Flight1 Mustang ...

[Geofa 108]

This seems to be turning into a bit of a pissing match. Hmmm... you have flown an Arrow on an approach at 140 knots by autopilot. Given your experience flying Arrows you do know that would be at or close to cruise power with the gear up until starting the descent portion (after capturing the glide slope). If you are actually telling us you would do this please tell me you really did do it using the autopilot, captured glide slope, was able to slow the aircraft using proper engine management techniques for a turbocharged piston engine, slow down enough to get the gear out (on autopilot), then slow to bring out flaps (on autopilot), and feel that it was a safe thing to do and you didn't encounter any straying from the glide slope. And yes, I do have time in this type. I think most GA manufacturers would like to know which autopilot that was cause it is truly a work of art. All autopilots have an airspeed range for capturing glide slope, if you are flying outside that range you hand fly the aircraft until you are within the operational range of the autopilot or hand fly the full approach procedure. The included manual gives you the speed ranges for each stage of flight and when you fly at those speeds the aircraft flies very well.

Zane-I was about to mention the same. I've flown safety for a friend of mine for several 100 hours in an Arrow (non turbo)-if we make 135 at cruise we are doing good. Approach speed is more like 90-100. My Baron's approach speed is 120....even with a Century IV which is a pretty good autopilot if you are too fast it will not hold glideslope.I don't know if I'm lucky or what but I didn't notice any problem with the Mustang autopilot-but I was flying appropriate airspeeds. Not saying it is perfect but either, and I will probably find a bug or two myself just like my rw one.Like any complex product there are going to be bugs, if we are simulating that isn't much different than rw-seldom I fly a plane that doesn't have a bug or two. Like the rw planes, I am sure they will be fixed-perhaps not always in the time frame we wish.

[WarpD 824]

Starting your approach at 140kts in a Citation is not unheard of. I can easily do that in a Turbo Arrow IV. If ATC wants you to speed it up due to traffic closing behind you, you do what you need to do. Again, rather than stating at what speed the autopilot fails, they locked the thread. What kind of a response is that?

Um, it would be irresponsible of the pilot to agree to fly his aircraft outside it's safety envelope. Since the approach speed for the X is maximum at 136kts, a request by ATC should be refused due to safety considerations. The pilot is solely responsible for the safe operation of their aircraft. The ATC is responsible for maintaining separation sufficiently to allow it to happen.

The description says functional Garmin 1000. To my knowledge a Garmin 1000 includes SID's and STAR's. That's basic functionality. For it not to be there is false advertising. I have no problem charging whatever they need to charge for the addon. Just don't advertise it as being something that it's not.

Ok... then demand the Jeppesen database. The addon will run you in the thousands. Seriously.

I provided flight1 with documention from a real world test flight. The response was that they couldn't use the information because they didn't know what the throttle setting was while the speed brakes were deployed. Excuse me? What do you suppose the throttle setting would be with the brakes on?

The throttle setting would be whatever the pilot had set to maintain a desired airspeed. Apparently you're assuming it would be at idle. I'm uncertain as to why. Even in the 767 the speed brakes can be used with the throttle above idle.

It's obvious you haven't flown the plane and seen how unrealistic it flies.

You have a type rating for the Mustang then?

Based on what? How would you like it if I called your post complete garbage because I understand airplanes and you don't. That's basically what they are doing to anyone who criticizes their product in any way shape or form.

No, they are dismissing wild claims and demands. I can't see as I can blame them.

[Spaceman3 1]

This seems to be turning into a bit of a pissing match. Hmmm... you have flown an Arrow on an approach at 140 knots by autopilot. Given your experience flying Arrows you do know that would be at or close to cruise power with the gear up until starting the descent portion (after capturing the glide slope). If you are actually telling us you would do this please tell me you really did do it using the autopilot, captured glide slope, was able to slow the aircraft using proper engine management techniques for a turbocharged piston engine, slow down enough to get the gear out (on autopilot), then slow to bring out flaps (on autopilot), and feel that it was a safe thing to do and you didn't encounter any straying from the glide slope. And yes, I do have time in this type. I think most GA manufacturers would like to know which autopilot that was cause it is truly a work of art. All autopilots have an airspeed range for capturing glide slope, if you are flying outside that range you hand fly the aircraft until you are within the operational range of the autopilot or hand fly the full approach procedure. The included manual gives you the speed ranges for each stage of flight and when you fly at those speeds the aircraft flies very well.

No I've never done it at those speeds on the autopilot, however I have confidence that it would handle it. I know other arrow pilots who fly 120kts approaches as standard practice. Not a big deal.The thing is, we're not talking about an Arrow here. We're talking about a Citation Jet with a far more advanced autopilot. And while I don't disagree that autopilots have limitations I find it hard to believe that the real Mustang AP can't handle 140kts. And my real point was that Flight1 refused to indicate at what speed the autopilot failed to hold the GS. Is that really too much to ask?

[WarpD 824]

Expect far too much ? Flying a STAR with a modern aircraft supposedly simulating a complex avionics suite sold as a high end FS based simulation ... maybe you got a point. :( cheersParksy

FS's default database has zero STARs. To include STARs would require the purchase of an external database. As I've stated in other posts, it's not cheap.

No I've never done it at those speeds on the autopilot, however I have confidence that it would handle it. I know other arrow pilots who fly 120kts approaches as standard practice. Not a big deal.The thing is, we're not talking about an Arrow here. We're talking about a Citation Jet with a far more advanced autopilot. And while I don't disagree that autopilots have limitations I find it hard to believe that the real Mustang AP can't handle 140kts. And my real point was that Flight1 refused to indicate at what speed the autopilot failed to hold the GS. Is that really too much to ask?

140kts is too fast for the Citation X... and you think it's appropriate for the Mustang? I strongly suggest you go learn about aerodynamics. The two aircraft have little in common outside the company name. Their wings are totally different designs, their weights are totally different, their engines are totally different.What is the clean stall speed for the Mustang? It's 123kts at full weight for the Citation X. I imagine it's quite a bit lower for the Mustang.Yes, you are being unrealistic and most definitely demanding.

[Spaceman3 1]

Um, it would be irresponsible of the pilot to agree to fly his aircraft outside it's safety envelope. Since the approach speed for the X is maximum at 136kts, a request by ATC should be refused due to safety considerations. The pilot is solely responsible for the safe operation of their aircraft. The ATC is responsible for maintaining separation sufficiently to allow it to happen.

There is nothing unsafe about keeping your speed up until the outer marker. Trust me, if the flight model of the Mustang is as accurate as Flight1 claim, you can slow a Mustang from 140 to 96 in about 2 seconds even while on the glide slope. :(

Ok... then demand the Jeppesen database. The addon will run you in the thousands. Seriously.

Seriously, what are you talking about? PMDG and others provide me with a complete Nav database with SID's and STAR's and charge under 100 bucks.

The throttle setting would be whatever the pilot had set to maintain a desired airspeed. Apparently you're assuming it would be at idle. I'm uncertain as to why. Even in the 767 the speed brakes can be used with the throttle above idle.

Yes, it can be used above idle, just like I can ride my brakes in the fast lane on the freeway. It's doubtful that that was the case during this test flight.

You have a type rating for the Mustang then?

No, but I don't need a 747 type rating to know that it can't take off in 3000 feet, that it can't stop on a dime, etc..

No, they are dismissing wild claims and demands. I can't see as I can blame them.

Yup, wild claims like missing nav data/functionality, a faulty autopilot ILS (at any speed), missing GPWS callouts, poorly developed drag characteristics, an autopilot that busts set altitudes by hundreds of feet, "Don't sink" bleating at you for the last 3 miles of the approach even though you are on the GS, wind direction and speed box that flickers direction changes as much as 12-13kts at cruise, etc. Such wild claims. :(

[michal 44]

140kts is too fast for the Citation X... and you think it's appropriate for the Mustang?

This is all academic discussion, 140 kts, 120, 100, even at 90 kts this autopilot struggles and can (GS) ultimately fail. Like I said this autopilot has all the traits of the default Microsoft autopilot that I have seen in many payware products too. Some developers at least are honest about it (like Aeroworx's King Air) and they admit that true custom autopilot is beyond their time and abilities. So please spare us your discussion about what GFC700's limitations are in this Mustang - this has nothing to do with the software we have at hand.

[Spaceman3 1]

FS's default database has zero STARs. To include STARs would require the purchase of an external database. As I've stated in other posts, it's not cheap.140kts is too fast for the Citation X... and you think it's appropriate for the Mustang? I strongly suggest you go learn about aerodynamics. The two aircraft have little in common outside the company name. Their wings are totally different designs, their weights are totally different, their engines are totally different.What is the clean stall speed for the Mustang? It's 123kts at full weight for the Citation X. I imagine it's quite a bit lower for the Mustang.Yes, you are being unrealistic and most definitely demanding.

Are you suggesting that you must intercept the LOC at a speed of 95kts (a typical approach speed) in the Mustang or the AP will fail? I very much find that hard to believe. Vapp at 8000lbs and flaps 15 is 112kts, so what is the safety margin on the AP? Am I to believe that it's somewhere above 112 and below 140kts?I would love to hear from actual Citation pilots and hear if they've ever intercepted the LOC 15 miles out at 140kts, or if that's just an insane speed. I would be blown away if that were the case. I'm not talking flying the entire approach at that speed. And anyway, it's a fairly moot point, because no matter what speed you fly the approach in the Flight1 Mustang it has issues.

[WarpD 824]

There is nothing unsafe about keeping your speed up until the outer marker. Trust me, if the flight model of the Mustang is as accurate as Flight1 claim, you can slow a Mustang from 140 to 96 in about 2 seconds even while on the glide slope. :(

The autopilot is not designed for a high speed approach. None of them are. If you are operating the aircraft outside of it's normal envelope, you should not be using the autopilot. Are you a r/w pilot?

Seriously, what are you talking about? PMDG and others provide me with a complete Nav database with SID's and STAR's and charge under 100 bucks.

Yes, the do. However, to do the same Flight1 has to petition Navigraph to support their product. A petition may or may not be granted. Until said license is given by Navigraph, Flight1 has no database outside of the default FS database.... unless they purchase directly from Jeppesen which will indeed cost thousands of dollars.

Yes, it can be used above idle, just like I can ride my brakes in the fast lane on the freeway. It's doubtful that that was the case during this test flight.

You're making claims that have no factual evidence to support them. That's a flawed approach.

No, but I don't need a 747 type rating to know that it can't take off in 3000 feet, that it can't stop on a dime, etc..

This isn't a 747, it's an extremely light jet.

Yup, wild claims like missing nav data/functionality, a faulty autopilot ILS (at any speed), missing GPWS callouts, poorly developed drag characteristics, an autopilot that busts set altitudes by hundreds of feet, "Don't sink" bleating at you for the last 3 miles of the approach even though you are on the GS, wind direction and speed box that flickers direction changes as much as 12-13kts at cruise, etc. Such wild claims. :(

I don't believe said nav data was promised with the original product, was it? Are you certain GPWS callouts exist in the Mustang? Drag characteristics that you claim are unrealistic, despite the fact you are not type-rated for the real aircraft, have no r/w experience with the real aircraft and only have a single test flight data set to draw your own questionable conclusions from. Altitude 'busting' is something FS is notorious for... not the aircraft. However, since you don't develop aircraft... you probably wouldn't know that. I can't say anything about the "don't sink"... but I can state that in the r/w it triggers based on ground proximity and vertical speed. Wind direction and speed indeed jumps around in FS. Apparently you think FS's weather system is flawless? LOL

[zfehr 1]

No I've never done it at those speeds on the autopilot, however I have confidence that it would handle it. I know other arrow pilots who fly 120kts approaches as standard practice. Not a big deal.The thing is, we're not talking about an Arrow here. We're talking about a Citation Jet with a far more advanced autopilot. And while I don't disagree that autopilots have limitations I find it hard to believe that the real Mustang AP can't handle 140kts. And my real point was that Flight1 refused to indicate at what speed the autopilot failed to hold the GS. Is that really too much to ask?

OK, we're getting somewhat on the same page now. The autopilot may try to fly a glide slope with a 140 knot entry in an Arrow, and it may be successful but you would be a test pilot since you would be flying outside the design envelope for the equipment. I personally don't feel that is wise. I hand flew an approach at 170 indicated in a TBM700 but slowed to 140 on intercept and continued to slow and was holding 120 when we broke out under the clouds at 700', we were not on autopilot because of the speeds being flown and knowing we would have to slow quite a bit on final. It is not reasonable to expect Flight1 to test the absolute limits for its autopilot glide slope operation (how much developmental costs would like to see in this game?), it is designed to work within the real aircrafts expected operation and that it was it was tested for and there was plenty of work getting the first, yes first WAAS approach autopilot to work in FSX. But rather than a wow... how'd you guys figure that out (wasn't easy) we get gripes cause it doesn't operate outside of its design limits to your percieived reality expectations.

[WarpD 824]

Are you suggesting that you must intercept the LOC at a speed of 95kts (a typical approach speed) in the Mustang or the AP will fail? I very much find that hard to believe. Vapp at 8000lbs and flaps 15 is 112kts, so what is the safety margin on the AP? Am I to believe that it's somewhere above 112 and below 140kts?

Vapp of 112kts and you were doing 140kts? That's 1.25 times the Vapp speed. I'm pretty certain that any pilot expecting to intercept and track at that speed should be given a checkride.

I would love to hear from actual Citation pilots and hear if they've ever intercepted the LOC 15 miles out at 140kts, or if that's just an insane speed. I would be blown away if that were the case. I'm not talking flying the entire approach at that speed. And anyway, it's a fairly moot point, because no matter what speed you fly the approach in the Flight1 Mustang it has issues.

Others posting in this thread disagree with you regarding the approach. Please explain how you're correct and they are incorrect. And as you ponder that response... then think of that from a developer's viewpoint. Most users have no issues... a few others have issues. Which is correct? How do you accept the input from a user that refuses to fly by the numbers to begin with? Who's argumentative and believes they know more than the developers?

[zfehr 1]

This is all academic discussion, 140 kts, 120, 100, even at 90 kts this autopilot struggles and can (GS) ultimately fail. Like I said this autopilot has all the traits of the default Microsoft autopilot that I have seen in many payware products too. Some developers at least are honest about it (like Aeroworx's King Air) and they admit that true custom autopilot is beyond their time and abilities. So please spare us your discussion about what GFC700's limitations are in this Mustang - this has nothing to do with the software we have at hand.

Michal, I think you are unaware that it was Aeroworx's programmer that did the work on the autopilot and avionics in the Mustang and Flight1 has been quite straightforward on what it will and won't do.

[Spaceman3 1]

Vapp of 112kts and you were doing 140kts? That's 1.25 times the Vapp speed. I'm pretty certain that any pilot expecting to intercept and track at that speed should be given a checkride.Others posting in this thread disagree with you regarding the approach. Please explain how you're correct and they are incorrect. And as you ponder that response... then think of that from a developer's viewpoint. Most users have no issues... a few others have issues. Which is correct? How do you accept the input from a user that refuses to fly by the numbers to begin with? Who's argumentative and believes they know more than the developers?

Forget the 140kts figure if that helps you understand the scale of the problem with the Mustang AP. It doesn't matter what speed you are doing, it still fails to hold the GS. I just happened to intercept the LOC at about 140kts during my initial test when I first reported the issue. Again, this is not something that seems outside the realm of real world operations for the Mustang. Anyone who's flown a small airplane into a larger airport have probably flown at speeds higher than they normally would in a perfect world.I wouldn't call my posts argumentative. I'm simply stating facts and asking questions. If you have some information or real data to impart, I'm all ears. If not, I guess you're the one being argumentative.

[Slick Willy 2]

Have you guys that are having GS problems tried starting out using the saved flight that Jim provided ? I have shot 20-25 approaches at speed from just above stall to 160 kts and the AP holds the GS dead on. There are relatively few that are having this problem so to say Flight1 put out a product with a non functioning GS is not an accurate statement. I never had any GS problems prior using the startup flight.I never had any brakes once I landed but at least the GS worked.Michael

Make sure you have anti-skid ON. I have noticed that the brakes do not work above 20kts at the snow covered airports. I just assumed this was modelled in. I have not been to a warm climate with this bird yet. Any brakes on the warm and dry runways?I have had problems w/AP on climb and descent with FLC engaged. VS works well with minor variations depending on winds.I have not tried AP on any approaches yet, thats the best part. Speed brakes deployed I am able to descend at 7000 - 8000 FPM and hold it below 150KTS! I was flying along an airway w/nav1 tuned and had the route entered in GPS and was pleasently suprised to see the different indication on the HSI between VOR and GPS when you are off course. Do you know what the difference between them is?Overall, this plane is a must have IMO. Very well priced for the amount of complexity. So simple to fly, yet very sophisticated.Willy

[jrhoads 6]

Well, Aint we got a party now... :( I figured Spaceman and Michael would both come to bat because I took both of them to task about what they perceived the aircraft to do and not what is expected of the pilot to adhere too.Folks, these guys have a little bit of a vendetta with me so take it as you will but they are not happy with me at all because I did not cow tow to what they wanted. I don't mean to be a rear quarter, but in this case the customer is not always right and in this case unreasonable and quite demanding. I expect another one to show up quickly because he blasted me in public 3 times now and he no longer has a happy existence in the forum space. The bottom line is Flight1 has a very good reputation for creating quality level aircraft and fixing anything we do indeed find as a legitimate problem. And in case these fellow have forgotten, I have helped create that reputation over the many years I have been with Flight1. But I wont be railroaded by folks that want to be arm chair experts and not fly the aircraft properly or want to create a science project out of our products. Most of our customers are not this way and I am very thankful for that. So... if I am painted to be Igor, I admit, I don't take much crap and those of you that know me, know that is true (Tom Allensworth will attest to that!) but understand that there is a whole lot more to the story than being painted here and be assured, that any product that comes out has its initial growing pains and omissions, but you can also be assured that the Mustang will be as pure bread as the real one in short order. My team and my beta testors are the very life blood of this project and I am very proud of them and how they have helped shape it. Perfect? Of course not. Terrible as painted by a few? Not a chance.Jim

[LAdamson 240]

, but in this case the customer is not always right and in this case unreasonable and quite demanding.

After 25 years in business, I'm well aware that the saying " A customer is always right" is nothing but an old wives tale. :( I think a customer needs to have realistic expectations. It's very easy to see just what a simulated aircraft will and won't do, by waiting a few days before purchase.To say that since it has a Garmin, and then expect full functionality for the price tag, is a joke! In fact, these newer Garmins actually have more inflight info than many Jetliners. That is a fact!So..............I think I want XM Satellite Weather, that the real Garmin has, and I expect it at no extra charge; instead of paying a $29 -$99 subscription every month. Afterall, most Mustang drivers will want the $99 Pro-version! :( Really --- The best part of the Garmin is the weather overlay. That's why I use them. Heck with Sids and Stars... :( L.Adamson