Avro Vulcan B Mk. 2, K.2 & MRR

@Smarticus The Thrustmaster TCA Throttle Quadrant uses the same control assignments for its fuel levers as we do in the Vulcan (as well as our other products like the 146 and Hawk). The fuel levers on the quadrant are two-position switches, which hold either position (either fuel on, or fuel off), so whatever position the fuel lever is in on the throttle quadrant, it will continue to force the fuel lever in the simulator to the same position. If the fuel levers on the TCA throttle quadrant are in the "fuel on" position, this will force the fuel levers in the simulator to also be in the "fuel on" position, which for the Vulcan is when the throttles are in the idle thrust position. Advancing the throttles will then fight against the fuel valve control assignment which is trying to keep the throttles at idle and can lead to the throttles "snapping" back to idle whenever the throttles are not being moved. As a way to guarantee that these switches do not affect the Vulcan (or any other aircraft with combined throttles and fuel valves), we would recommend creating a new controller preset with the conflicting control assignments removed. To do this: Go to MSFS Options > Controls Options At the top of the page, click on the tab with the name of your throttle quadrant At the bottom of the page, go to Open Preset Manager > Duplicate. Enter a name for the new controller preset (for example "Vulcan"), With the new controller preset selected, use the "Search By Name" field on the left side of the page to search for and delete the following control assignments: TOGGLE ENGINE 1 FUEL VALVE TOGGLE ENGINE 2 FUEL VALVE SET ENGINE 1 FUEL VALVE SET ENGINE 2 FUEL VALVE SET STARTER 1 SET STARTER 2 With those assignments deleted on the new controller preset, you should no longer have any controller conflicts with the throttles in the Vulcan or any other aircraft that uses combined throttles and fuel valves. I hope that helps. Mark - Just Flight

@Mark - My sincerest thanks for your answer. I have been troubleshooting this and now I know the situation. Sort of understandable and a patch would be excellent one day. The detail on the system modelling in top notch. Keep up the great work. Thanks!

The fuel system is very close to the top of our list of areas we would like to improve in the Vulcan. We cannot provide any timeframe for these improvements at this time, but we'll share any progress we have on this through our normal social channels as well as the changelogs. Mark - Just Flight

@BjamminOnXbox I'll let @Delta558 respond to your flight model queries, but there is no limit for how long we intend to support the Vulcan for, so we will continue to update the Vulcan. With regards to the rear cockpit, unfortunately, we have no plans to model it in its entirety. It would be a huge undertaking for our artists and systems coders for very little added functionality compared to what we already have in the simulator. It was discussed internally at the start of the project, but we decided it would be better for everyone for us to release the Vulcan in 2023 without the rear cockpit modelled at a lower price point and release additional aircraft in 2024, rather than release the Vulcan with the rear cockpit modelled in 2025 at a much higher price point and no additional aircraft in 2024. Mark - Just Flight

@Mark Sorry for the late reply, the speed was the issue. I'm surprised I didn't think of that before posting, thanks for your help!

MS have a blanket rule on the Marketplace that aircraft cannot feature any weapons. In order for an aircraft to go on sale there, all ordinance has to be removed. The same rule affects other aircraft we have released such as the Hawk, and all all aircraft from other publishers. I believe the rule is so they can have a universal family friendly rating for anything sold there.

@flightengineer Thank you for the kind words. There is a lot of passion for the Vulcan in our development team, so we hope we have done it justice! Mark - Just Flight

The autopilot and most of the systems would be powered off if the aircraft switched to just the battery when passing 20,000ft, as the battery only provides minimal electrical supply to the aircraft. So if it was related to that trigger, Ithe effects of a loss of electrical would occur instantly as you pass through 20,000ft, not delayed until the aircraft is cruising a 50,000ft. It may be the AUTO AEO sensing a false trigger due to a lag spike, or it may be a control assignment that has been unknowingly triggered that has removed the electrical power, but we should be able to narrow it down further once we see what the state of the AEO station is. Mark - Just Flight

Thank you!

