I’m honestly curious - did you slam A2A for providing a representative panel in the Civilian Mustang, as opposed to the exact one from Moonbeam McSwine, which was the test aircraft?
4 Likes
I can only speak for myself, but I like the choice we get between the two cockpit layouts. I think it’s a better solution than copying Ace Makers cockpit. This way we get both ends of the spectrum, a T-33 that just left the factory and a highly modified modern glass cockpit variant and not just one specific aircraft. As I’ve linked twice before the layout is very close to N134EM. And like Alan writes it’s the same approach A2A used for their civilian Mustang. If you look into the cockpit of any Warbird flying today, you’ll have a hard time finding two identical ones.
I’m 100% satisfied with my purchase and I’m excited to see what’ll come next for the Premier Series.
4 Likes
Haha yeah Jester can become quite exhausting 
But I tend to lose him on the way…he doesn’t seem to like low level flying 
2 Likes
First item on my checklist is to inhibit his bailouts. It’s getting colder and I like having my canopy in place.
On the other hand… it would be quieter…!
2 Likes
Regarding the Starter Switch - be carefull to not set the switch one click to far into the stop position. To be safe try just to clcik down the guard, this should put the starter switch into the off position.
2 Likes
You know, there’s a dead-accurate classic panel in the plane. So you can have a realistic experience if you just ignore the glass panel. Don’t click the bolt that swaps panels and you can pretend the fiction’s not there! (Other than the lack of G forces or risk of death.)
On the engine response, perhaps @ElectronVolt714 can do an updated version of his flight model patch that only modifies the engine response time? The other changes aren’t really needed now that the 1.1 is out, but it would be nice to have a mod with just the engine changes for those wanting to try the “OG engine” experience.
3 Likes
Can Mach 1 be achieved using the T-33 software?
No, the T-33 is subsonic 
2 Likes
Not sure about running the fuselage tank in bypass - the 1951 POH notes that the bypass setting is for “emergency operating conditions.” (1-40)
Also maybe of interest - 1-42 describes the drop tanks operating under air pressure from the engine compressor, which might be consistent with the iniBuilds manual instruction to run the wing tanks at all times after engine start to maintain pressure in the system.
It’s hard to know how to interpret the POH instructions since they cover several forms of the Allison J-33, not the RR Nene, and includes details about operating early, “unmodified” versions of J-33-A-23 that were equipped with a gasoline starter. Those engines were started on the leading edge tanks, which contained gasoline, and then switched to kerosene from the wing tanks. (On shutdown, it was necessary to first switch back to the leading-edge tanks to purge kerosene out of the system).
About managing overflow in the sim version - I noticed on my last startup with full tanks that engine start consumed about 15% of the fuel in the fuselage tank, so it was possible to follow the manual instruction to turn the tip tanks on without losing any fuel through the vents.
Not sure if any of this is accurate to the sim - am just rummaging through references at this stage.
@JohnnyT5000 - continuing the discussion about the Nene, in this video, Ken Pacholski, then the owner of N133KK, describes his RR Nene as “more powerful, quite a lot more powerful” than the J-33. His comments are at 2;55. More evidence that you’re right about the current performance being accurate to Collyer’s aircraft (and most other modern ones).
Think it’s a tribute to the ambitions of the iniBuilds T-33 that we get to discuss these details.
4 Likes
Makes complete sense - though there are all those reports of the tip and wing tanks venting fuel in the real aircraft, I guess because the fuselage tank can’t accommodate the volume coming in.
It’d be nice if the workarounds (like an electric pump playing the role of a pressurization system) replicated real-world behavior - and if the system could be managed accordingly (like the fuel system on the PMDG DC-6). But agree that a sim-focused system is a big help. Haven’t tried yours yet, but I will.
