
They have a newer FDE out for their Winglet-version 757, but I am not happy with it. It is very sluggish in all control axis. Warren, the
creator, says this accurately portrays a real 757's handling, and is realistic, but it's not enjoyable for me, so I'm still using the V1.
I found out where the problem was with the Aircraft.cfg. The empty weight SHOULD be about 136,500lbs. In their aircraft file, they have
the empty weight as 188,000lbs. 188,000lbs, however, is the maximum ZFW of the the extended range 757-200, so they had the ZFW
(the max weight of the plane without fuel) as the empty weight. Naturally that's why I couldn't put more than 54% fuel into the thing with a
load of passengers.
So I'm going to merge the visual model of the -200W with the FDE of the 200 and the result will be something very nice to fly!
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - olseric - 10-09-2005
Glad to hear that we came to a resolution!
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - Jetflyer - 10-09-2005
Don't you mean 11,000 GALLONS weighs about 66,000lbs?
Re: This is strange for a 757-200, isn't it? - SWAFO - 10-09-2005
Quote:Jetflyer wrote:
Don't you mean 11,000 GALLONS weighs about 66,000lbs?
My mistake. I typed 11,000LBS = 66,000LBS... lol. It's actually gallons. Thanks for the correction!