teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Mar 6, 2013 11:39:56 GMT -5
Stephen, thanks for the input. Meanwhile, as I've been able to reaccess the Duenna site, I've also looked at some of the flights there, and the C185 does seem to fly at speed similar to the C182Q, at least the C182 does seem competitive. Thanks.
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Mar 6, 2013 12:04:49 GMT -5
Good inputs on the aircraft... definitely need to strike a balance between what CAN be flown and what SHOULD be flown. The intent is to have a variety of aircraft that can compete with each other, to allow as much freedom of choice for the racer as possible. Options (off the top of my head are: banning the 185, having specific aircraft designated each race, limiting the aircraft white list to a maximum speed... Maybe some sort of handicap option, like they do in road ralliess: you're score is based on "closest to a given time", not fastest time, which would put the A2A Cub on the same footing as the 185?? But, I have no idea what those numbers would look like. Good thoughts there. I don't think banning a plane (e.g. the C185) is necessary or useful, unless there really is no plane available at all that would have a speed remotely close. Let's see what other planes we can come up with that are nice and competitive. At least the C182 does seem to be. As long as the speed is within 10% I'd say such difference does not make a plane hopeless (unless we have very long legs). With the short legs and routing challenges efficiency in take-off, routing and landing play an important role in flight time. I'm all for varying the pleasures though. We could have aircraft classes, containing planes with similar speed (ideally containing a FS default or a very nice freeware plane each, e.g. C172/Husky type; Cub type), and some race courses would be open to planes up these speed classes only. This would force pilots to vary planes to fly. Discovering new (nice) planes would also be attractive to me. The site should ideally provide a list of suggestions for nice planes with performance data (speed) and where to find. But I guess that's the objective of this thread anyway... Also, while I don't like a systematic application of the target flight time principle to all legs, it may be an interesting variation from time to time to have such an objective for a leg for a bit of precision flying. Vary the pleasures ...
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Mar 6, 2013 12:55:05 GMT -5
Another handycap system could be to determine fastest level flight speed for all approved aircraft, and deduct a bonus (I prefer deducting a bonus than adding a penalty) time equivalent to the difference in cruise time over the whole course distance between the flown plane and a reference plane (C185?) from the final result.
Example:
Course distance 100 nm Max cruise speed C185F 160 kts (TBD): Reference cruise time: 100nm/160kts=37:30 Flown plane: Piper J-3 Cub, max cruise speed 74 kts (at SL): Reference cruise time 100 nm = 81:05
The difference 81:05- 37:30 = 43:35 would be deducted from the total flight time of the Cub pilot.
That system might allow Planes with vastly differing speeds to compete on a roughly level playing field (may need some testing and tweaking).
It might be possible to automate these calculations in the race results table once the aircraft flown and the course length is entered.
-
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Mar 7, 2013 20:18:21 GMT -5
I've run a few test flights to check the above handycap suggestion, and it does pretty well level out the scoring of the different planes. See screenshot of table attached. Flights with C182Q (Carenado), C172SP (FS9 default), J-3 Cub (FS9 default). After deduction of the bonus from the flight times the "Race time" (green column) of the planes is very close. Note that on the second flight, which was zig-zagging, not the point-to-point dictance has to be taken for calculation of the bonus, but the real flight distance. Then the results between the planes are very close to each other as well. The difference between the planes is indeed smaller than the difference observed between different flight dates (possibly due to different winds on the different days). I believe that this handycap system would indeed allow planes with very different speeds to compete on a level field, allowing pilots to choose planes they appreciate to fly, and still be competitive. Attachments:
|
|
codge
Student Pilot
Posts: 33
|
Post by codge on Mar 7, 2013 21:00:46 GMT -5
I'm wondering just how much extra effort it would be to run more than class. That way aircraft such as the Twotter and the C208 Cessna Caravan and other turboprops or aircraft that are not at all competitive with the likes of the C185.
I imagine at some stage we may be required to fly floatplanes too for one event or more. I also have some pesky voice of reason in my ear telling me to just let the whole thing (BPRL) get under way and walk before you run and all that sort of thing can come later if at all!
But for now at least, it's the Carenado C185F in FSX for me. I have to use the white one and have fairly good weather when i'm using FSX otherwise my sim becomes a slide show!
HD liveries and lots of cool 3D clouds are dreams and flights of fancy for me at present! One day I'll get a new i7 with a 2gb graphics card. That'll be when they are almost obsolete and others have moved onto the latest thing whatever and whenever that will be!
It's likely I'll pick up a machine for about $500 (kiwi pesos) that somebody bought new for $3000 or so 5 years earlier.
|
|
codge
Student Pilot
Posts: 33
|
Post by codge on Mar 7, 2013 21:16:25 GMT -5
I forgot to say, That yes, i agree that if any plane has to be banned in the interests of variety then so be it.
And making the 'race' about more than just getting from A- B in the shortest time with other considerations such as precision flying skills being involved is a great idea.
Making and keeping the event interesting and preventing boredom or staleness is always a task for any organizers of any event.
Was it Einstein who said 'keep it simple but no simpler'!
I translate that to 'we want good variety and fun and excitement but not so much detail that someone is disqualified for some tiny technicality in a rule somewhere that they simply forgot about because there are so very many such rules to keep track of and are stripped of their title because of it.
Keeping the winning or fun itself for that matter on the track and out of the courtroom is paramount for me personally.
For example, I USED to be a fan of America's Cup yacht racing. I still love yachts (sail boats) and go sailing when i can and pay attention to the round the world races no matter what name they give the event, but I'm done with the America's Cup.
|
|
|
Post by bushflyer on Mar 7, 2013 23:43:45 GMT -5
I hear you on the i7 with a 2 gig graphics card. It'll be a while before I get to that point in my sim experiences, also. I did experiment with the default FS9 C182. And a freeware C182, the first freeware one I could find listed at Flight Sim. It wasn't hard to do, it was the first one on the list under'c182': www.flightsim.com/vbfs/fslib.php?do=copyright&fid=170675a decent plane, but the reference in the shift f10 box is written in German -which made it tough to get the needed climb speed, flap info, etc.,. I went by what the FS9 default had listed for references, and did OK with it. The C182 is a decent plane, but I never flew it in STOL situations. It handles the 'landing' part of STOL nicely, and lands on the beach nicely as Teson said it would, but it is a gutless dog as far as takeoffs go. Maybe the payware FS9/FSX versions handle the takeoffs better. Had a crash leaving for Concrete from Israel's Farm. The C182 is a hard plane to get airborne with a treeline rapidly approaching -default or freeware version. I also noticed that the default /freeware C182 times were negatively way off vs. the payware 182, even at the same distances. No chance whatsoever of coming close to matching the Carenado imo. Next up: Piper Cubs. Always a challenge for me, why I don't know. I also want to try out Brian Gladden's FS9 PA 20 Tri Pacer on this course -it's a 4 cylinder with 135 horses. Not built for speed with a max rating of 114 kts, but it's fun to fly anyways. I'll keep trying other planes and experimenting, but I'll stick with the C185 as my preferred plane, either on FS9 or FSX, unless told otherwise or I can find something better.
|
|
codge
Student Pilot
Posts: 33
|
Post by codge on Mar 8, 2013 3:25:42 GMT -5
Do you have the update for the handling of the Piper Cub? It is approved for the RTW as it makes it more realistic and not so hard to land. Without it you have to be within 10 degrees of the wind direction of you groundlooop and even then it is dicey!
The default 182 with 10 or even 20 degrees of flap and say half fuel should make it a better STOL plane. The practise course doesn't need a whole tank? I must check but I don't think it uses much at all.
I do like the thinking though about using defaults. If everyone has to run the course in default planes such as the cub and then run it again in planes of our choice we spend longer but pilot skill becomes apparent to everyone.
More to think about! As if you don't have enough already! You probably won't end up pleasing everyone and i would hope nobody pulls out over any decision that has to be made but whatever gets decided I for one will understand why.
Default and boring is fair. Exciting and cool is unfair for those that can't spend $20 U.S on the C185F. It should never be about money and who can afford to win!
