Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Beech Baron 58 Problem

Recommended Posts

Guest DNelson

When autofeather is armed, the prop will automatically feather if an engine loses power. It's one less thing for the pilot to verify and perform manually at at critical time, therefore slightly reducing the chance that you'll end up a smoking hole in the ground.Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Many thanks to everybody for sharing your experience and all the hints. As you could see, I'm not (yet) a real pilot but I'm interested in real aviation and "how it really works". I learned a lot from you guys :-). Thanks again, Thomas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ron Freimuth

>> MicroSoft messes up almost everything in its AC. I fixed >>the Fuel Air Mixture table soon after FS2K came out. In >>part, I referred to real Power vs Mixture curves. I also >>knew from my flying expence that engines don't almost die at >>5000 ft with a full rich mixture. >> >Ron, you mention that you fixed the curves. Is that >something that any of us can do? If so, how? Thanks! >David Yes. You need Aired. Method 1: Just load a prop AC AIR file with a good TBL 507 "Torque Factor vs Fuel/Air Mixture" and "Copy to Clipboard" in the Aired menu (right click). Then, load the AIR file you want to improve and use the menu "Replace From Clipboard" when highlighting TBL 507. The 'improved' Mixture table should then be set in the AIR file. Save it and give it a try. I think all of Steve Small's FS2K+ reciprocating engine AIR files have such improved tables. Steve released an improved FS2K2 Barron some time ago, but it may be hard to find nowadays. Certainly my AIR files have this change, but they aren't generally available. However My FS2K2 172SP UG is floating around. ===============Method 2: However, one can pretty well fix TBL 507 by simply increasing the 'y' value at the extreme right 'x' value of '0.13'. Looking at the default Barron, I see 'y' is set to 0.000 at this rich mixture point. I increase it to at least 0.70 or 0.80. This table shifts left as altitude is gained and the Mixture table decreases the engine Torque toward 0. Not realistic, as a Fuel:Air ratio of 0.13 (Air/Fuel = 7.7) is approached an engine should still have quite a bit of power. At 'x' = 'y' = 0.95 in the default Barron. Increasing 'y' to 0.98 would also be reasonable. But, it's the last value that really makes a difference here. Note: you can hit 'y' on the KB in Aired and then edit the y value directly. Same for 'x' to edit the x value (when needed). This change may reduce the EGT accuracy at low altitudes, but the improved Mixture effect is far more important as far as I'm concerned. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Ron,Thanks for the help. It's a bit over my head at the moment but I'm guessing it will make sense when I get into aired. As for the turbocharged engine, how would you go about negating the fuel:air factor for realism sake?David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> MS claims many of it's MSFS staff fly real AC. I don't >think I'd chance flying with anyone who doesn't know enough >about real AC to get things right in their AC models. >> They also got the Carb Heat RPM drop way too high in >FS2K2. Runway Rolling Friction is too high, etc. etc. etc. >Ron, I do believe you'd give non-pilots the impression that the default models don't behave anything like real aircraft. But in fact, we know they do; at least to the point of getting from airport to airport with out any real difficulties . They're just not up to exact specifications, specific power & drag curves, or exact responses to all flight conditions. The exactness is not required for the average consumer, and I still maintain that it's not Microsofts responsibility to provide "exactness" with all it's specific default models. If someone needs or requires more duplication of the real thing, then 3rd parties are the way to go!I don't want anyone to leave here believing MS has overly exaggerated features such as leaning, to the point of being totally wrong. They've done leaning requirements in steps of approximately 2000' instead of following exact "curves", but at least the requirement is there! As mentioned previously by me and others, I'd never think of takinf off or flying at altitudes from 4000' to 6000' at full rich. The partial loss of power at 4200' in a Cessna 172 (160hp or less)with three people aboard could be disasterous. These planes are "gutless" as it is at these altitudes, and loosing some horsepower because you left the mixture control at full rich certainly won't help.Items-- MS DID get right ---------- at least the "feel" of requiring right rudder through the takeoff & climb phase in a single engine aircraft. The exactness of specific torque, slip stream, & P-factor might be off, but the effect is there. Much better than most other, if not all GA simulations. I can only think of some military ones that are as good or better. At least MS requires a "solid" foot on the right rudder, without all of the sudden getting "squirrely" & changing directions!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"I still maintain that FS2K2 exaggerates the effect of mixture controls though. The plane should be able to climb through 4,000 or even 6,000 at full rich without choking. If density altitude is high or you have full tanks of fuel, maybe not, but I think the Baron is particularly unforgiving. Also, as a real 421 pilot pointed out, turbocharged engines shouldn't be affected by altitude because the correct mixture is assured, but MSFS doesn't seem to model that.David"That's not entirely true. My instructor also flies charter flights on a daily basis in a B58 and I've spoken with him about this very thing as it kind of bothered me in FS2k2. He told me that he's witnessed anywhere from a 100 to 200 RPM drop (depending on weather) when climbing through about 4500 ft. He usually will not fly any higher than 8500 ft on most of his charter flights as the aircraft's performance degrades much more after that altitude. Even at 8500 ft, he says that he has the throttles pretty much full forward just to maintain normal cruise. (about 165 to 170 KIAS)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pieter

Ron, I do believe you'd give non-pilots the impression that the default models don't behave anything like real aircraft. But in fact, we know they do; at least to the point of getting from airport to airport with out any real difficulties . You said it, at least from point A to point B. In this aspect one might as well load FSII on the ol' Apple II in such a way boring it might get with FS. MSFS teaches one the basics of flight from airport to airport. Unfortunately that's all IMHO. For some of us wanting that sparky something more, FS does not stand first....the "feel" of requiring right rudder, spurred by Ron's comment, >FS2K2. Runway Rolling Friction is too high, etc. etc. etc. Did you ever try some emergency procedures with the Baron, like critical or any engine out? Then sit back and enjoy the Zero Rolling Friction ice skating competition of FS while trying to taxy the Baron with one engine (in opposite of the high rolling friction during take-off Ron mentioned, which you and I discussed in another forum). Not to mention that one can't get any FS nosewheel steerable GA aircraft to wheelbarrow when not properly trimmed (like nose-down) for take-off (most common mistake of all beginner pilots).FS is nice, but a such good performer as trainer it isn't on the other hand as well as you try and make it. I still maintain that it's not Microsofts responsibility to provide "exactness" with all it's specific default models. And they claim: "As real as it gets."? I can't disagree with you more! 3rd Party for an off-hand simulator like X-Plane perhaps, but not this full-fledged commercial software developed by teams that have teams.Pieter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tallpilot

Gary,It's a good thing your instructor doesn't fly in mountainous country if he won't go above 8500ft with a Baron. I own and fly a 1965 B-55 Baron that has smaller engines than the B-58 and I fly at 11000 and 12000 cruise altitudes all the time. And of course the throttles are going to be wide open up there if the aircraft does not have turbochargers. My normal cruise setting at those altitudes is wide open throttles and 2300rpm which gives me about 55% of the rated engine power and a true airspeed of 207mph.Ed Weber a.k.a tallpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Did you ever try some emergency procedures with the Baron, >like critical or any engine out? Then sit back and enjoy the >Zero Rolling Friction ice skating competition of FS >while trying to taxy the Baron with one engine (in opposite >of the high rolling friction during take-off Ron mentioned, >which you and I discussed in another forum). Not to mention >that one can't get any FS nosewheel steerable GA aircraft to >wheelbarrow when not properly trimmed (like nose-down) for >take-off (most common mistake of all beginner pilots). > :-lol :-lol :-lol Notice I didn't attempt to bring in the engine out senario. Try some of Steve Smalls air.files for this. BTW--- in all seriousness, since I did try quite a number of engine out scenarios when going for the multi-................... I really don't feel that PC cockpits work all that well for engine out practice anyway. No sensing of yaw, no knobs/levers in their proper places for quick reactions, etc. It's just too "fake" & I have no sense of "impending doom" either!!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ron Freimuth

