The A2A Simulations Community

Yesterday I was flying my transatlantic flight from JFK to Eddf. Figured for the 3300nm trip I'd need a higher cruise. I planned 27k. My GW was 143000. Winds were planned out of the west south west at 50+. Climb was very smooth and the first attempt I could reach 29k without any strain. Got settled in mp was 40. Rpm 2200 manual mixture .58. Everything was going fine left it to fly and I'd check it every so often. Came back about 15 minutes later and I'm in a stall. Basically a settled stall. So I cancelled that flight. Retried everything to same but now 27k like planned. Everything was fine but sure enough 15 minutes into cruise same thing resulting in a crash. Career ended due to unfortunate death. Blood and carnage spread throughout the north Atlantic. Luckily I think I pancaked when I crashed. So I also encountered this flying once again eastbound with a strong tail wind out of LA. Do I know the aerodynmic differences between flying with a tailwind and a headwind. But is the stratocruiser that sensitive that it will stall at altitude? I can cruise at 31k at the same weight with a headwind. Why is this happening?

Also how do I get my career back? Maybe even the aircraft. I had a good amount of hours on those engines. But mainly I need my career.

I'm sorry, but the information you're giving isn't sufficient.

1) What are your CHT's?
2) What are your engine readings?
3) What is your airspeed?

It sounds like you're too high for your weight and you didn't get "on step" resulting in you being behind the power curve. Winds have nothing to do in the air with whether you can fly at a certain altitude. Weight, temperature, and procedure have everything to do with it. If you're too heavy, you're on the back side of the power curve, or it's too cold and you don't have the plane configured properly will cause you to crash.

The other primary option I'd give you is that you're taking on ice and need to turn on deicing. I usually run the flight surface anti-icing at high altitudes anyway due to FSX's unreliable icing modeling at high altitudes, so it's never an issue for me. Props are optional as prop icing doesn't seem to be as flaky.

_________________

Tail wind or head wind does not matter as long as your airspeed is sufficient, they affect your ground speed (GS), that's all. The B377 service ceiling is 25 k. As capflyer pointed out, you were probably too high for your weight at the airspeed you were flying. The airspeed that matters is the true airspeed (TAS) that is the calibrated airspeed (CAS) corrected for altitude and nonstandard temperature. As an approximation you can consider that the calibrated airspeed and the indicated airspeed are the same.
Be aware that the maximum structural design gross weight is 140 000 lb.

HOW TO REVERT YOUR CAREER BACK TO A PRIOR STATE:
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=25566

Yes I agree a CONSTANT no gust wind does not effect airspeed. Judging off of previous flights I believe it was wind sheer. Going from a 50kt tailwind to a 20kt tail wind will cause a major flux in airspeed. This is what I contribute to the stall. As the autopilot was on I hit wind sheer and I simply didn't have enough power to compensate for the sudden and rapid altitude and airspeed loss. Hence the stall. Yes behind the power curve was taken care of. I've done this flight 15-20 times now and I was there when this has happened. On this flight I was asleep and auto was flying.

If I am correct the mgw is 147000. And the max ceiling is 31k. Though I may be wrong about the service ceiling I am almost positive I'm right about the weight. I routinely operate at 146000.

I would have thought the situation you mention would lead to a temporary 30knt increase in airspeed..hardly likely to create a stall.

_________________

...Some say he never blinks, and that he roams around the woods at night foraging for Merlin parts...

Service Ceiling CANNOT be reached after a maximum weight takeoff. Service Ceiling is the max ceiling you can operate the plane at and maintain a rate of climb of at least 100 feet per minute at its lowest legal weight.

The charts included in the manual are pretty clear in showing that your initial flight level must be significantly lower (around 15,000 feet) for the first hour or two after takeoff when at MTOW. I would suggest reading the tutorials and the threads in this forum concerning step climbs and initial cruise altitudes. I would also suggest reading FSAviator's Propliner tutorial over at http://www.calclassic.com that has been linked to several times as it directly discusses handling the B.377.

You are behind the power curve whether you think you are or not. You're much too heavy and much too high, so you are behind the curve. As said above, a decrease in tailwind will increase your airspeed, not reduce it, but only for a few minutes because the plane will readjust for the change because it will try to return to the equilibrium that had been previously achieved.

_________________

Ok I get what your saying. And yes I see what your saying about the power curve. But.... If what your saying is true then why can I keep a 500fpm climb non stop to 27k at mtow? And I hold the altitude. This issue has only been while having a strong tailwind only. Just yesterday I took off right at mgtw because I taxied out over burnt fuel enroite to the runway and took off held at least a 500fpm climb to enroute altitude. I can hold at 27k after the climb and takeoff right at mgw. So if what your saying is true then I must be one hell of a pilot or have magical powers because i do this all the time at mgw. In all your world of wisdom please explain why I can do that because dhat I'm doing I must not be able to do.

Here's my technique. Takeoff mgw. Who cares with what. Get through 10k however you'd like. I set a climb at 7degrees. Set mp to 50-51". Set hold mp. Around 13-15k will will have 100 throttle in. Set climb at 6degrees and you will hold 500fpm climb+ to at least 27k. No steps needed. Once at altitude climb over by 3-400 and then descend down relieving yourself of the behind the power curve. You can level off and just wait but it does take about 10 minutes. Time to climb 30 minutes at mgw. No steps. It will hold altitude. I use 25k because it's a nice combination of range with not that much headwind weather dependent. I just completed my flight from Frankfurt to gander at 25k mgw no step climb. This flight can be completed all day long as its only 2300nm at mgw. I land with 20% remaining. The key ice found is manual mixture. The climb does take 10% fuel and anything over 25k does take more. I've burnt 17% climbing to 31k.

The discrepancy comes because you are climbing at METO power. I don't know the policies of the various airlines that flew the Stratocruiser, but I know that the Air Force set their Climb Power at 2350 rpm/187 torque for the kc-97(according to enginehistory.org), whereas METO is somewhat higher, like 2500/198 psi (around 51"). If you use that setting (2350/187) as your climb power and you decide to impose a 500 fpm minimum climb****, then you will most likely need to have a step climb when departing at mgw. Obviously, since FS is about imagination, your 'fictional airline' is welcome to climb at METO, and for all I know, that might have been the policy of some of the actual airlines that flew the the aircraft. (Can't imagine though that the military, who can just bill the taxpayer for the overhaul would be more concerned about preserving their engines than the profit based airlines) Btw, I am pretty sure that the airplane was not allowed to fly above 25,000 feet when conducting passenger operations. Remember, just because you can climb to a certain flight level and "hold it" without falling out of the sky doesn't mean that it is actually optimal. Unfortunately, I don't think anybody has optimum altitude charts for the 377, or at least I've never seen them. Capflyer, by virtue of being a Wonk, might have good numbers for this, who knows.

For cruise I'm using 2100, and 158 psi torque because that is what the kc-97 guy says. Again, I have no info on policies used by the airlines for the 377.

Now what is with this "set a climb at 7 degrees" stuff? That isn't how it is done. You should maintain whatever attitude gives you Vy, best rate of climb at the Climb Power policy you are adhering to. I think, off the top of my head, that Vy is something like 175 knots, although the only figures I've seen for that are from FSAviator.

**** Yes, I remember the discussion over whether such a "rule" existed, and there is no reason to have a repeat. Since this is FS, you can adhere to it, or not adhere to it regardless of what they actually did in the 50s

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli

"Drift Climb" was (and used) outside of strictly controlled airspace during the 1950's. However, once the national airspace system came into effect in the late 1950's and early 1960's the 500 FPM "rule" became standard to allow predictability of climbs for separation in the non-radar environment. If you couldn't make 500 FPM at normal climb power and speed, then it was also considered to be an "uneconomical" to force a climb and thus you leveled off until you lightened up.

As far as power, the METO power is specified in both the manual and checklist. Use it. It was designed by the airlines to maximize power while minimizing stress on the engine. While METO may not do any serious damage to the engine, over time it will reduce its lifespan. METO was designed only to allow airplanes to get clear of obstacles and "clean up" before transitioning into climb or for engine-out operations, not for normal climb.

As for cruise altitudes, I don't think the B.377 ever really had a chart but I'll look at my 377 manual again and see. I think they just used the 500 FPM rule of thumb.

_________________

Well there is some ambiguity there...I guess it really depends on the policy in effect at the operator. In the United manual which I have, and which I believe was the same one used very exstensively by A2A during the developement, I don't think the word METO is actually used, but the checklist specifies a takeoff sequence of 58"/2700 for takeoff, a reduction to 47"/2550 when the plane is off the ground, which sounds screwy to me, and then once flaps are up, a power setting of 50"/2550 for the rest of the climb (which is METO) at 165 knots. So they are climbing all the way to cruise alt at METO. And if you do that...then I don't think you will have any trouble maintaining a minimum rate of climb all the way up to FL250.

Like I said though, the 'policy' that I use (and I'm not sure now why I ever started doing it this way or if any airline operators ever did the same), was to follow the sequence in the kc-97 checklist and engine notes. (1)Takeoff 60"/2700 rpm; (2) Call for METO 50"/2550 when airspeed passes 130 knots, ADI off, flaps to 35% (3) flaps to 15% when passing 150 knots (4) Climb power set to 187 psi/2350 and pitch to maintain 165 knots. While this sequence is clearly valid for these engines and for a kc-97, I don't know if any of the airlines actually used the same for their 377....hopefully I'm not being a total ignoramus by assuming the same sequence is believably valid for the 377. I have found that when adhering to these settings and taking off at 142k, I will drop below a 500 fpm climb at around 19,000 feet in the 377, at which point I normally level out for a bit.

Interesting discussion as usual, btw

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli

My technique (didn't follow any books only followed allowable numbers according to the shift 2 menu) is more efficient then that of what you say. I use 50-51" hold mp rpm 2500-2550 set climb at a nose up pitch of 5-6( more like 6) which will give you a steady climb at 155-165 ias all the way to your desired cruise. This to me is a non brainer. You stop I don't. Every temp is within limits and the aircraft flies like a dream. Yes I may not get 1000tbo buy if someone gets 1000tbo I want to meet them in person. Radials don't go that long ecspecially these engines. The only temp that well get hot is the turbo bearing temp and that's not till I'm at altitude or trying to climb higher. Anything over 26-27k does (in my learnings) take a significant more time and fuel. As far as the original topic I know this is due to wind sheer in cruise. It doesn't matter what reduces or increases. I know for a fact now that was the contributing factor and reason for the crash. Windsheer happened. Obviously I headwind to a strong as hell tailwind(yes this will reduce ias( yes only momentary)) plane losses altitude auto tries to climb back the 500ft lost. Aircraft doesn't have enough available power to reclimb due to the power setting I selected( so yes now I'm behind the power curve) and auto continues to try and climb resulting in a settled stall with the result of a pancake on the surface below. So yes there were to factors. Me trying to fly to economically at a lower power setting mixed with a low mixture settings resulting in reduced power for a slight climb and the wind sheer resulting in a dramatic and sudden loss of airspeed and altitude resulting in the death of 75 people. God I think I should be part of the ntsb. I guess I'll have to settle for a job as an air traffic controller.

Capflyer it's funny that you seem to know everything when it comes to anything. As I'm part of the air traffic community I'm interested in this must be 500fpm climb crap you Speak of. I've only been in this job for 12 years and have yet to hear of such a thing that the controller will actually make you level of because you climb so bad. Jesus if that's the cause just about every single regional jet in the market today would be stopping at every altitude. Not to mention a cirrus that climbs like a pancake. In non radar it may be different but non radar seperation is so ridiculous its actually funny. But then again it needs to be. Climbing in a non radar environment is only climbing because they finally burnt the fuel off. It's a planned climb. Every airline does it. I'll have to check my 7110.65 today when I head to my tower and look in the non radar procedures and see if I even remotely see anything of such. Better yet here you go. The current faa7110.65. Is just looked thru and couldn't find a minimum climb requiement mandated by the FAA. Might be in the aim.
http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/medi ... df#page183

There's even a non radar portion which you've mentioned but I couldn't find anything in the index and I think it's bizarre.

Hey Mr. Lyonsdan, I guess you totally didn't read the discussion we were having, re: (Climb Power = METO) vs (Climb Power < METO). You asked why you could climb all the way up to fl270, and I was simply trying to point out why I think that is. Whatever climb power settings you choose to use is fine with everybody, and clearly in line with historical procedure for at least one airline I know of, but I think just about everybody will agree that as long as you have a working airspeed indicator you target a climb speed, not a pitch attitude. I have no idea why you think targeting a pitch angle is a valid technique, because it isn't, but nobody is standing in the way of your doing so. If the climb airspeed number just happens to fall out of that technique close to 165, that's great, but it doesn't mean you aren't doing it backwards...
____________________

In regards to the original topic, most flight simmers have been dealing with unrealistic wind shifts for years. That is why they typically use Active Sky and/or FSUIPC "wind smoothing" options in concert with each other. If you want to see an end to unrealistic wind shear like you are describing, then you need to think about investing in one or both of those programs.

EDIT/PS: Capflyer's "500 ft/min policy" is corroborated by the Propliner Tutorial over at CalClassic, and that may or may not be his only source. I don't know if it was ever an actual "rule" in the 1950's but I have every reason to believe that the author of that comprehensive document was referring to policies typical of the era and in effect for at least some operators. Beyond that, who cares. If you want to nudge your 377 up to the highest possible altitude, go for it.
_________________

@Capflyer: I am not a member of the Calclassic forums, but I know you are. I wouldn't mind seeing a discussion about the use of METO all the way to cruise alt vs non-METO policies in the 377. The United manual dictates a climb at METO but the Prop tutorial guy roughly uses the figures that I have given. What information was he basing his numbers on? Was he just being lazy and using handling notes from a Kc-97?? Maybe somebody can get some more definitive answers on this one....

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli

Thanks for not reading my post. I used the word "rule" in quotes for a reason. It was not necessarily a regulation, but it was something that was done by standard. I also never said that ATC would force you to level off. I said it was considered uneconomical if 500fpm could not be maintained. That's from an AIRLINE standpoint, not an ATC one.

Also, this "rule" still exists. It's even in the AIM -

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat ... m0404.html


(Emphasis added)

When I was working in Ohio and our CV-240's were heavily loaded, they regularly couldn't make more than 300fpm or so in climb due to the use of reduced climb power to account for the 100LL used. They always notified ATC that they were unable to maintain 500fpm and ATC simply acknowledged and made the required adjustments to his flows. Never once am I aware of them being "leveled" by ATC at a lower altitude unless it was for traffic.

Look, I respect that you're an Air Traffic Controller. But you weren't one in 1960. You weren't one in 1970. This is the period I am talking about and why I was clear in stating that. Additionally, I AM someone who's operated large-displacement radial engines. I also AM someone who's been through several ground schools for warbird operators who also fly these big radials today. So I AM fairly well versed on what power settings are used now and what is in the manuals for those airplanes. I am also aware of the why behind those power settings because that's part of the training. That training is given by guys who've in many cases not only flown the planes in the military, but also flown them with the airlines, so they are quick to point out where the differences in operation are between the two, especially in common types like the R1830 and the R2800. However, even with those differences, many times the engines still had very good reliability because when you put them on a transport, the US military needs them to be reliable just as much as the airlines since those transports are being relied upon to deliver important materiel and personnel in a time critical manner.

_________________

He used several different manuals as far as I'm aware. AOA, United, USAF, and Northwest from my understanding.

Also, United was kind of an "odd" operator of the B377 in that they didn't actually have a Flight Engineer on their aircraft. Some of their operations were also "non-standard" compared to the other operators in that they tended to trade range for speed on many of their aircraft, routinely operating at higher power settings than others. I have several 1950's era timetables (most from Timetableimages.com or Tom Gibson's collection) and where United and another have the same route, United typically has a shorter flight time, evidencing this trend to operate "faster" than their competitors.

Finally, with respect to Lyonsdan's thing about engines and overhaul, 1000 hours should be an average TBO for these engines. Much of the reputation about them being prone to failure was actually the props and early models of the engine. Once the initial problems were worked out (within the first couple years of operation) they were very reliable engines when operated properly. The USAF routinely was getting 1500 hours out of their engines near the end of the KC-97's service life.

_________________