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Mar 8, 2013 8:57:49 GMT -5
The C182 is a hard plane to get airborne with a treeline rapidly approaching -default or freeware version. I also noticed that the default /freeware C182 times were negatively way off vs. the payware 182, even at the same distances. No chance whatsoever of coming close to matching the Carenado imo. Yes, the FS9 C182S is significantly slower than the Carenado C182Q. I went back to my notes and found that fastest cruise speed was 141 kts, and not 148 kts as stated earlier, which makes it quite a bit slower than the Carenado C182Q (155 kts) and the C185. However, still not completely hopeless. I've flown KBVS-WA56 with the C182S in 6:32 and with the C182Q in 6:20, just 12 seconds difference. I believe there was some tailwind on the C182S flight (and I've probably flown a little more efficienly on the C182S flight), so under completely equal conditions the difference may have been a little larger, but not completely out of bounds. But those who have the C185 should definitely fly it, no question. Sounds to be a nice plane, and very competitive. All this discussion is just for those with a competitive mindset, who fancy to do as well as possible, but either don't have the fastest plane in their hangar (I don't have the C185F) or are in love with another plane. Those who are in just for the fun won't care anyway and fly any plane they like. Maybe we should just leave it as is, and not try to devise complex rules. As Stephen said - don't try to run before you can walk. Jimmy can have the race evolve as we go. So far the set-up and variety is excellent already, with varied and interesting challenges. I had a lot of fun flying the circuit. Gunter Btw, I'm not sure whether it really makes a big difference with these planes, but reducing unnecessary fuel (and throwing out any superfluous payload) seems an obvious choice to optimise flight performance. I guess in a real-world race of this kind pilots would do that as well.
|
|
codge
Student Pilot
Posts: 33
|
Post by codge on Mar 8, 2013 13:25:41 GMT -5
It is an easy mix up, especially now we have all been reprogrammed to call wings of power stuff A2A. It is the ACA Citabria and decathlon, the same plane that Steve Fossett was caught out in by the mountain wave phenomonon in the Sierra Nevadas. The 2nd one is the Flight Replicas Piper Super Cub. It comes with a variety of engine choices, the most powerful being the 210HP. The 150HP one indicates 128Kts on the ASI but the shift Z figures at top of screen says 110kts. This is at 3000ft straight and level. Not an icing issue but a lying ASI . So a good reminder to cross check the ASI with the shift Z red writing along the top of screen in all aircraft. These are comparable with the default Maule in FSX and the Cessnas in both sims. Remember a good freeware Maule is available for FS9. A weekend spent testing and getting some numbers on these (and others when i find them-I know they are hiding somewhere on discs or in folders between reinstallations of FS since 2004) will give us some idea of what will be an embarrassment to show up for the BPRL in!
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Mar 8, 2013 14:56:09 GMT -5
The 150HP one indicates 128Kts on the ASI but the shift Z figures at top of screen says 110kts. This is at 3000ft straight and level. Not an icing issue but a lying ASI . So a good reminder to cross check the ASI with the shift Z red writing along the top of screen in all aircraft. Check whether that ASI isn't indicating 128 MPH
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Mar 8, 2013 20:50:58 GMT -5
Thanks, guys... this is great conversation so far. I think the best points so far were the "walk before you run", and the "Keep it simple and fun" comments.
So far, we're just about a dozen guys who registered in the forums and 3 (other than myself) participating in the discussion. Whether this will be a "hit" or not is still yet to be seen.
My biggest concern when making the rules was the fact that I was getting some commercial sponsorship... real prize values tends to bring out the less ideal in some people.
Since we're just a couple of weeks away from what will be the first official race course, I'm thinking at this time that we just go with what we've got so far and see how things go. Another one of my attempts with the point values was to keep them low enough that people who join up later down the line aren't mathematically eliminated simply by virtue of not learning about the BPRL earlier.
|
|
prb
Private Pilot
Posts: 62
|
Post by prb on Mar 11, 2013 17:24:44 GMT -5
Make/Model: Piper Pacer/Tri-Pacer MSFS Version: FSX Payware Vendor: Lionheart Creations LTD. Download link or vendors site: www.lionheartcreations.com/Lionheart_FlightSimulations.htmlThis is a nice plane. Probably not the fastest, especially after reading all about the 185... I would vote for not banning the 185 just because it's the fastest. If we do that, then the next fastest plane will now be the fastest, and we're right back where we started. I sort of like the idea of classes. Dang, I might have to fly the DHC-6 if we did that... - Paul
|
|
prb
Private Pilot
Posts: 62
|
Post by prb on Mar 11, 2013 17:51:46 GMT -5
Make/Model: Helio H-295 Super Courier MSFS Version: FS9 Freeware Vendor: Tim ("Piglet") Conrad Download link or vendors site: www.flightsim.com/vbfs/fslib.php?searchid=7477082This is an awesome aircraft for bush flying in FS9. It's a bit tricky to land, and bounces easily. But once you figure it out (it lands slooooow) it'll get into any airport! - Paul
|
|
|
Post by mtn2035 on Mar 11, 2013 23:27:25 GMT -5
|
|