>Ron, >Thanks for the help. It's a bit over my head at the moment >but I'm guessing it will make sense when I get into aired. >As for the turbocharged engine, how would you go about >negating the fuel:air factor for realism sake? >David Wish I knew. Variations in drag, thurst, curves in tables can be fixed in the AIR file. But hard coded errors can at best be only fixed with gauge code that bypasses the MS code. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ron Freimuth

>> MS claims many of it's MSFS staff fly real AC. I don't >>think I'd chance flying with anyone who doesn't know enough >>about real AC to get things right in their AC models. >>>> They also got the Carb Heat RPM drop way too high in >>FS2K2. Runway Rolling Friction is too high, etc. etc. etc. >>>>Ron, I do believe you'd give non-pilots the impression that >the default models don't behave anything like real aircraft. >But in fact, we know they do; at least to the point of >getting from airport to airport with out any real >difficulties .......... Oh, I agree that the MS AC give a sensation of flight. I wouldn't know how bad they are if I didn't dig into them, and compare them to my long ago flying experiences and actual performance specs.> They're just not up to exact specifications, >specific power & drag curves, or exact responses to all >flight conditions. The exactness is not required for the >average consumer, and I still maintain that it's not >Microsofts responsibility to provide "exactness" with all >it's specific default models. If someone needs or requires >more duplication of the real thing, then 3rd parties are the >way to go! >L.Adamson And, errors in things like excessive RPM drop with Carb heat, engine almost stopping unless it is leaned should be obvious to any pilot. So why have these things gotten out in FS2K2? I agree that an approximate model would be enough from MS. But, when fuel consumption is 50% above average as in the 737 (at least the FS2K version) it just shows the people working on these flight models don't know what real AC are like. It's not that MS is satisfied with crummy flight models. I just don't think they have the people who can do them correctly. They have about three Aeronautical Engineers, I wonder what they do with their time. Whoever did some of the CFS AC does a better job, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. But for a few bugs, the flight model code is quite good and very powerful. But, it appears MS had that contracted out and doesn't know how to set up good models. Nor do they explain just how they do their flight models, but it sounds like they use some kind of compiler, rather than tedious adjustment of each significant parameter and table. They claim there is propriatory data in their AIR files, but most everthing is so far from real airfoils, turbines, etc. that there simply can't be. I guess CFS3 is in beta and have heard they (again) will supply more hooks for add on functions and 'really work on good flight models'. I've heard similar things before. Regardless, FS2K4 will no doubt inherite much of CFS3, so I hope they fix more than they mess up.Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Whoever did some of >the CFS AC does a better job, but there is still plenty of >room for improvement. >Ron,---- I noticed that right off the bat! I can remember myself complaining that CFS2 had better modeling in many respects. And FWIW...... I'm really glad that you and Steve Small did redo some of these files to make up for it! :)------------ just so you know!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ron Freimuth

>Ron, >Thanks for the help. It's a bit over my head at the moment >but I'm guessing it will make sense when I get into aired. ................>David AVWEB.COM has articles on real AC. I ripped out all the engine curves I ran into there. Skim over their articles and you will get a better idea of what's going on under the hood. Then you will have a better chance of understanding some of the FS engine curves. Most of what I know about AC and flying I've picked up through MSFS (and doing flight models). I've learned a lot more than I knew when I was flying real AC. What's funny is I design and redesign flight models for AC I've often never heard of before I start on them. Many of us who do this stuff correspond and share ideas. No one person could get far alone. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ron Freimuth

>> Whoever did some of >>the CFS AC does a better job, but there is still plenty of >>room for improvement. >>>Ron,---- I noticed that right off the bat! I can remember >myself complaining that CFS2 had better modeling in many >respects. And FWIW...... I'm really glad that you and Steve >Small did redo some of these files to make up for it! >:)------------ just so you know! >L.Adamson I know, even if we do disagree at times. ;) Email me and I might send you some flight models you don't have. There is a CFS group that develops '1% AC' for CFS. I think they are getting in closer to MS. Frankly, I'm more concerned that an AC 'feels right' and trims out well than that it is within 1% on top speed, etc. But, for Combat addicts, having AC that perform realisticaly is important, otherwise an Ace is messed up by an AC that can't out turn the enemy when it did in WW II. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...