Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Power shortage on DC-8

  1. Default

    Looking at your [WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE] the max_gross_weight=355000.000000 is correct for this aircraft & the actual max take-off weight is 355,000 lbs for the DC 8-63F.

  2. Default

    Need some expert help
    WELL ... one won´t get better/more expert advice than per what Ive to contribute as follows .... since I (personally) oversaw HJG´s DC-8 development/redevelopment and wrote the FS manual for these simulations .... aided by my long time association with DC-8´s during the late 70´s through early 90´s

    All of my DC-8's in the HJG series are over weight before takeoff
    As has been stated here .... and at HJG too .... many times since 2006 .... such overweight observations are correct and should not be interpreted as any anomally (or anything else either) .... ánd that´s in regard to not only the HJG DC-8´s, but, all other HJG aircraft simulations too.

    HJG compiles its FDE´s based on 100% payload and maximum 100% fuel load for each aircraft type .... as defined from FAA an manufactuer specifications (bare-in-mind that among DC-8´s of the same aircraft rype version some airframes were actually fuel and payload customised for the requirements of particular opertors so HJG offer one only/a common specification only for each DC-8 aircraft type version). The combination of these maximums result in nominal .... if not substantial .... overloads and which, again, are intentional/correct and perfectly normal too.

    Such W&B complation preferences are in the best interests of "flight planning" .... to the extent that if one wishes to prioritze range then one "can" and by needing to reduce the payload .... and if one wishes to prioritize payload then then one "can also" and by needing to reduce the fuel loading .... each respectively and in accordasnce with the requirements of their intended FS flights.

    This W&B methodology/preferencing promotes getting the very best out of each simulation rather than restricting the endurances of such to just a common loading .... end users can therfore plan as required.

    HJG´s forum based manuals, for by far the majoroity of its simulations, provide basic flying guides for each aircraft type version (see as linked below for the HJG DC-8´s) .... since no 2 aircraft type versions are ever precisely the same .... and within which the fuel burn at cruising altitude (for a given IAS airspeed/MACH velocity at an initial cruising altitude .... usually FL310) is also clearly stated .... and from which the end user "can easily" then plan their fuel loading for each flight whilst also ensuring arrival at one´s destimnation below MLW .... and with sufficient reserves remaining too (to enable diversion if necessary) .... and also without risking everything suddenly running quiet on one (fuel starvation) prior to arrival.

    Such flight planning "IS NOT" at all complex .... or difficult .... and HJG do go to great lengths to assist/advise in regard to these and other matters concerning all of its simulations.

    It "is not necessary" .... and "nor is it adviseable either" .... to change any of the stated FDE related data within any HJG supplied simulation. Doing so can, and most probably will, result in difficulties/problems .... of the type that are otherwise completely avoidable "if people use these simulations as recommendes/as they´re intended to be used"

    "F16 JOCKEY 2´s" advise (below) in regard to some of the above matters is "ABSOLUTELY SPOT-ON"

    Dc8 planes should rotate at around 140kts
    It all depends on their weight/loading .... but .... VR can be as high as 155 depending on the DC-8 version and its weight.

    there should be no performance difference between liveries
    The different DC-8 versions/series "DO" all perform slightly differently .... and are compiled to perform as such. A combination of drag related parameters (mostly) and engine thrust define performances of each of early/pre -50 DC-8 versions .... as should be the case .... but .... in so far as the liveries are concerned "for each individual DC-8 versions/series" there are no performances differences at all.

    I have a bit of a power shortage on one of my dc-8's, the aircraft doesn't accelerate down the runway fast enough for takeoff
    Depending on the DC-8 version you´re using (again these do all differ in regard to thrir weight .... and in regard their engine thrust too) .... T/O performances will vary considerably .... and also be additionally impaired by the effect of geographic/airport altitude environments too and which is "reasonably" well replicated by FS.

    For all of the early DC-8´s .... -10/-11/-12 through -40 .... "MAX POWER" should be used for any T/O (the simulated water/methanol injection used for DC-8-10/-11/-12 only) .... or as "bugged" per thir engine gauges if using the HJG DC-8 panels.

    For all of the later DC-8´s .... -50 through -73 .... power should be set onlt as "bugged" .... if using the HJG DC-8 panels.

    If not using the HJG DC-8 panels with the HJG DC-8 simulations then the power (and performance) indications per alternative panels may be "out of spec".

    PLEASE NOTE: It needs to be understaood that all HJG simulations are intended to be used with "HJG supplied panels" (and sounds). There´s a strong inter-relationship between FDE, panels, and sounds in regard to "all HJG simulations". Alternative panels have been known to result in various performance issues/discrepancies.

    "For all of the DC-8´s" FLAP 15 should be considered a standard T/O flap setting .... and about 2 or 3 degrees of ELEVATOR TRIM should also be applied prior to T/O also. Theres no green band on the DC-8 TRIM WHEEL .... in fact whilst a few aircraft did featured this it wasn´t stándard and was actually a rarety on most DC-8´s in the R/W.

    The default weight needs to be manually reset/adjusted to ensure no T/O is ever attempted at in excess of MGTOW .... and if such adjustments are planned correctly then no landing should ever be result with in excess of 20% total fuel remaining either or with the simulation being in excess of its MLW.

    It also needs to be understood too that DC-8´s were among "the most field (length) demanding" of all first generation 4-engine US jetliners .... DC-8´s "ARE NOT" short field capable aircraft .... unless operating almost empty.

    Each of the above basic factors are "critical" .... and if attended to correctly then no issues/problems should ever result .... short of "PILOT ERROR" !!!!

    All of what´s been discussed here-in is stated within tutorial featured within HJG´s following forum based DC-8 manual ....


    PLEASE NOTE: All imagery within the above HJG DC-8 manual is (once again) being adversely impacted by PHOTOBUCKET (images blurred and/or missing). Whilst easily recoverable there´s nothing I can do about remedying this at the moment. I´m overseas and away from my resources for quite a while yet (this all jhappened after my departure) .... so .... no image recvovery can possibly be effected by me before sometime during early next year/2020 .... sorry

    FINALLY .... the 2 B737-800 panel images (and their CP quadrants) posted below bear little/no resemblance whatsoever to the DC-8 panel and CP .... although the reason for these being posted, in attempt to demonstrate a particular detail, "is" understood/apreciated


  3. #13


    Well as always great and helpful info.
    I'm aware of how to trim the 737 but, not with the DC-8 panels. So i guess whats being said in response to my thread is..Don't change the payload or fuel load on the aircraft even though, it says the aircraft is overweight at takeoff.

    Thanks again!

  4. #14


    Quote Originally Posted by flightquarters View Post
    So i guess whats being said in response to my thread is..Don't change the payload or fuel load on the aircraft even though, it says the aircraft is overweight at takeoff
    and bye.


  5. Default

    So i guess whats being said in response to my thread is..Don't change the payload or fuel load on the aircraft even though, it says the aircraft is overweight at takeoff
    "NO" ....

    Myself .... and "F16 JOCKEY 2" .... have covered this for you (and quite extensively too) explaining both why default O/W indications are the case (and which "are not" incorrect and "are quite normal" for all the technical reasons stated within my own reply) and how to address this.

    What I´ve advised you do do is as follows ....

    Use the FS FUEL & PAYLOAD schematic to adjust/reduce the default fuel loading, or payload, or both .... so the simulation is then set at/near, or below, MGTOW.

    MRW .... prior to taxiing and T/O .... can be up to 1000 LBS above MTOW and this sort of excess will normally be burned off during engine startup and taxi out to the RWY.

    The HJG DC-8´s can be flown with the default MAX PAYLOAD (no adjustments necessary) .... but .... to avoid the O/W imposition the default FUEL (only) loading "must" be manually reduced .... at the very least.

