Argonaut Virtual Cockpit.

[simondix]

Flew OK and toggled screen all the way over. Fuel consumption OK. Temps OK. Can someone enlighten me if I am wrong, do liquid cooled engines need cowl flaps? I thought they didn't.

[DaveB]

Hi Simon

Glad to hear that went ok Off the top of my head.. you'd have carb heat but not cowl flaps on the Merlins. Of course.. that panel is designed for dirty great P&W's.

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Garry Russell]

TBH I can't see that the fuel figures and engines figure will be right seeing it is totally the wrong panel

They may read right but the engines could be doing something else

Garry

[DaveB]

Hello Mate

I'm not sure exactly what Simon did but instructions included with the panel listed changes to the aircraft.cfg.. I presume in an attempt to get the two to be compatible (the current DC6 models and the new panel that is). I've not made any changes to the aircraft.cfg on my load but I agree.. the gauges could be (probably will be) giving spurious readings. I load as per my FSNav settings and although I've not flown any distance yet with the new panel.. they should be as close as they were as long as I fly to the same speeds ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[simondix]

On the panel notes there are instructions on alterations to be made to the Aircraft CFG which I followed.

Fuel Consumption Figures were EGLL-EHAM 767kg. The estimated figures on the Routes page was 766. EHAM-EGLL 717kgs. That is exactly the published figure. That is despite three quarters of the way over I noticed I had not fully retracted the flaps. Need to clean my specs. On the fuel gauges nothing shows at all so used the Shift and Z to read the percentage fuel.

[Garry Russell]

If you had the correct reading despite flying three quarter with the flap down then there would seem to be something wrong and those figures can be discounted :think:

Something is certainly odd

I just don't see how a hybrid DC 4/DC6 with Merlin engines can use a DC anything panel if realism is even remotely required.

Garry

[DaveB]

Hello Matey..

That is definately true.. especially if you follow the changes to the aircraft.cfg. You are in theory.. flying a DC6 and not a DC4M In truth.. the original panel to the DC4M is very lacking in authentic gauges and what I've done with the DC6 panel is keep many of the 'standard' gauges and replace some of the others with ones of the correct type. For example.. you would fly the Argonaut using Boost and RPM and although there are RPM gauges on the 6 panel.. there are no boost gauges. Should you know the equivalent MAP.. then this could be used but as I had 15 gauges missing from the download.. it was simple for me to fill in the holes with boost gauges
I did a quick LHR to LFPB this afternoon without boost gauges and everything is pretty much meaningless. There doesn't seem to be much difference between 2 different types of RPM gauges I had fitted at the time so I'll keep the ones that look best It is likely that the Argonaut had more than a fair number of different gauges to any of the native P&W aircraft and without any photographic evidence.. artistic license is the order of the day ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Garry Russell]

Yo Dave

I have a book on the Canadair Four....somewhere

The design was all new.....it is not a version of the DC

That would be like trying to use a Britannia cockpit to fly a CL-44

The early RCAF (DC4M-1) used DC4 componants for the main airframe bought from Douglas. The DC4-M2 and C4 used a shortened DC6 fuse with an empenage of the DC4 and C-54G wings as a basis, with a design modified to suit and built by Canadair.

I can see if there are specific figures you want..but they vary between the DC4M-1, DC4M-2 and C-4.

I look for it and get some basic data

Then you can see how close you are....might be lucky

Garry

[DaveB]

Hello Mate

Jens DC4's come in three flavours.. C54GM, DC4M (which includes the BOAC liveries) and finally, the DC4M2 (TCA). My best guess here (and that's all it is really) is that the panel/FDeck would have been similar though not the same as the P&W engined aircraft so.. what I've done is used the 'no VC' model 4M (you all know what I'm like with VC's) and grafted the new DC6 panel in to use the DC6 main panel and views but.. have kept Jens original panel windows. This because the DC6 panel is too specific for that aircraft with custom built gauges e t c. I think that what I've ended up with is a panel that would have looked around and about what it might have done for the DC4M's operated by BOAC which was the whole reason for the exercise in the first place ;-)

It has been far from a simple cut and shut as the 'original' specs of the model have had to be kept to the fore which is, after all, a Merlin engined DC4 and NOT any upgrade to the current DC6 model. I know from what Simon has said that what he is seeing and what I'm seeing are not a thousand miles away but are different enough for one to embrace the original model more than the other.. if you see what I mean ;-)

TKSVM for that info btw. It fills another hole for this particular 'Brit' ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Garry Russell]

Looks like your about there

The type was an odd mix as each customers was very different form the others.

The TCA DC4M-2 was even a slightly different lenghth to the Canadair 4 even though apart from window arrangement they look the same

TCA used three blades on the trans Ocean fleet and four on the trans continental fleet, although some four bladeers did fly the Atlantic.

Some aircraft were three and four bladed at different times and when TCA bought the CPA aircraft they turned them into freighters and fitted them with four blades.the only C-4 to have them.

The upshot of all this is you are never going to get an average but the BOAC C-4 would be your standard

Now here's a strange thing. Derby/BMA found them tail heavy so removed the rear horseshoe lounge and fitted an extra window and seat row at the front to correct the CG

No one else found this.

Also....a bit of trivia........BMA were finding them so expensive to operate that they planned to fit them with Darts

A feesability study was undertaken and it was found the Darts could be mounted on the Merlin pick up points. To correct CG a section of fuse was to be added ahead of the wing.

They were keen but then it was realised that a cheaper, more practicle solution was to buy Viscounts which were starting to become more widely availiable at good prices.

Being limited to three convertions against a plentiful supply of Viscounts as time went on meant the idea was dropped.

All C-4 had many years of airframe life in them, it was just the engines that were too expensive and troublesome to operate. :-(

Personally I loved them..............the roar of four Merlins at full blast at about 400 feet over the school struggling for altitude

Garry