I only could find hints on venting fuel under specific conditions at takeoff and climb but not in normal flight. Do you have maybe a link for me?
iniBuilds explain it in their very own video, including a little snippet with Gregory Colyer from Ace Makers who is an expert in the real thing:
1 Like
Maybe “modern” T-33’s are using an electric fuel pump instead of differential pressure, too? More reliable so the change was worth the extra fuel loss? Sounds silly, just wondering.
1 Like
That’s absolutely the most on-point thing I’ve read in this forum in a long time.
I’ve been simming long enough that I remember being impressed the first time I saw animated landing gear in a flight sim. Or a 3D cockpit.
It’s pretty amazing we’re getting into fuel system minutia at this point. MS and the Asobo team have done awesome stuff here, even if we can’t switch from gasoline to kerosene or flush tanks with air pressure. (yet)
Addendum: At no time during my T-34 and F-15 flights did I pay any attention to the fuel system, yet I somehow enjoyed the hell out of both. What did I miss? 
6 Likes
I absolutely agree. And this stuff doesnt even bother me much in the sim, if it isnt realistic. When I know how you would operate the fuel system in the real aircraft - thats enough for me. And this addon is a real good deal for its price. And with the recent patch the most concerning things for me, did get fixed (stall speeds). So I am happy with this one. All the discusion above that is just exactly that for me - a discussion.
Cheers
4 Likes
Yeah, and I appreciate the discussion! It’s interesting stuff for sure.
I think most of our remaining “concerns” are due to either the sim plane being a replica of a restored warbird with a Nene engine, or limitations of the FS platform.
It’d be cool to see a way to simulate the earlier engine as an option because that would add some fun challenge to watching your speed/power on approach, but hopefully that can be done as an Community add-on if IniBuilds determines that the current response rate is accurate for the plane they’re simulating.
3 Likes
Exactly, all these planes, they are what they are. The more realistic we can make them, the better, and it’s awesome, given I’m a problem solving kind of guy, I love to do what I can to make things better. But I still have a blast tooling around and checking out the planes just as they are.
1 Like
Probably that the fuel system in those aircraft was designed for ease of use and made logical sense.
As the National Air & Space Museum explains, the T-33 fuel system was a kludge. To fit the instructor seat, even after lengthening the fuselage they had to reduce the size of the fuselage tank - which led to the requirement for tip tanks, the small fuselage tank, and a feed system trying to cope with something it hadn’t been designed for.
With the end result that we’re all entertained… 
2 Likes
It’s been fun to research, that’s for sure. Couldn’t find any definitive info on whether the J33-A-35 fitted to later T-33s spooled up faster than the original J33-A-23, but the spool-up limitations were in large part due to the designs being centrifugal-flow turbojets, so likely not. The A-35 engine had 5,400 lbs of thrust compared to 4,600 in the A-23, and early T-33s were retrofitted with the better engine.
So that would explain better overall power than anything one reads about early test flights.
1 Like
Think @JohnnyT5000 's main point, though, was that many (most?) modern T-33’s are really Canadair T-133’s with Rolls Royce Nene engines, which would be more powerful still (and seem to spool fast). If iniBuilds used Ace Maker III as a model, then that seems to be what we’re working with.
Meanwhile, in this thread on the iniBuilds forum, Dudley Henriques raised some questions about fuel flow and venting based on his own experience. iniBuilds replied…
Hi DH,
16 hours ago, Dudley Henriques said:
Assuming a full fuselage tank when starting, did you code to reflect the fuel burn rate even at idle to overcome the fuel transfer rate from the tips so that no overflow will occur out from the Sabre drain?
Thanks for your question. The answer to this is Yes. The fuel won’t vent simply when the FUSE tank is full. There is an additional condition that ALL the tanks are also turned ON at the same time for fuel venting to occur.
The whole thread is worth reading - lots of good insight there. But that’s new news about fuel management - one additional tank at a time isn’t a problem, it’s only when you select all on or throw the gang bar with the fuselage tank already full that the venting starts.
More to experiment with tomorrow.
3 Likes