    Kindly refer to the following sections of HJG´s forum based online DC-8 manual .... linked within my last reply ....

    SECTION 4.00: DC-8 PANELS TUTORIAL - Taxiing, T/O, Climb, Descent, Landing - BASIC OPERATION.


    "SECTION 4" is a tutorial in regard to how to best fly the HJG DC-8´s

    "SECTION 5" is a tutorial in regard how best to fly the DC-8´s .... with maximum payload and with "fuel only adjustment7s" to ensure each simulation is set at, or near, its MGTOW .... prior to T/O.

    At the very least .... these 2 sections of the HJG DC-8 manual are "ESSENTIAL READING".

    PLEASE NOTE: HJG simulations are intended for use by those whom appreciate, or otherwise seek, a greater degree of operational/technical fidelity .... HJG´s simulations can´t be flown "properly" without studying the compiled reference material.

    I'm aware of how to trim the 737 but, not with the DC-8 panels
    Standard FS keyboard (or controller assigned) TRIM commands .... and which apply to all trim featured FS aircraft ....

    As stated within the HJG supplied DC-8 manual ....

    - The Elevator Trim scale and indicator tab are located vertically within the extreme left side of the Center Pedestal sub panel. The white Elevator Trim indicator tab can be adjusted/set using keyboard commands ("END" = trim up .... "HOME" = trim down) or controller device assigned buttons in order to set a Trim value on the ground or adjust Trim setting inflight during manual flight control. A Trim warning alarm will be auto-triggered in response to each increment of manual Trim adjustment. During AP controlled flight Trim setting is influenced in response to manual adjustment/s using the AP Vert Speed thumbwheel. The Trim warning alarm will not be triggered in response to adjustments during AP controlled flight.

    "KEYBOARD INDUCED" induced manual trim responses are noted to work best .... with most FS aircraft.

    "CONTROLLER DEVICE" assigned/induced manual trim responses have been noted to result in abrupt/aggressive adjustments .... with some (but not all) FS aircraft.

    I can´t really advise you better .... short of your own now studying the previously linked HJG suppled DC-8 manual

    Last edited by aerofoto; 10-17-2019 at 09:39 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    South Florida


    [QUOTE=flightquarters;2092580]Ok here is a snapshot of the weight and balance menu.


    Here's my [WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE] on my HJG Douglas DC-8 Super 71 v5.4:


    In the aircraft.cfg, I lowered fuel levels to 65%
    I threw 20% of the passengers and baggage off the plane.

    aircraft.cfg was missing the following entry:

    In the aircraft.cfg, check:
    autothrottle_arming_required=1 original .cfg setting was set to "0"

    I pull the yoke back at around 155-160 KIAS
    Flaps 16*
    I use a Philippe Wallaert panel, as the HJG only offered a Boeing 747 panel.

    My aircraft flies like a champ, and your Title of "POWER SHORTAGE ON DC-8" is incorrect. It has the power it needs, but it just took a little tweeking to get it to cooperate the way it should!

    On your FSX selection page, if you click Fuel & Payload, and you get the message that the aircraft is overweight, then it IS overweight, and that usually means you need to do some tweeking! If you choose to leave your fuel levels at HJG's original settings and the PAX levels to HJG's original settings, then you will continue to have takeoff performance issues with this aircraft.

    Sad to say, I never considered downloading this 36 year old jetliner until you posted the problems you are currently having! All this time I was missing out on a superb aircraft which is not only a pleasure to fly, but also is pleasing to look at! I wish you well. Keep pecking at it and you will get it to fly like you want it to!

    Last edited by Downwind66; 10-18-2019 at 01:22 AM.

  7. Default

    Hi flightquarters

    Quote Originally Posted by flightquarters View Post
    Well as always great and helpful info.
    I'm aware of how to trim the 737 but, not with the DC-8 panels. So i guess whats being said in response to my thread is..Don't change the payload or fuel load on the aircraft even though, it says the aircraft is overweight at takeoff.

    That's not what has been suggested at all, infact both Wim & aerofoto advise reducing Fuel & payload (PAX/Freight) from the FSX menu Fuel and Payload, and do not advise making alterations to the Aircraft.cfg, each model/Series has different performance characteristics as do the HJG 2D panel offered for each series in the DC-8 family of aircraft.

    aerofoto has given specific information for HJG DC-8 performance Load and fuel limits MTOW & MLW values in his earlier post. It would serve you well to read through it, I know its a lot of info to digest but it will help you setup/configure and fly the aircraft more realistically.


    Perhaps visit the HistoricJetlinerGroup HJG homepage
    if you want a HJG DC-8 2D panel or sound set specific to your engine & Aircraft series. Make sure you download the FSX version pertinent to your Model/series DC-8. Including core files for the Panel /gauges, used in all series DC-8.

    The Base pack & Aero Mexico HJG DC-8-63Fv5.4 I installed and tested for this thread had a Aircraft.cfg for FS2004 & an Aircraft.cfg for FSX, I used the FSX one renamed to Aircraft.cfg for use. And added the texture [fltsim.xx] as fltsim.0 for the aeromexico external texture to the top of that .cfg just above the [General] section, and the (texture.aeromexico_1973_63cf_n4856t) folder including a new Thumbnail.jpg for the aircraft selection screen.
    I must admit the first takeoff on a very long runway at MXXX was a complete failure, but the aircraft was overweight both on Fuel/PAX/Freight, not to mention the location and season were not favourable/ideal for a fully loaded if not overweight aircraft.
    On my second takeoff attempt I reduced via the FSX Menu, per aerofoto,Wim,& jonhost, Fuel 50% in all tanks and PAX to jockeyweight 140kg, offloaded the Freight to 0, rudimentary Flaps setting to 15 trimmed up slightly above 0, revved up those 4 engines under P/Brake, released for roll at 90% thrust, takeoff roll was slow at first but began to increase speed mid RW length, Vr was possible @ 140kts though I still had plenty of runway to spare, continued on till 150kts then rotated positive rate/climb then gearup. I must say she's not a speedbird but she does fly well and look magnificent, well done HJG devs, and aerofoto.

    If you are using the 737 panel for 2 engine B737 that is in the BasePack download you won't have any indication of your engine performance or thrust setting across 4 engines, possibly also conflicting with HJG's 2D series specific Panel and engine management intention in the FDE.

    DC-8 model/series ShipOne,10,20,30,40,50,61,62,63,71,72,73 Pratt&Witney JT3D &-3B, TurboFan, FanJet, TurboJet, & Ducted Fan-FanJet for -62/63 (SoundPacks).

    As a new user of the HJG series DC-8 63F, I have not installed any other HJG models yet. I have nothing more to add, I am still learning how to manage and fly this bird effectively, but now I have mastered takeoff @ 140-150kts its time to lay out the foam/fire retardant while I learn safe smooth landing.

    All the best Jethro

  8. Default

    Correction above
    b747_400\Panel is the aliased Panel in BasePack not the B737_800. 737_400\Sound is the aliased Sound.cfg in the base pack, change to 737_800 for FSX although for 2 Engine 737.
    Better with the HJG soundset aliased cfg and HJG 2D Panel. imho

  9. Default

    I don´t want to prolong this thread more than may be considered absolutely necessary in order to .... (a) correct some of the errouneous advice that been offered so far .... and (b) to also try´n assist the original poster understand what he should be doing/how certain things "need to be done" also .... otherwise we´re at risk of simply going around in circles or possibly starting WW3 .... but .... I do need to correct , and advise (if not stress), as follows ....


    aircraft.cfg was missing the following entry:
    This data "is not" missing .... it´s stated within the AIR.FILE .... as is the case with some other prameters too that are often represented within CFG infomation. There´s a number of ways in which to compile FDE data .... and this´s one of them/the other options.

