Autopilot & FSTramp

[fender130173 1]

Does anyone know how to get the auto pilot to work with FSTramp in P3D v4?

[dhazelgrove 42]

Have you asked over at FSTramp?

 

I'm sure you're aware that nothing 32-bit will work in P3Dv4, though.

I don't know how the autopilot is coded, but if 32-bit gauges, DLLs or libraries are used you'll have to request an update.

 

Dave

 

[wingman5 149]

    It looks like you might be acting as a pioneer here !

 The autopilot is not C++ coded so there is no problem there ( the only C++ gauge on the lightnings are the fuel transfer and the standard Aerosoft sound gauge)

  The Autopilot on the Lightning was non programmable though and that is how it is depicted in this model . However Henk Schuitemaker testing in FSX found if he added the popup garmin

 he could program that with way points and get that to operate the  FD (Filght Director)  to give the impressionof a  ground controller, you then have to follow the bead to your destination

Might be an idea to have a word with him.

  DR

 

 edit...

# I found the post with  Henks solution..  I'm sure something similar could be concocted in P3D and FSTramp.?

 

""--- To link it (the FD) to the FSX flightplan I guess you need to set the FSX autopilot to NAV hold (AUTOPILOT NAV1 LOCK) with GPS enabled (GPS DRIVES NAV1). Although not realistic in the case of the Lightning, this sounds like a nice feature.

I did a little test, using a generic AP popup to set NAV hold with GPS and it works. If you switch the HSI to TACAN mode, you get bearing/distance info for the next waypoint----:""

Please login to display this image.

[Eivin Stenso 17]

Very interesting and relevant project. As some of you might already know Norway has an airworthy 104 through the Friends of the Starfighter group. (www.starfighter.no)

 

To be able to operate in norwegian airspace again it had to go through an avionics update. Which you can see in this short video. Although Lightnings aren't allowed to fly, an avionics upgrade would perhaps also be relevant here. I would certainly like to have the possibility of GPS navigation etc. There is now glass behind the stick, instead of radar screen and weapons panel. And also there is glass on top of the panel giving modern capabilities

 

 

 

[wingman5 149]

 Sorry Eivin, no chance of an upgrade of avionics.  The whole point of this project has been to recreate the Lightning as it was,  not how it might have been . otherwise I could be giving it swing wings and sprouting all sorts of missiles !

 D 

 PS " F104" and "airworthy"  are not words I would normally associate with one another !

[Eivin Stenso 17]

Well. What do you expect with no wings.  Ok seriously: These were pioneering times. You have to take that under cosideration. Both the Lightning and the 104 was proven to be little dangerous. Each in it's own way. But you will certainly hear no pilot complain about them. You will most probably hear them go on and on how good they were and that there are very few aircraft still today that can keep up with them.  They were also proper "racecars" The pilots flew the h**l out of them. We got 104s in 1963 that took over for the hard turning F-86 and our accident rates was halfed compared to the F-84 and F-86's. This was probably due to the introduction of hydraulcis instead of control wires which snapped at low altitutes. Just 15 years earlier they were flying spitfires. Thats one gigantic leap. 

 

But back to the main point: With upgraded avinonics they would be able to operate in civilian airspace together with every other aircraft in the sky. That's why I like the possibility to have more advanced navigation like a GPS and a modern AP. I'm pretty curious though, what it would take for the Lightning on the avionics side to be able to operate if it were allowed back in the sky, like it should. I understand that you do not want to put that in but maybe there is a solution to integrate 3rd party-stuff?

 

E      

[dhazelgrove 42]

 

Please login to display this image.

 

4 hours ago, wingman5 said:

" F104" and "airworthy"  are not words I would normally associate with one another !

 

You may well have a point there.....

 

Dave

 

[dhazelgrove 42]

36 minutes ago, Eivin Stenso said:

Well. What do you expect with no wings.  Ok seriously: These were pioneering times. You have to take that under cosideration. Both the Lightning and the 104 was proven to be little dangerous. Each in it's own way. But you will certainly hear no pilot complain about them. You will most probably hear them go on and on how good they were and that there are very few aircraft still today that can keep up with them.  They were also proper "racecars" The pilots flew the h**l out of them. We got 104s in 1963 that took over for the hard turning F-86 and our accident rates was halfed compared to the F-84 and F-86's. This was probably due to the introduction of hydraulcis instead of control wires which snapped at low altitutes. Just 15 years earlier they were flying spitfires. Thats one gigantic leap. 

 

But back to the main point: With upgraded avinonics they would be able to operate in civilian airspace together with every other aircraft in the sky. That's why I like the possibility to have more advanced navigation like a GPS and a modern AP. I'm pretty curious though, what it would take for the Lightning on the avionics side to be able to operate if it were allowed back in the sky, like it should. I understand that you do not want to put that in but maybe there is a solution to integrate 3rd party-stuff?

 

E      

There is a way, and I know that the purists will hate it.....

 

.....just search for "minipanel" over at the AVSIM library - in the 'FSX' section....

 

Dave

 

[Eivin Stenso 17]

Wow. Thanks alot. I'll check that out. 

 

Purist or not. You won't have radar guidance in the sim. You need something to compensate for that. I was actaully trying to fly from RAF Lossimouth to Bodø, Norway the other day. And I found I couldn't navigate direct Bodø so I was forced to refuel at Ørlandet (ENOL) to be able to make it. 

 

Any reason in particullar that there is a German 104 on your screenshot? They really crashed alot of them early on.  Many landed on its back on the runway which suggest they tried to glide it in with landing flaps. (You can glide in, but in manouvering flaps position and +20kts app speed) Then you won't have boundary layer control and you will sink like a rock. That's why the 104 was considered dangerous. On the other side they were very mechanically reliable if treated with respect. They didn't just fall out of the sky. You had to mess it up, and the germans did that to a far greater extent than any other operating country.  And they still loved them   btw. Don't consider objective on this matter because I've been a die hard fanatic since I had it on a poster as a child

[dhazelgrove 42]

1 hour ago, Eivin Stenso said:

Any reason in particullar that there is a German 104 on your screenshot? They really crashed alot of them early on.  Many landed on its back on the runway which suggest they tried to glide it in with landing flaps. (You can glide in, but in manouvering flaps position and +20kts app speed) Then you won't have boundary layer control and you will sink like a rock. That's why the 104 was considered dangerous. On the other side they were very mechanically reliable if treated with respect. They didn't just fall out of the sky. You had to mess it up, and the germans did that to a far greater extent than any other operating country.  And they still loved them   btw. Don't consider objective on this matter because I've been a die hard fanatic since I had it on a poster as a child

No reason for a German-specific F-104. It's just the latest shot I have.

 

Dave

 

[Eivin Stenso 17]

Nice screenshot

 

Ehm. Just to confirm that I have the correct files. We are talking about Minipanel by Bill McClellan, right?

 

E

 

[wingman5 149]

1 hour ago, Eivin Stenso said:

I was actaully trying to fly from RAF Lossimouth to Bodø, Norway the other day. And I found I couldn't navigate direct Bodø . 

     What's wrong with taking a compass bearing off your flight map  and feeding that into the nav/AP ?   I

     You can add the default nav aids to any model as pop ups (as in Henks screen shot) or as a 2d panel.

      I think pilots are always in love with whatever they fly at the time  but few have ever flown the lightning and the F104 , Bee Beaumont who  flew the F104 when he was trialling it ( the UK gov considered buying it ) but declared it not fit for purpose.! and the Americans were not that impressed themselves as they only flew it for a few years before replacing it. At altitude the two were pretty much a match  but low and slow the Starfighter just couldn't turn it's wing loading was so high.

[Eivin Stenso 17]

2 minutes ago, wingman5 said:

     What's wrong with taking a compass bearing off your flight map  and feeding that into the nav/AP ?   I

     You can add the default nav aids to any model as pop ups (as in Henks screen shot) or as a 2d panel.

      I think pilots are always in love with whatever they fly at the time  but few have ever flown the lightning and the F104 , Bee Beaumont who  flew the F104 when he was trialling it ( the UK gov considered buying it ) but declared it not fit for purpose.! and the Americans were not that impressed themselves as they only flew it for a few years before replacing it. At altitude the two were pretty much a match  but low and slow the Starfighter just couldn't turn it's wing loading was so high.

 

Well I don't think its really a satisfactory way to navigate for such long flight in a very fuel crictical aircraft. I wouldn't even know how far I'm from where I'm going to until I'm in TACAN-range 

 

Like the Lightning, the 104 was designed to be a high altitude interceptor, not a fighterbomber. However you can actually turn quite well at slow speeds due to the takeoff flap position which should really be considered manouvering flaps. You can fly up to and even beyond 500kt with the flaps down, and should always use it below 300-350 knots. But I agree that not it's strong side. But don't forget that speed outranks manouverability and the 104 could do 750 kias and break the sound barrier at sea level, which btw resulted in Norways most famous low pass breaking all the windows at Bodø airport and many windows in town when the 334 sq wanted to hounor their fellow pilots at the 331-sq aniversery. 

