Max RPM, and other things

[Guest bstolle]

A few more points to consider.1. Even a Level D sim is much more a procedure (and CRM) trainer than a flightsimulator and especially at the edge of the envelope they can be plain and simple wrong.E.g. when I was flying the Dash8 I had the honour to fly a few times with best pilot I've ever personally flown with and who had an increadible aircraft knowledge as well.He was also involved into the sim design for the Dash8 and he mentioned that the real Dash8 simulator is even dangerously wrong at low speed.During windshear recovery we learned to fly as close as possible to the stickshaker speed to achieve the maximum performance, but IRL he said, performance gets noticable worse below V2 and you shouldn't do that IRL.Two weeks ago I met one of our co-pilots who just transitioned from the A320 to the 767 and he told me how relieved he was when he found out that the real 767 is much more stable in pitch than the Level D sim.Mentioned already before, the engine start EGT and RPM behaviour is not even close to the real 767 and there are lots of other inaccuracies.Last but not least remember the horrible 767 crash when one reverser deployed in flight....on the simulator it was no problem at all to keep the aircraft under control...2. What sense does it make to have e.g. a real C337 pilot as a beta tester if this guy (hopefully!) cares a lot for his plane, just flies straight and level, turns with a maximum bank angle of 30° and never uses more than 50% of yoke deflection in roll and 25% in pitch.I doubt that there are a lot of pilots who deliberately pull the yoke fully back at Va just to check how crisp and powerful the elevator is?With a POH, countless videos on the net and a few pilot reports you can build already a very realistic FDE.As I mentioned before, tested by real pilots is for me helpful if this guy does actual tests and e.g. records actual rollrates at different speeds etc.3. I discussed this a lot with Carenado while beta testing the 210. If you look at the various videos (and some complaints here) the maximum roll rate is too low.It was even lower before the release and the present roll rate is a compromise because Carenado correctly stated that the roll behaviour corresponds to that what you 'feel' during normal operation without reaching the limits.As the joystick travel range is a lot smaller than that of a real yoke, you have to decide what you want as an FDE designer.There are a few add-ons available that are being praised for there 'realism' which means very high stability for most people, but if you want to experience realistic maximum maneuvering performance, they fail to perform in a realistic way.

Edited January 30, 2012 by bstolle

[theteeboy 0]

I agree with most of your comments Bernt (some full flight sims are better simulations than others in the aero areas - it depends on their age and the software team and the original acceptance team).All I want is something that 'feels' as though it handles correctly in normal use. I don't use FSX as a 'edge of the envelope' thrill, more as I believe a pilot would in everyday use. How often do line pilots carry out stalls in the course of normal flying? They just don't go near those limits if they can help it.Back on the PA46 topic - on my PC, using Saitek controls, it 'flies' very well. Certainly the best handling addon in the takeoff and landing phases I have installed. I wont be able to compare it to the real thing anyway...Still think it's Carenado's best release to date.

[Guest bstolle]

IMO the 'problem' is that some designers try to simulate the 'heavyness' of a real yoke and the required forces, but that's simply impossible with a joystick. So rather having the plane behave unrealistic stable & and heavy I'd like to be able to enjoy the full capability of the plane. Especially in a sim where I can fly at and beyond the edge of the envelope. But as you can see with Malibu, it is possible to have both, as she's as maneuverable like the real one but at the same time rather stable.

[aentwis 61]

Bernt, to see that you are the guy working on the FDE of boththis and the upcoming C90 is a delight... I haven't picked this one up yet, as I am currently "sorting out" my virtual hangar and removing those I have not used for a long time...I aim to buy the addons that are close to the numbers, that perform in a similar fashion to their real world counterparts, I am a major fan of one developer's accurate simulation module (if you get my drift), but just wish they also ventured more into GA. After seeing the work on the C90 so far, and with your FDE work, it is looking like a definite buy for me... perhaps I should get this just to hone my PT6 skills???Did I ever get around to thanking you for your help on interpreting a few numbers in the FDE for a certain Taifun? If I didn't, please let me take this opportunity... though that is one of my "looks great, but I never use it" addons, simply because the flight model just doen't cut it...Andrew