Thank you for reporting this. These have been fixed for the next update to the Vulcan. Mark - Just Flight

Thank you for reporting this. We have logged this on our internal bugs tracker and it will be investigated ahead of the next update to the Vulcan. Mark - Just Flight

The BOMB DOORS magnetic indicator will show cross-hatch if the doors are in transit or if the doors are in motion. So when you load into the aircraft in a cold and dark state, there won't be any electrical power, so the indicator will show cross-hatch. Switching on the AVS master switch is the final step in the After Start Checks. Mark - Just Flight

When the EXTRA SUPPLIES TRIP is pressed, that would automatically isolate all external supplies and would automatically connect the No.2 Alternator to the synchronising busbar to ensure electrical power isn't interrupted. With no external supplies connected, the real aircraft checklist then calls for you to synchronise all alternators, check load sharing, and then isolate No.1, 3, and 4. You then need to reconnect the AAPP by pressing the AAPP ON button (which is the step skipped in the tutorial video) and that will automatically connect the AAPP Alternator and isolate No.2. From the 'After start checks' section of the real aircraft checklist: AAPP . . . . On synch bar a. Within limits b. ON button pressed (1 second max) c. Check indications Extra supplies trip . . . . Press, No 2 alternator on synch bar External supplies . . . . Removed a. Palouate b. External 200V c. External 28V Alternators . . . . Load sharing checked. No 2 on synch bar a. Synchronise all alternators b. Check load sharing, kW /kVAR c. Isolate No 1, 3 and 4 AAPP . . . . On synch bar a. Within limits b. ON button pressed (1 second max) c. Check indications Mark - Just Flight

Thank you for the suggestion! Although we can't guarantee that these will be added, we have logged this request on our internal feature request tracker and we will look into this for a future update to the Vulcan. Mark - Just Flight

Thank you for the kind words on the Vulcan. It was a fun one to develop! With regards to the engines shutting down, this can be caused if you have a "MIXTURE AXIS" control assignment assigned to your external hardware in MSFS Options > Controls Options. I have found that MSFS has a habit of setting an assigned axis to 0% when pressing ESC if you don't have a physical lever assigned to it on your external hardware. So the workaround for this will be to delete any "MIXTURE AXIS" control assignments in MSFS Options > Controls Options. Mark - Just Flight

@Martyn A little poke, incase you missed it. Tis dark in the back seats.

@Martyn Thanks for the tip, I'll give it a go the next time it happens. Really appreciate the quick response.

Thanks for the great suggestion. Whilst we can't promise anything until we get a proper chance to look into this in the new year, it does sound like something we should be able to add.

Many thanks. Season's Greeting. S!

@Adam106 said in Low level max speed and power....too low: Can we assume the drag performance is correct at the rest of the speed range? The entire flight model is a compromise because MSFS does not deal well with a thick delta wing. This is where the problem with normalisation comes about - the game's core flight model cannot deal with the actual shape of the aircraft. I have grown up with Vulcans, so this for me was one I wanted to get absolutely right and (for example) the fact that the mach tuck starts at 0.94M instead of 0.88M and I can find no way to adjust that without compromising the rest of the flight model is a massive frustration! In terms of the specific of your question, the drag, well the actual figure is accurate but how the 'normalisation' works and affects the overal performance is down to Asobo. Figures and performance in the normal flight envelope seem to be on the mark. Induced drag has had to be massively increased because (again) the game cannot deal with a large triangular shape being pitched up to create drag. It means you can use aerodynamic braking on the landing run, unfortunately it also means you will bleed airspeed slightly too quickly if attempting toss-bombing unless you are very careful. I'm hoping that the promise of returning full flight model control to developers in the next version of the game will give me the chance to correct the various areas which I am not happy with. Having said that, my research has included conversations with several Vulcan pilots and one at least will be flying this in the near future and whatever feedback comes my way will be worked into it as best I can. Climb performance, mach numbers, endurance and (most importantly) handling across the altitude range should actually be closer than our previous versions (P3D and X-Plane) because we are fairly well tuned-in to where it should be but we'll see what the above feedback gives and work on from there. You mention manuals . . . [image: 2de7a4ec-7434-4d8b-b6ec-a63c027fbe95.JPG] image url) And that's without the books! Just today, I was deep in the servicing manuals because of a slight issue noted with the nosewheel. I set the correct figures based on the actual measurements of the airframe, the game didn't like. So I worked it backwards and have reached a point where the problem is no longer an issue.