 

The reason the americans didn't pay too much interest in the 104 is very simple. They didn't need high altitude interceptors. However Europe did. 

[wingman5 149]

4 hours ago, Eivin Stenso said:

...... I wouldn't even know how far I'm from where I'm going to until I'm in TACAN-range 

   Basic navigation ....bearing  + speed + time elapsed   will put you at X position (Ok there is no stopwatch in the T5... use a wristwatch ) and you should still have  N lbs fuel. if not go for your diversion.

  The pilots worked all this out pre flight and wrote the info on their kneepads.

 Tacan range is around 400 miles .. Bodo is what about 863 ? ...head out from Lossie using its Tacan beacon on reverse bearing and pick up Bodo when it comes in range ..

  863.miles is a long way though in a T5 !  but I cant for the life of me recall landing anywhere else to refuel. Do you have any other airfields with hangars cut into the mountain ?

 

[dhazelgrove 42]

That's what the offset TACAN is for.....

 

Dave

 

[wingman5 149]

1 hour ago, dhazelgrove said:

That's what the offset TACAN is for.....

 

Dave

 

  Hmm... not quite,  tacan beacons are often not at your destination so you work out the difference in distance and bearing on your map and feed that into the offset computer which compens the tacans visual readout  , so you fly straight to where you are wanting to go . But as I doubt the accuracy of the sims beacons and the required air maps are not  generally available , the offset comp is not functional.in the sim.

 I was simply postulating flying on  a bearing from Lossie  to Bodo , but if you have Lossies tacan punched in it will tell you ho far you have flown , so when it drops off the end at 400 miles punch in Bodos tacan and wait for it to come in range ! :0)

[dhazelgrove 42]

4 hours ago, wingman5 said:

  Hmm... not quite,  tacan beacons are often not at your destination so you work out the difference in distance and bearing on your map and feed that into the offset computer which compens the tacans visual readout  , so you fly straight to where you are wanting to go . But as I doubt the accuracy of the sims beacons and the required air maps are not  generally available , the offset comp is not functional.in the sim.

 I was simply postulating flying on  a bearing from Lossie  to Bodo , but if you have Lossies tacan punched in it will tell you ho far you have flown , so when it drops off the end at 400 miles punch in Bodos tacan and wait for it to come in range ! :0)

Agreed, that's the way to do it in-sim. I wouldn't try it in a tub, though. Even in an F6 I'd be looking for tanker support.

 

Dave

 

[wingman5 149]

7 hours ago, dhazelgrove said:

Agreed, that's the way to do it in-sim. I wouldn't try it in a tub, though. Even in an F6 I'd be looking for tanker support.

 

Dave

 

   Aye , Eivin was looking to try and recreate a flight I took , but I'm thinking I have ny memorys jumbled , I used to go climbing in Norway and we were flown out  a couple of times in Hercs  so that could be how I got to Bodo.

  I have been racking the old grey matter and I'm starting to think the tub trip was probably to Sola... which is a wee bit closer !

[Eivin Stenso 17]

 

5 hours ago, wingman5 said:

   Aye , Eivin was looking to try and recreate a flight I took , but I'm thinking I have ny memorys jumbled , I used to go climbing in Norway and we were flown out  a couple of times in Hercs  so that could be how I got to Bodo.

  I have been racking the old grey matter and I'm starting to think the tub trip was probably to Sola... which is a wee bit closer !

 

Yes Sola (ENZV) is quite a bit closer. I tried the flight to Bodø in the F6 (no ferry tanks) with the very nice looking fictional 1963-RNoAF-paint made by Cameron.  I just made it to Ørland with main fuel gauges pointing upwards. There was no way I could have made it any further. I had to land. But it was a fun flight still. 

 

E  

 

Please login to display this image.

 

[dhazelgrove 42]

On ‎13‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 10:37 PM, wingman5 said:

   Aye , Eivin was looking to try and recreate a flight I took , but I'm thinking I have ny memorys jumbled , I used to go climbing in Norway and we were flown out  a couple of times in Hercs  so that could be how I got to Bodo.

  I have been racking the old grey matter and I'm starting to think the tub trip was probably to Sola... which is a wee bit closer !

I might try the flight - but only in an F.2A. That should just-about manage it. Where can I get some good Norwegian scenery?

 

Dave