[Guest bstolle]

Hi Andrew,Thanx for your kind words :)If you are looking forward to the C90 I'd just be patient as it's supposed to be released between March & April which isn't that far away.The great thing about the PA46T and the C90 is that they don't have a failure module, so you can learn to operate it correctly without the fear of destroying anything (almost impossible with the RW PT6 anyway)Well, the story about the Taifun had a not-so-nice ending.I was supposed to make the FDE for the Milviz Ju-87 Stuka and that guy who sells the Taifun got so ###### by my comments that he refused to work with me on the Ju-87 and I was kicked out of the project in no time.Of course all the preliminary work I did for weeks was in vain...

[Robk182 0]

I run a set of test on the pa46t and de turbine duke, to compare the pt6, the pa46t have -21 and the b60 -35 and the numbers, the behavior, its almost the same, with 1200lbs - 650° ITT, on the two planes, with this i mean that its a great work that you have done on the pa46t, the b60 its a good model on all the ways, even more on the FDE, and of course, the pa46t too, its the best pt6 simulated still with the limitations of the FSX, but will be fine that like the C337, the pa46t will be flow by real pilots.

[P47D 5]

My comment is not so much about the flight characteristics but the inability to model certain functions/knobs/systems of the plane. Has anyone ever explained why certain functions do not work? Is this a FSX limitation, I'm referring to the several startup checklist items that can not be performed.

[bliksimpie 1]

My comment is not so much about the flight characteristics but the inability to model certain functions/knobs/systems of the plane. Has anyone ever explained why certain functions do not work? Is this a FSX limitation, I'm referring to the several startup checklist items that can not be performed.

This is carenado where you buy the best ever looking sets of flying textures. They are not into system modeling although they have gone a long way last couple of planes to try and simulate some of the more intricate systems. If you want proper enhanced system/maintenance modeling you need to go look at other developers. Carenado = Eye candy.

[Lifeguard911 9]

When I bought the DA Cheyenne, I was really impressed by the aircraft. I t was the first aircraft detailed enough I had to go through a particular starting procedure to get it running. I saw that most of the switches could be clicked on, but a lot of them didn't have any function either. I don't understand why a developer would go to the trouble of making all the switches, dials, etc operate, then not assign a function to them other than the sound of a switch click. If you know a particular function can't be modeled (like a Ground Clearance), why bother to make it's switch operable?The same goes for the sounds as part of the immersion. There are several missing sounds such as switch clicks, in the Malibu. In example, there is no sound when the cabin door or cargo compartment open, only when they close.Aircraft detail is important to me. When I bought the A36 Bonanza, I was really impressed to look out of the window and see the static wicks on the wings vibrating in the wind. It was nice to see that attention to small details. The wicks vibrate on the Malibu's tail, but you can't see them unless you move to a certain outside view and zoom in, so why bother making them vibrate on the Malibu? Don't bother to give me details I won't usually see, please give me details in the things I want to see, like propeller blades that feather when I move the lever. The blades can move on the Cheyenne, so why not the Malibu?.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Lifeguard911

[CoolP 283]

The blades can move on the Cheyenne, so why not the Malibu?

A very good point of yours. It allows the view to a misconception (and maybe some FSX flaw) as what you are seeing on the Cheyenne is wrong and what you see (or don't see) on the Malibu is correct. At least the two prop arrangements of those birds need oil pressure to alter their prop blade angles. With the engines off, you don't have that and when the engines are running, you can't see it, just hear.There are a few special setups in aviation, driving the prop blade angle based on other methods, but most planes do it like the Malibu, the Cheyenne or the T Duke. The feathering happens with counterweights and some spring force, the unfeathering part is purely oil pressure based. So if there's no oil pressure, your level movement is disregarded. You can hear and see (on the gauges) the prop moving when your engine runs up though.Unfortunately, the correct 'non movement with engine off' isn't modelled on a lot of planes, so you may be used to the wrong picture, the moving blades with engines off.

[Lifeguard911 9]

I did not know that. Thanks for the clear explanation.