Simviation Forum - 51,000ft

Jul 26^th, 2004 at 7:38am

Ace_777 Offline
Colonel
England

Gender:
Posts: 740

Hello all

. I tried to take the LearJet to 51,000ft but I could only get upto 41,000 Sad

. It says in fs9 that the default Learjet can get upto 51,000ft and I was flying the default LearJet.

Anyway I can get upto 51,000?

Thanks all

Intel Pentium 2.93 Ghz &&ATI Radeon X300 SE 128MB &&512 Mb Ram &&7 USB Ports &&Intel High Definition Audio &&9 in 1 Card Reader &&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Jul 26^th, 2004 at 7:47am

raptor619 Offline
Colonel
i love fs 2k4

Posts: 34

i dont know much but if u try a slow climb whe u get up there like 100ft/min maby u would. also did u have the throttle set at 100% ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Jul 26^th, 2004 at 8:43am

garymbuska Offline
Colonel
I would rather be flying
Jacksonville, Florida

Gender:
Posts: 2850

What raptor has said is correct in order to reach that altitude you have to climb slowly on the order of 100 to 200 feet per min. Make the climb in 1,000 to 500 feet increments allowing the plane to regain any lost air speed before going to the next level. By doing this you should be able to make it. 8)

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Jul 26^th, 2004 at 9:13am

raptor619 Offline
Colonel
i love fs 2k4

Posts: 34

man im good and i dont even got the game lol. it works in cfs2 tho

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Jul 26^th, 2004 at 10:00am

RollerBall Ex Member

The default Lear runs out of grunt well below 50000. Even 48000 is above it's effective working ceiling and it begins to stall out much above that.

It starts off climbing well (2200 fpm easy) but by 35000 you're down to well under 1000fpm

As you can see, at approaching 49000 (on full throttle, not autothrottle) it can't even hold 0.5 mach and it's not climbing, it's going into stall mode.

But surely no-one ever thought that the FS FDEs are really accurate? If you want that at this sort of cost you need X-Plane I'm told, although must admit I only ever tried a fairly early version and didn't much like it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Jul 26^th, 2004 at 11:57am

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

I have X-plane (the latest version is 7.50, which wasreleased pretty recently)...and the actual flying is very different. Muchmore challenging, every litle bit of bump in the air is noticeable, it is not the same in FS2004, and here's why (I took the liberty to copy a forum post on x-plane.org)

"MSFS uses lookup tables and such to simulate the aircraft performance. Every Aircraft has to be completely programmed from scratch. They've been paying LOTS of attention to scenery, the sim looks great.

X-plane computes, many times a second, the complete physics model of the aircraft and airmass. It can model just about anything, from a flying paper clip to the White Knight and SpaceShip One.

MSFS = Pretty, flies "wrong," limited aircraft, easier for beginners
X-Plane = Not so Pretty, Flies "Right," unlimited aircraft, steep learning curve......
.....AFAIK, Only X-plane is certified by the FAA for logging hours toward a real-world flight qualification certificate. That's interesting to me."

And now when X-plane is capable of modelling full 3d matrices of air data, flying in turbulence is helluva challenge

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Jul 26^th, 2004 at 12:08pm

RollerBall Ex Member

Ahh there ya go. The version I tried was 5.53. Scenery etc was a bit basic to say the least and the number of aircraft very limited. I have to say that I'm not now doing any real life flying and the 'look' of the sim outweighs the 'authenticity' in importance for me. Maybe if I was a bit younger and hoping to fly for the first time I'd be looking for greater realism but that's the thing about this thing, we all look for, and get, different things out of it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Jul 26^th, 2004 at 1:26pm

Ace_777 Offline
Colonel
England

Gender:
Posts: 740

Thanks to all you guys that responded

. Special thanks to rollerball for the pics

Thanks again all, Ace

Intel Pentium 2.93 Ghz &&ATI Radeon X300 SE 128MB &&512 Mb Ram &&7 USB Ports &&Intel High Definition Audio &&9 in 1 Card Reader &&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Jul 26^th, 2004 at 7:16pm

4_Series_Scania Offline
Colonel
He who laughs last, thinks
slowest.
Stoke on Trent England U.K.

Gender:
Posts: 3638

Quote:

3.8GHz* Accelerated Hyper-Threading Intel®
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition CPU w/ 2MB L3 Cache
512K L2 Cache
950MHz** System Bus
PuRam™ No System Hard Drive Configurable
Up to 100 times faster than ATA/SCSI/FC
HD based designs with Data Burst Speeds up
to 8GB/s and I/O data requests at over
150.000 I/O sec.
Enhanced CacheFlow™ Technology
SuperBIOS™ IBPT Technology
180W Sub-zero Vapor Compression Cooling
PC4500 566MHz Dual-Channel Performance
DDR, up to 4GB
Up to 16GB Total RAM with optional RamDrives.
Over 8.5Gb/s Memory Bandwidth
ATA-133 RAID, Serial ATA-150 Connectivity
Up to 2 Terabytes memory
RADEON™ X800 GRAPHICS TECHNOLOGY
Ultra High-speed 12x DVD+/-RW Optical Drive

8)

Posting drivel here since Jan 31st, 2002. - That long!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Jul 27^th, 2004 at 4:08pm

Staiduk Offline
Colonel

Posts: 1040

Well; you can get up to 51,000; but it takes so blasted long there's not much point. 8)

Stll; read the post; had to see what I could get with the Lear. Here are my numbers:

Took about an hour and a half of slowly nursing speed to get 'er up there. The aircraft can no longer accellerate after approx. 53,500. I briefly considered dropping back to 51,000 and let the speed build up to see what I'd get; but I'd be at it until nightfall. Yecch!
Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: