Learning As I Go (b)

[r601020]

Working gear, says "Engine RPM %"

Thinking it a trim, I tested it at 75%, 65%, and then 50%, but didn't see any effect on engine performance while in flight. What is this gear's correct title? When is it used? How would I measure it working?

[r601020]

Landing in Cordoba, Argentina:
https://youtu.be/ZlItX-H8g_w







Having been bounced around by winds along the coast, went inland via Bolivia to the eastern side of the Andes Mountains, and then continued south into Argentina. Winds will get worse as I head south due to an offshore system, and where I normally fly at 30,000ft, keeping the flights at 20,000ft, I'll use (as much as possible), the vortex created by the Andes to act as a buffer.

Still experimenting with gyro drift, adjusting anywhere between +7 to +12 degrees to find a true course. For example, if the compass was set at 150 degrees, gyro +10 then would be at 160 degrees. I would fly by gyro at 150 degrees, and it would be more accurate (instead of drifting off-course to the left). I'm guessing, there's a naval calculation based on my coordinates for a proper setting. Since I am generally only flying south at present, I've wondered if the opposite is also true in the northern hemisphere.

Active Sky Next, corrects some problems in FSX Steam regarding cloud base height. Unfortunately, there's a problem where it completely fogs the cockpit (not haze, but whiteout) approaching landings regardless that vent is 100% and pilot heat on, and to compensate, I can either a) open the cockpit and circle, waiting for it to defog, or b) extend the distance of what I normally use for a landing approach (in other words, don't just drop out of the sky and land).

[gulredrel]

That lever in the b-modell controls engine RPM but you must have the Rotol constant speed propeller installed. Check maintenance hangar, if the 2-blade fixed-pitch prop is installed, nothing changes with the lever.

[r601020]

That lever in the b-modell controls engine RPM but you must have the Rotol constant speed propeller installed. Check maintenance hangar, if the 2-blade fixed-pitch prop is installed, nothing changes with the lever.

Bought the plane and changed the propeller; have never flown it.

That is a different animal, wow! Almost blew the plane up on takeoff because the RPM was set at 0% (yikes), and that might explain another thread of a fellow overheating the Spitfire and didn't know what he did. Landing with it is a little different too.

That said, for a first attempt, mucking around at cruise altitude with the RPM gear (trim) and throttle, was able to cut fuel consumption almost in half, had a slightly increased cruise speed, and it is somewhat of a smoother flight.

Thanks for the response.

[gulredrel]

The differences between the modells are explained in the Spitfire Pilot's Manual inside A2A folder. There you'll find also the checklists which tell directly point out the modell differences for prop and power handling.

You can try the different props and see which impact they have on takeoff performance. Scott explained this also in his prop physics video.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psYL7thQj6M[/youtube]


Is there a typo in your report above? 200.000ft would be great but deadly without pressure suit

[r601020]

Is there a typo in your report above? 200.000ft would be great but deadly without pressure suit

I do my best to log flights to improve upon them, what worked, what didn't, but there are miscalculations or typos (sorry).

Thought I was misreading the first flight, but the second flight with the 3 prop confirms, considerably better mileage (fuel consumption) with the RPM trim usage. At best, I was only about 2 gallons under the estimate with the 2 prop.



Considering, I almost blew up the plane on takeoff with the first attempt, and then took out one landing gear (oops) trying to put it down, there's lots of to do's for me to practice using the 3 prop. Second takeoff and landing was a little better, or at least no damage to the airplane.

Thanks for the links.

[n421nj]

Just practice and practice. The mk2 with the constant speed prop works just like any other constant speed aircraft. If you can operate the c182 you can operate the spitfire mk2

[Piper_EEWL]

Just practice and practice. The mk2 with the constant speed prop works just like any other constant speed aircraft. If you can operate the c182 you can operate the spitfire mk2

Except for the engine overheating issues maybe

[r601020]

Just practice and practice. The mk2 with the constant speed prop works just like any other constant speed aircraft. If you can operate the c182 you can operate the spitfire mk2

Does it come with ammunition? Spitfire has this effective communication tool available, especially relevant to the tower, that this plane does not taxi except to get on or off the runway. And when a plane cuts me off on approach and the tower tells me to circle? It's a non-issue.

Have never flown the 182, will look into it.

At present:
https://youtu.be/AJ5lakSaVSs

With the 3 prop (constant speed propeller), I've noticed, if the wind is a particular direction on the plane (to be discerned), it's a real fight for a heading, and it's easier to go a little off-course to the left or right, but at least be able to fly a straight line.

Currently south of Buenos Aires, and the wind is so strong from the Pacific it's blowing me out to sea into the Atlantic. Had to learn a new technique, flying diagonally, to fly a straight line.

[r601020]

There is possible, and there is probable.



Was actually able to make the crossing from the southernmost part of South America, to land at the dirt airfield on the islands of Antarctica, where, of course, the tower wanted me "downwind", at the far end of the runway, just to make me a better pilot, while additionally, wanting communication while I'm struggling to land this bird on fumes and eventual engine cut-out.

Now eight thousand, three hundred, and sixty-nine plus two-tenths nautical miles from Yeager Airport (KCRW) in Charleston, West Virginia USA to the dirt airfield on this island of Antarctica (SCRM), I would likely, not be able to make the crossing back to mainland South America because of wind currents, or even be within the sight of land when I crashed after fuel depletion.

As it was often warmer here than in the last winter of West Virginia, I have only little for complaint.

Notes
Takeoff from South America was with the barest minimum of thrust, and for the most part, flew at the following:


Where top fuel tank depleted:


At roughly 2 gallons in the bottom tank, approximately 25 miles from landing (radio contact), lowered throttle to 25%, RPM trim to 25%, raising elevator trim from -5, to positive, or enough to fly at 3,000ft.


End of Mission.

[r601020]

https://youtu.be/zg1VYMaDpNA

[robert41]

Very cool flight Richard. Looks like your going to have to ship the Spit back.

[Paughco]

Very cool is right! Thank you for sharing that flight! Looks like you are getting some excellent use out of that Spitfire.

Seeya
ATB

[r601020]

Thanks.

To do: Learn calculation for setting gyro drift.

Knowing roughly, with the constant speed propeller (3 prop) there's an approximate 500 nautical mile fuel limitation on the Spitfire (until the invention of drop tanks or air carriers), it does make the passage from North America to Europe via Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Scotland, etc., a possible.



Will come visit you

Presently herding penguins and collecting driftwood as a means of returning the Spitfire to mainland South America.

[n421nj]

Yeah the one issue with the spitfire is overheating while on the ground. Best bet is to spawn in a parking spot closest to the active runway and keep taxi time to below 5 min on hot days.