+- FsPassengers Forums (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum)
+-- Forum: FsPassengers (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: FsPassengers General (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: PLEASE ADD: (/showthread.php?tid=837)
PLEASE ADD: - mmmprod - 22-08-2005
I know it is really hard to ask you to add something but please think about it you will see this is not a bad idea...
I had a problem with oil pressure on ground just after starting the engines but I did not know how to clearly and safely ends the flight in fspassenger without losing too much points.
I spent 30 minutes trying to look for a "declared technical problem flight delayed" button in the menu but it does not exist
Finally I pressed the end flight button and I was quite surprised to see that it was clearly noticed in my flight log "you ended flight due to problem (+500)"
It would be really realy really really really nice to add this "declared technical problem flight delayed" as well as " declared emergency"
It would add a little more realism in fspassenger
and why not giving you the opportunity to fix that problem and having the choice of:
-delaying but continuing the flight if the problem can be fixed quikcly
-cancelling the flight if the problem can fix quickly
Or if it is too much complicated a simple button "declared technical problem flight cancelled" would be really great
What do you think of it
Post Edited ( 08-22-05 01:48 )
Re: PLEASE ADD: - DanSteph - 22-08-2005
are you in instant record ?
the ONLY failure that request that you abort your take-off in FsP
is a two engine difference in N1 when you (are supposed to) test them
before take-off. this is taken in account in FsP and you WILL
get bonus if you "end flight" before take-off.
Else FsP don't set any failure before take.off and I recall you should disable
any other external failure (fs9 or add-ons) as FsP can't recognise them.
Hope it help ?
Dan
Post Edited ( 08-22-05 03:17 )
Re: PLEASE ADD: - JaWood - 22-08-2005
Well in that case, I think it's be great to also add maybe these two ground failures:
Oil temp becomes too high while on the ground before takeoff. If you end the flight before takeoff, you did the right thing. If you don't notice and
take off anyway, you most likely get an engine failure at some point during the flight.
Oil pressure becomes too low while on the ground. Same consequences.
Re: PLEASE ADD: - mmmprod - 22-08-2005
Yes I was in instant record
And I had this engine difference due to bad oil pression in one of the engines
Okay, I though there were much more failure in ground proposed by FsP that is why I asked you to add this call
But if you told that there is only one possible failure in ground it is not really important to add this special call
It would be perhaps great to add other type of ground failure and really hidden so you would be obliged to check everything first
Re: PLEASE ADD: - Ryanamur - 22-08-2005
Quote:mmmprod wrote:
I had a problem with oil pressure on ground just after starting the engines but I did not know how to clearly and safely ends the flight in
fspassenger without losing too much points.
I spent 30 minutes trying to look for a "declared technical problem flight delayed" button in the menu but it does not exist
Quote:Section 6B of the Manual:
Here is a description of some special failures:
• While running up the engines prior to take-off (as you are supposed to do), you notice that your engines have asymmetrical thrust
(90% N1 and 85% N1 for example). You must abort the flight immediately and click “end flight”. This is the ONLY case in FsPassengers
were you may end your flight without taking-off, you will gain bonus points if you end your flight because it is the correct procedure for
such a failure. If you take-off, your engine might flame out immediately after take-off, on route or on approach.
• If the instruments show an oil temperature increase, you might try reducing the power to see if this would solve the problem. Perhaps a
lower power setting will stop the rise in oil temperature. If this works, you may save your engine and continue your flight. In any case
however you must declare an emergency.
• You may have an asymmetrical gear failure. In this case, you might try a touchdown on the good gear to “shock” the stuck gear loose.
The co-pilot will warn when you lower the gear and he willadvise you that you may try some touchdowns to loosen the stuck gear. After
each attempt, the co-pilot will advise you of the status of your landing gear.
• There are some failures when the gear remains in the UP position. In this case, you must perform a belly landing. Approach as slowly
as possible and land as smoothly as possible. If you are successful, you and your passengers may walk away safe and sound.
• If a window blows out at high altitude you will hear a bang due to the decompression and hear the sound of wind rushing through the
cabin. You must immediately descend to a safe altitude (below 12'000 ft) before your passengers start losing consciousness because of
the lack of oxygen. The mini-display shows the level of danger which increases over time.
It's amazing what you'll find in the documentation
Your problem was not a problem in oil pressure, it was a problem in Thrust. Because the Thrust generated by both engine was different, you got a different reading on the pressure gauge.
Post Edited ( 08-22-05 12:29 )
Re: PLEASE ADD: - mmmprod - 22-08-2005
Re: PLEASE ADD: - SWAFO - 22-08-2005
Normally, we won't run the engines up any higher than 40% N1 as the initial test while on the runway prior to takeoff. If they both stabilize
at or around 40% (when the thrust levers are set to that range), we're good to continue the takeoff. I'd hope that the problem with N1
doesn't occur at 85-90% (as stated in the manual, and Phil's post above). This wouldn't be very realistic.
Re: PLEASE ADD: - Ryanamur - 22-08-2005
No, according to the doc, you should be able to spot it at N1=40%. However, if you don't, it will develop in assymetrical thrust where one
engine pushes more then the other (example #1 at 90% while #2 is only at 85%)
Phil
Re: PLEASE ADD: - SWAFO - 22-08-2005
Ok, that makes sense. I was just hoping that FSP didn't require a run up to 90% N1 as a test! Sometimes takeoff N1 isn't even that high!