    In the aircraft.cfg, check:
    autothrottle_arming_required=1 original .cfg setting was set to "0"
    By far the greater majority of DC-8 "were not" AT equipped and the time of their construction prior to 1972 .... therefore no AT is represented aming any of HJG´s DC-8´s panels/simulations .... and no speed hold function is implementerd into the HJG FDE or panel/gauge programing for any of these simulations anyway either.

    Power must be set "manually" .... and airspeed performance then constantly monitored .... with power being eqully constantly adjusted, as required, in order to maintain performance .... particular during cruise and subject to the impact of progressive fuel burn off. That´s the way the DC-8 worked .... and was typically flown. The DC-8 should therefore be regarded as "a hands-on" aeroplane and "not" an automatic one" ... so .... one must stay ahead of it at all times.

    An AP IAS HLD MODE is featured wthin the HJG DC-8 panels, but, should be used (if at all .... I seldom do ever use it) during climb and descent only. This particular AP mode "is not/should not" be regard as an AT feature .... since it´s an AP CLIMB/Descent MODE only.

    DOUGLAS "did" actually implement an early form of AT system into some DC-8 SUPER 60 SERIES aircraft, but, it was found to "not" function reliably in some operational coditions .... and virtually every operator throughgout the 1960´s, 70´s, and 80´s avoided using it for this reason.


    In the aircraft.cfg, I lowered fuel levels to 65%
    I assume he´s referring to the actual AIRCRAFT.CFG file here .... and not the FUEL & PAYLOAD schematic within MSFS.

    At the end of the day people can do "whatever they wish" in regard to configuring/reconfiguring their HJG FDE´s .... but .... as stated previously, by me, within this thead (and indeed many times previously over past years and on both this, the HJG, and other FS forums too .... the FDE, as supplied by HJG, "should not ever be edited" .... since doing so "WILL" lead to otherwise unecessary and then self-imposed problems .... particularly in regard to people whom try to implement recommendations, but, whom are less aviation or FS savvy and only end up making a mess of things .... "and which is precisely what HJG strive to try´n avoid happening" .... hence its advice that´s occasionall contradictory to non-official recommnendations in regard to HJG simulations. Any number of other FS designers have are of similar opinion in regard to these matters too and not just HJG.

    In any case and in the event that people do modify their HJG supplied FDE´s anyway .... THEN .... they need to be aware that in the event of issues HJG "will not" be able to provide support. PLEASE NOTE: HJG can only support what it offers that´s been proven to function well prior to public release.

    HJG do also update/improve some of its releases .... as it see´s or is otherwise deemed fit for it to do so .... and such updates are generally announced per forum NOTAMS or per its website updates.


    I never considered downloading this 36 year old jetliner until you posted the problems you are currently having
    Excluding the early-to-mid 1980´s SUPER 70 SERIES upgrades .... the DC-8 is actually a 50-60 year old jetliner "in so far as it´s technology is concerned" .... but .... that´s neither here nor there in regard to this particular thread.


    HJG only offered a Boeing 747 panel.
    "NO" .... that´s not correct at all

    The default PANEL.CFG and SOUND.CFG files supplied within each HJG DC-8 aicraft base pack are aliassed to the MSFS B747-400 and B737-400 panel anbd sounds respectivel .... BUT .... HJG does, abnd always has, offereed its own customized 2D panels and HQ sound packs "for each DC-8 version.

    The panels are FS2004 compatible and FSX portable.

    The sound packs are available as separate FS2004 and FSX versions .... be sure to apply the correct FS sound pack version to one´s FS version of choice.

    IN SUMMARY ....

    The best advice that´s been offered within this thread so far (beyond what I´ve been endorsing all along if not previously too and as the person whom has overseen HJG ´s DC-8 development/s) is that first provided by "F16 KJOCKEY 2" and more recently by "JETHROM" too .... both of which is consistent with what HJG advises and thats ´been proven to work or otherwise be a good procedure/result in good FS performance. .... despite certain FS imposed limiurtations.

    Again .... and as stated within my own very first reply below .... the default "MAX" payload and fuel configurations provided by HJG within all of its DC-8 simulations (and all of its other simulations too) and which result in the "apparently" excessive overages "are correct".

    Once again .... HJG provides 100% fuel and payload capacity in the interest of folks whom like/desire to be able to flightplan .... and which can be achieved with a "reasonable" degree of fidelity. It therefore needs to be stated also that HJG has always designed for/catered for a primarily different/more advanced level of FS enthusiast.

    The simple solution to FLIGHTQUARTERS issues are ....

    - Reduce the fuel or payload using the MSFS FUEL & PALOASD schematic.

    - Preferrably flight plan .... it´s not complex or difficult (per a formula HJG advise) and which it is prepared to assist people undertanidig and hopefully implementing. No simulation .... or even R/W aircraft either .... is going to T/O, climb, cruise, descend, or land properly "if flown with both maximum payloads and fuel capacities. Yet again I stress .... flight planning (normally per payload and/or fuel adjustment/s) is "ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL" in regard to "all HJG simulations". That´s the way HJG designs.

    - Set T/O FLAPS and ELEVATOR TRIM correctly prior to departure .... as recommended within the HJG flying guides.

    - "READ THE MANUAL" .... particularly those sections of it which have been recommended within my last posting .... since virtually everything that "must be understood and implemented" is actually covered within this particular reference data.

    I don´t think I can possibly offer better or even additional advice .... short of repeating myself and which I want to avoid doing.

    Per my next statement I mean no offence to any of the FS.COM team .... whom have been good to HJG over many yerars and whom we rely upon too .... "BUT TECHNICALLY SPEAKING" .... technical support/advice for HJG simulations is best sought "on the HJG forum" where all of the expertise for these simulations is located.

    It´s as "a courtesy only" that HJG often "TRY" to assist in such external cases/postings as these .... but ... only when it becoms aware of such postings which can otherwise be easily missed. HJG does go out on a lin to try ´n ensure all users of its offering have an en enjoyanble FS experience usuing is products.

    In the past HJG have seen some wrong and/or otherwise very bad advice offered in regard to some of its simulations. It´s dificult for HJG to endeavour providing support over a number of extenal forums .... so once more .... technical assistance should always be sourced directly from the designers of "any particular simulation" .... or to put things more basically perhaps .... I don´t think an AIRBUS operator consults with BOEING in regard to any arising maintenance issue or even vice versa

    Last edited by aerofoto; 10-18-2019 at 11:10 AM. Reason: addtiional data

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    South Florida


    I sincerely hope that the OP will soon be able to fly the HJG download with the advice that you have given him! You're quick to point out my mis-information, but the bottom line is, I am flying my DC-8, the OP is not!

    Sorry if I "rubbed you or the OP wrong", but I judge changes by the results they correct/do not correct and I hope that this OP can soon enjoy a change whether it be yours, F16 or Jethro's! I'm done with this post, but, I anxiously will watch this post to see just what it takes in getting your aircraft to fly for the OP. Good day!


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The U.S. has a staggering pilot shortage
    By CRJ_simpilot in forum The Outer Marker
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-29-2017, 12:40 PM
  2. HDD shortage and solid state HDD's?
    By angels355 in forum PC Hardware, Video And Audio Help
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-27-2011, 08:03 PM
  3. NWA reports a shortage!
    By imported_steve_d in forum MSFS Screen Shot Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-18-2005, 09:32 AM
  4. Re: Fs5 panel shortage?
    By judge in forum FS5
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-1998, 11:00 AM
  5. Fs5 panel shortage?
    By ehowell in forum FS5
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-1998, 01:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts