BAe146 services inaugurated

Post by **DaveB** » 25 Oct 2006, 00:47

Nice one Ben. I went the other way and put the Eurowings panel onto the JM model!!

Btw.. if anyone out there who hasn't got and would like the Eurowings panel.. I'll be glad to..(caution as this is an open forum) offer aftermarket advice. One word of caution.. if you go above FL150 (and who doesn't) you need to have the fuel pumps turned on otherwise, come FL200.. you will very gently fall from the sky! :shock:

Tks for the pointers on the FD DM

Did you ever do anything with the Islander btw?? I tried again today to get from A to B and the FD is SO crap.. I gave in. Rarely have I come across such a load of complete and utter poo :huf: Little, other than the visual model, can I shed any praise on. I looks like an Islander and that is it!!

Wonder if BrianW is available for comment?? :think:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **MALTBY D** » 25 Oct 2006, 00:52

3 deg nose down seems a lot. Any chance that's on more than a 3 degree glide slope?

Just taking a quick scan through the shots on airliners.net, I'd say most common is perhaps 1 deg+ nose down & some are level.
Attitude will depend on the approach technique used though.
If you do the whole glide slope at threshold speed then you'll be more level. If you fly the glideslope at Vat+10, you'll be nose down.

The 'lift_scalar=1.500' change in the [flaps] section of aircraft.cfg can be altered to taste without any great impact on the performance of the JM model. It just tilts the attitude when the flaps are deployed.
The original value was 1.
I had also tried it at 1.8 & that gave a lot of nose down during approach.

DM

Post by **MALTBY D** » 25 Oct 2006, 00:59

Well I didn't put much effort into the Islander to be honest, so nothing doing yet.
Got into the 1-11 510 instead. I know what I'm doing a bit more there!

The Islander is in a pretty bad state. This 146 at least behaves like an aircraft & just wants a tweak.

DM

Post by **DaveB** » 25 Oct 2006, 01:09

I can think of no better way to put it

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **MALTBY D** » 25 Oct 2006, 13:46

Dave can you give this Islander FDE a try.
http://www.dmflightsim.co.uk/CBFS_BN-2A_3.zip
(if you downloaded before 14:30, download again - forgot the aircraft.cfg electrics section)

It was further on than I remember.
I'd already took the decision to replace the original Islander FDE with the alternative Trislander FDE (by FSAviator) and take it from there.

Just jiggled it about a bit more & reckon it's not too bad.
Don't know what it will do range wise, or what altitude it can reach, but takeoff, landing & general flying about seems reasonable to me.
It can do 500 fpm climb fully loaded & it can do 230kt cruise at sensible power.
Most importantly increasing power increases VS, reducing power reduces VS.

I've been doing the approach at about 80kt. Not sure if that's right - if not it may need a small change to the flaps.

Anyway, let's see what you think.
Hopefully it can now be fine tuned just by altering the [flight_tuning] section in aircraft.cfg

DM

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 25 Oct 2006, 16:50

Hi DM,

Yes I'd agree the original Islander/Trislander FD is b*ll*cks. I seem to remember trying to fly it to Alderney and getting pretty fed up with it not behaving like an aeroplane. The 3 degrees was from the Flight-on-Film video on the 146 and to be honest their footage seemed to agree with that. I suppose it must vary though with aircraft weight and which series it is that you are flying :think:

Toby

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 25 Oct 2006, 17:10

3 degrees sounds about right from what I remember on my flights up into Aspen and back on the 146. Air Wisconsin's flights to and from Aspen during the winter were always full, and the approach never really seemed to differ much between the heavy-weight approaches and light weight ones into places like Fargo, ND. I think a lot of this is due to the increase in approach speed with the heavier weights offsetting the highter thrust settings that would tend to pitch the plane more level.

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 25 Oct 2006, 17:18

I cant see clearly because its an LCD panel instrument, but this a.net photo appears to show a not insignificant negative angle. I'm sure if I searched long enough I could find one of a 146 with the old panel rather than the EFIS one on the RJ, but I think the performance should be roughly similar.

Jon Rose · Post by **Jon Rose** » 25 Oct 2006, 18:22

I'm Gonna USe Eurowings if I use them At All.

Post by **DaveB** » 25 Oct 2006, 22:38

Hi DM,

Spent the day getting a sore botty in the Viking so missed the Islander FD. As good luck would have it, I'm back at Jersey now so I'll give it a run later.. hopefully today

Jon.. feel free to use the Eurowings version mate. The major problem I had (other than being totally out of practise with it) was finding a smooth descent that could guarantee a good landing rate (fpm). I've been using the Eurowings panel anyway as I'm comfortable with it.. even though I forgot to switch the fuel pumps on above FL150

Been a L O N G time

ATB

DaveB :tab: