1900D ILS Approach

[Charlie Felix 5]

I've tried using the autopilot for an ILS approach at several airports. Using the "APP" switch, the autopilot grabs and maintains GS very well but there seems to be a problem with lateral control. The autopilot is very slow in making the necessary corrections and never gets aligned with the runway. Is there a bank limiter or some other control that needs to be set? ThanksCharlie

[Guest B1900 Mech]

I do not have the airplane yet, But I think the default MS auto pilot is used, which is still unairworthy (crapola) since MS2000.

[Guest keattchr]

I will agree with this. The B1900 is very poor at tracking the localiser. So far, I have had to fly the ILS manually every time - even establishing on the LOC from a long way out the autopilot never gets aligned.Ray Keattch.

[Orlaam 306]

Seems to me that the 2002 version was even better than FS9 when holding LOC and G/S. I more or less learned on 2002 and used a lot of default and add-on aircraft. They both worked pretty well unless you were approaching an airport that had the G/S problem. Now in FS9 it tries to capture but fails miserably. I pretty much always hand fly my approaches even with ILS markers on the display to refer to and visual conditions. I know a lot of pilots do this for DME and extra guidance anyhow.Oh well, get used to flying like the pros, hands-on!Chris

[Guest Murf]

Same here. It's a great plane to hand fly but the LOC tracking is quite poor for me. Worse than the default King Air. Just finished up a LOC BC approach. The initial intercept was not bad but it won't stay on the LOC. I'm using the B1900D with the Reality XP JL2 gauges and the PMDG Reality XP config files.

[Guest John_Hirsch]

Charlie and others,I found this fix helpful when doing ILS approaches:Use your favorite text editor to add the following lines to the Autopilot section of your aircraft.cfg file: use_no_default_pitch=1 use_no_default_bank=1Hope this helps you as well, John.

[B777ER 2,484]

I might me wrong but I thought those two lines were supposed to be in the cfg file?

[CF104 0]

Hi Charlie,Same here. It banks fine with the heading bug but doesn't seem to go past about 5 degrees of bank on Nav/App modes. Snakes all over the place with a 30 degree intercept angle and never stabilizes.JohnBoeing 727/737 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

[Guest tmetzinger]

>Hi Charlie,>>Same here. It banks fine with the heading bug but doesn't seem>to go past about 5 degrees of bank on Nav/App modes. Snakes>all over the place with a 30 degree intercept angle and never>stabilizes.>I don't think PMDG did anything with the FS autopilot on this one, although I may be wrong.I'll go fly an approach with the King air and then the 1900 and let you know of any differences.

[Guest aca_dia]

Many 1900's out there dont even have an AP! I have Reality XP's JL2 in place and this aircraft is fantastic for hand flying. I have no comments on the AP as I just about never use it with any aircraft on the sim.Turn the silly AP off and hand fly the approaches!

[Guest tmetzinger]

>>Hi Charlie,>>>>Same here. It banks fine with the heading bug but doesn't>seem>>to go past about 5 degrees of bank on Nav/App modes. Snakes>>all over the place with a 30 degree intercept angle and>never>>stabilizes.>>>>I don't think PMDG did anything with the FS autopilot on this>one, although I may be wrong.>>I'll go fly an approach with the King air and then the 1900>and let you know of any differences. >An update. Just flew the FDK ILS 23 from the EMI transition (a 65 degree intercept).Both airplanes were ok by the time we hit the final approach fix, but the default king air definitely had more roll authority and less s-turning to capture the localizer.I did spot some differences in the tuning of the autpilot parameters in the aircraft.cfg file. Perhaps they are the cause. I'm willing to bet that PMDG made these changes on purpose to better mimic real-world performance. The bottom line is that if you intercept the localizer 10 NM or farther from the threshold, the airplane should be able to fly the approach adequately.

[Guest skid_man]

Agree with that! What is the fun of letting "George" fly the airplane. When I fly the real thing the last thing I want to do is the autopilot fly it and so it is the same with Flight Sim.Regards,Richard Rowe:-)

[CF104 0]

>Many 1900's out there dont even have an AP! >>I have Reality XP's JL2 in place and this aircraft is>fantastic for hand flying. I have no comments on the AP as I>just about never use it with any aircraft on the sim.>>Turn the silly AP off and hand fly the approaches!>Hi aca_dia,First, please sign your real name as per the forum rules.The majority of, if not all, B1900D aircraft have the Collins APS-65 autopilot. This auto pilot is very capable. I can hand fly just fine, but if I want to put the A/P through it's paces, I should be able to.Rwy. 34 approach into CYYC, 111.50 course 341. Intercept heading course 311, airspeed 160, DME to YYC 116.70 14 miles, A/P in hdg and alt hold at 5200 Ft ASL, NAV armed. Clear and no winds. Before the CDI even starts deflecting, the A/P captures the NAV arm and begins to correct to the inbound course of 341. Here it assumes an intercept angle of around 7 degrees. as the CDI passes through centre, the aircraft starts correcting and never gets back to a stable approach and S turns until I disconnect the A/P. Before anyone says anything, I've also tried with the APP armed from the intercepr heading with the same results.I'm familiar with the APS-65 on the B200 and it works a lot better in APP and NAV mode as far as lateral control is concerned.Just my observations. Otherwise a great aircraft!JohnBoeing 727/737 and Lockheed C-130 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

[Guest rog74]

I'm not ready to throw out the approach plates and pretend that those pesky acronyms (DH,MDA,RVR,etc...) don't exist.Non-precision approaches are fine, but it is unrealistic to expect one every time, under all Air Transport conditions. At least in this day and age.We all made excuses like "just hand fly it!" back when simulators grew increasingly complex in what they modeled, yet still lacked an efficient AFGS. Finally, the developers got fed up waiting for one and created their own AFDS.I certainly will not fault PMDG for choosing to use many MSFS default systems in an effort to cut the consumer's cost for this aircraft. On the other hand, I won't rationalize or overlook the poor implementation of (any type of) AFDS in MSFS products either.Cheers,Roger

[CF104 0]

Hi Roger,I appreciate those who comment on hand flying the B1900D and I would not fault them for not wanting to use the A/P. On the other hand, those that only hand fly the B1900D and never use the A/P really don't know this discussion and shouldn't fault those that want a functional A/P.I think for the price point this product is great. It just requires a little fine tuning on the NAV/APP lateral modes of the A/P. My opinion of course.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 and Lockheed C-130 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg