July Stats

Post by **Garry Russell** » 01 Aug 2006, 14:11

No worries Fraser they work OK if you use coal. :roll:

Great to hear about the panels being brought up to the latest standard.

Many thanks for that

Garry

Post by **DaveB** » 01 Aug 2006, 14:59

Hi Fraser,

I've just landed at Orly and wished I'd have got that .78 scalar before I took off!!!!!!!

Hardly surprising but FSNav had predicted 2747.7kg for LHR to Orly and with the scalar at .61 I actually used 1552kg :shock: Dare we all go up to .78 now Fraser or is it too early to tell yet?? Incidentally, the FSNav est of 2747.7kg would have been pretty much bang-on for that flight using the old figure I had as I spent a fair amount of time tweaking the climb/cruise/descent figures in so that all I had to do was round it up to the next hundred and bang on the extra for hold/diversion

Unless I hear otherwise, I'll run the scalar up to .78 and see what pop's out

[edit] I've just run the flight again with the FS at .78 and used 1744kg.. obviously a little more than .61 but a full 1000kg less than I'd have used with my original settings

Works for me. Right.. I'll go and fly it for real now!

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **Viscount Cornbank** » 01 Aug 2006, 19:40

Don't worry too much about the scalar; its at an early stage. I have also altered the mixture controls which will affect the sounds at flight idle and ground idle. Not sure yet how consumption will be affected :think: Lots of playing to be done yet. After the Britannia the Vanguard has got to be the most complex aeroplane of its generation :shock: Its beautifully logical though, what clever guys

Fraser

Post by **TSR2** » 01 Aug 2006, 20:30

Playing catch up today, as i hadn't had a cjhance to loggin in. Fantastic stats as usual DM. My fuel flow scalar is as correct as the information I had (0.61) hence my fuel burns. Although I was thinking that if the Vanguard was that effecient they would still be flying!! I thing the UK shuttle flights to EGPH and EGAA are averaging about 1800kg!

Guess i need to take AGSA out for a few runs this month to get my Hours / Distance up. Whell done DB.

Off to book a flight.

Thanks again.

Post by **MALTBY D** » 01 Aug 2006, 21:07

Yes I also suspect that the 'correct' Vanguard fuel burn isn't right.
I prefered the wrong one me & DB were getting. :think:
Looks a bit too near the Viscount figures. Bigger & faster should show in the fuel burn.
Dunno really, does anyone know what the real one did?

Anyway, great start to this month for me. 5% penalty because I strayed slightly off course & flew over a large hill with no landing lights on.
It was all perfectly safe, I'd dipped below the cloud so I could see - Yikes that's a big hill.

I'd been given a duff beacon frequency from routefinder.

DM

Post by **DaveB** » 01 Aug 2006, 21:40

Bugger DM

I'd sue!!!

I'll see what 'hard' facts can be got for the VC9 with regard to fuelburn. I'd quite gotten used to seeing the flow figures approximately twice that of the Viscount (about a kg per sec as opposed to a kg every two for the VC8). Unfortunately, none of the guys on EP are flyers and while they'll have all the info for ground running.. that ain't much use in the cruise. Perhaps PeterM can blow the dust off :think:
Wx permitting, I'm gonna take the Tech Log (snag book) out for a read tomorrow and quite a few of the pages will have Peter's sig on!! They don't give too much in the way of fuel data but I'll glean what info I can

[edit] I've PM'd Peter to see if he can remember anything that would help with Fburn

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **Viscount Cornbank** » 01 Aug 2006, 22:31

It's so long ago that I can't remember how I arrived at the FF figure. I suspect I was trying to arrive at an average based on 12500 RPM cruise, which appears to be in the region of 7-800 kg/hr. FS is hopeless with this as that equates to about 2 kg/hr at ground idle which is bollocks. The new version overcomes this with lie telling, however for the time being , FF readings wichare realistic will be nothing like actual consumpion :shock:

Post by **DaveB** » 02 Aug 2006, 01:04

A nice cryptic ending there Fraser

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **DaveB** » 02 Aug 2006, 21:29

Okey doh Guys..

I think it's pretty obvious that the scalar on the original was a bit thirsty. However, it seems that both .61 and .78 are a tad lean. Somewhere between my 1.167 (original) and the current .78 would seem to be the place to go.
I dug out the Tech Sheets on EP today looking for any signed off by PeterM (he gave me dates so it wasn't too bad) and one that I found (LHR to LIN) showed him tankup with 13896kg and land with 8928kg. This gives a total burn for the flight (1hr59m) at 4968kg.. call it 5000kg in real money. He has since checked a couple of other pages I got and for the return (2hr1m) the burn was give or take a gnats thingy 5000kg again point to point giving us a total burn of 2500kgh.
A 1hr flight from Orly to LHR is giving me 1670kg total burn by way of reference.

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **MALTBY D** » 02 Aug 2006, 22:35

Thanks for checking it out Dave.
2500kg/h sounds a bit more like it.

Just been doing some quick testing.
Fraser's got to have final say as it may impact on some of his gauge coding, but how's about 0.84 for an opening bid on best fuel scalar?