Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

roland

Tweaking the C90B?

Recommended Posts

After a two years break I am back to FS thanks to Carenado's C90 !!

 

I was exclusively flying the Aeroworx B200 in FS9 for years (was a member of their beta testing team) and as we all know they ceased to exist and their King Air did not make it into FSX.

 

I am glad Carenado will do B200 in the not too distant future but have purchased the C90 nevertheless. I couldn't be happier, a very well done plane.

 

Raisbeck/Blackhawk do a C90 conversion which bring it quite close to a B200 performancewise and I am wondering whether anybody has already tried to tweak Carenado's C90. The improved Raisbeck/Blackhawk figures can be found on the web but the question is whether fiddling with the aircraft.cfg will get me there? I am looking for realism so don't want to mess things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

From the performance point of view the C960B with update is quite close to the real airplane. See the post

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/371506-impressive-comparison-vs-poh/

 

But I do no know if the virtual model has a similar behavior than the rea; airplane. The virtual model have a behavior that we can expect for a twin turboprop. But once again I do not know if the virtual model have a similar roll rate, stability, etc than the real airplane.

 

Maybe a pilot of the real irplane can trell us if the behavior of the virtual model is ssimilar to the real airplane.

 

Benoit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raisbeck/Blackhawk do a C90 conversion which bring it quite close to a B200 performancewise and I am wondering whether anybody has already tried to tweak Carenado's C90. The improved Raisbeck/Blackhawk figures can be found on the web but the question is whether fiddling with the aircraft.cfg will get me there? I am looking for realism so don't want to mess things up.

 

I tried a Raisbeck mod and gained a whole new appreciation for flight dynamics modelling...I did get a few knots out of my modifications but couldn't find a happy medium and reverted to the original .cfg with a few tweaks (static thrust and max airspeed since I was always pushing the barber's pole before). AirWrench was the best editor I could find for .air files but upon save, it rewrites the entire (instead of just the areas modified) and would change the CG required for rotation. Kind of difficult to explain but the bottom line is that to get an accurate modelling of the Raisbeck or any other speed mod for the C90, it'd require someone with flight dynamics knowledge and experience well beyond what I could muster! :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback. I have tried the same with no pleasing results.

 

What figure do you use for static thrust (mine is at 158) and how did you increase max airspeed of the Barber's pole? I have increased the prop diameter by 0.3 ft and prop thrust scalar is at 1.2 instead of 1.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been doing a bit of research into Blackhawk for the Flight1 King Air B200 (no, I am not doing the flight model...but it helps to understand what the Blackhawk mods are when doing beta testing). First, contrary to popular belief, the structural limitations for airspeed don't change...the barber pole is based on the structural limitations of the airframe and an engine modification isn't going to change that.

 

What the Blackhawk mods do is provide an engine with the same horsepower rating but improved ITT limitations. In the case of the XP52 package for the B200, the ITT limits are increased from 750oC to 820oC. Since ITT increases in the climb for PT6A engines, the higher ITT limit means you won't have to pull back on the power levers to stay within ITT limits (like you do with a -42 engine), and that means the engine can deliver max power for longer, and that equates to a faster climb. The higher ITT limit also means that you can fly higher without sacrificing power, and that means greater fuel efficiency.

 

What you don't get is higher torque limits...just the ability to produce more torque because of the higher ITT limits...and that means you can produce max torque at higher altitudes than with the stock engines. All of that means you can make the airplane fly closer to the barber pole...but you still won't be able to go past that structural airspeed limit.

 

The Carenado C90B, like pretty much all of the PT6A-powered MSFS aircraft, does not display an increase in ITT as you climb. Instead, and incorrectly, it decreases...so climb power monitoring is simply a matter of setting the power at the torque limits and then increasing the power as the torque falls off at higher altitudes. The Aeroworx King Air got it right -- what really happens as you climb is that ITT increases until you reach the limit, driving you to REDUCE the power setting periodically while climbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the valuable information.

 

Even though I like the Carenado C90 a lot I really do miss the Aeroworx B200 and I gather from your post that it looks as if Flight 1 will keep their promise and provide us with a successor for FSX ??!! :Kiss:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigger props, 93" vs 90", max rpm of 1,900 compared to 2,200 (you just leave them at 1,900 for basically all flight phases), max torque of 1,520 and max ITT of 800 which are also higher. Critical altitude goes from 17,000 on the C90-1 to 24,000 with the Blackhawk 135A engines. You might be able to tweak this with AirWrench and some cfg changes.

 

Edit: I read that AirWrench will rewrite some other aspects of the air file changing the values... that might be troublesome if that is happening!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

G1000... Oh my. Interesting they are back in the game now that carenado is doing a 200. But my bet is that the plane will just be bigger, maybe a little better performance, but same flight deck and avionics.

 

Just a guess though.

 

The race is ON! .... Still... Carenado has some of the best graphix inside and out I've ever seen... Too bad they couldn't partner with F1 on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawk,

 

"...now that Carenado is doing a B200"? For the record, Flight1 announced their B200 on March 29th, about six weeks before Carenado announced theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit: I read that AirWrench will rewrite some other aspects of the air file changing the values... that might be troublesome if that is happening!

Exactly - and that's the issue I ran into with it. Seemed great, but everything would go to heck when it rewrote the .air files upon saving. Really disappointed me since it defeated the main reason I purchased AirWrench.

 

What figure do you use for static thrust (mine is at 158) and how did you increase max airspeed of the Barber's pole? I have increased the prop diameter by 0.3 ft and prop thrust scalar is at 1.2 instead of 1.0.

110, I think. It was only to see if I could taxi without the thing surging forward on me. I also increased the prop diameter as you indicated.

 

First, contrary to popular belief, the structural limitations for airspeed don't change...the barber pole is based on the structural limitations of the airframe and an engine modification isn't going to change that.

Right - To clarify my position - this was a personal preference / annoyance that really had no relation to the mods I mentioned - I shouldn't have lumped them together. :)

 

HOLY COW - that's gonna be a fun plane to fly! Can't wait to renew my love for the B200! :Kiss:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, Flight1 announced their B200 on March 29th, about six weeks before Carenado announced theirs.

 

Indeed... It was also known as "The project that is not to be spoken of" . It is GREAT news that it's rolling again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome as I love the Kingair series but bummed it's gunna be a G1000 panel.. I'd love to have a steam gauge VC..

 

-Damien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit bummed out by their decision to use a G1000 cockpit too, but for many years King Airs have left the factory with glass cockpits and a number of older King Airs have been refitted with glass cockpits. Then consider MS and every other freeware and payware developer that I know of that has done a King Air has used analog engine instruments, so Flight1 is setting themselves apart at the glass cockpit alternative when it comes to King Airs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only the upcoming Carenado B200 would have been equipped with a Proline 21 cockpit ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

equipped with a Proline 21 cockpit ...

 

Indeed! maybe the 200 will have more (better) glass.

 

I understand how developers have to make some hard choices... profit margins are tight in a small market. It takes allot of time to do a really good class cab... In fact, I believe carenado went ahead with my beloved TBM 850 because they can use the up coming 182's G1000 in it as well... At anyrate... it would be nice if they could offer both steam and glass.. but that would only double programing time... and double the bugs. But for me.. I want *New* planes with the latest avionics.. even trash-ah-dyne.. I mean Avidyne equipped planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...