Yesterday evening I was trying out the Maule and reached 17300 feet at a climb rate of about 200fpm. I had to estimate the climb rate by noting the altitude change in 6 seconds and multiplying that by 10. I don't recall being able to climb this high before. This was done with 30% fuel.

 

I have no real experience with aircraft with constant speed props, but I found that I could only achieve this altitude if I reduced the RPM to 2100. I thought that the lower RPM would result in a lower power output for this engine and therefore less excess thrust. However, without reducing RPM below max, I could barely exceed 15,000 feet.

 

I was trimmed to climb at a hair over 60kias at that 17300 feet with flaps at 0. I probably could have trimmed for a slightly slower airspeed for a touch more lift.

 

The plane is quite a bit slower than before yet still climbs by the published numbers. I haven't tried carrying a load yet, but then again I always made sure to never overload it when doing missions so I doubt much would change for me. It feels like the parasite drag has been noticeably increased.

For the purpose of testing data.. next time you're at 17,300msl, note the MP (assuming full throttle).. at most, it should be ~12".

 

Then descend to 4000msl, and fly level with the throttle set for the same MP you got at 17,300msl... then note thrust/airspeed at different RPM settings..

 

Knowing that MS is buggy, I'm reluctant to grant them credit for accurately modeling oddities... ala actually getting higher thrust at less than max RPM, at altitudes where only 12" of MP can be achieved.. (I don't think that is realistic)...

So I realized when I opened flight today, that I could resume right from where I left off, whee!

 

17,400 feet 14" Hg MP, 24 degrees of flaps, 1600 RPM, 27% mix, 12% fuel, ~150FPM, 57KIAS

 

I topped out at 17,850 feet and nothing I tried could get me to climb higher. Any changes to these settings resulted in a slow descent.

26% mix, 52 kias, 1500RPM, 10% fuel, 26% mix, 52 kias

 

In any case, the Maule website doesn't provide much info either, and I notice pilots on owners forums talk about the lack of cruise perf data in the POH.

 

Either way, I still like the plane in Flight. :)

So I realized when I opened flight today, that I could resume right from where I left off, whee!

 

Yes, that's a nice feature: really EVERYTHING is saved automatically! If you leave the plane cold and dark on a parking spot and quit the game, you will still be there, cold and dark, when you start the game later on again. You can do a long cross country flight (in Alaska) hopping from airport to airport and do it in a few days (or weeks) without ever having to save the game yourself.

 

BTW Take note that when you leave the game in the middle of a mission, your position and everything else will be saved, but only as in free flight: you can't continue the mission.

I really like the feature of starting right where you left off at in free flight. :good:

We had this discussion in game between me, Oracle, and Hugh.. It seemed very un-natural dropping the prop RPM.. I was instantly picking up 20kts of speed in a flick of an eye. It seemed very silly. The plane literally jolts forward when you drop the RPMs down a bit, audio changes and you get a sudden turbo boost of 15-20kts instantly.

Yes, it's odd...

 

However, instead of getting a bit annoyed about this (yesterday I got a bit fed up with it all because I was testing and focusing on this and I thought those days were over with the release of Flight ) I decided today to not be bothered with it anymore... I take off, full throttle and all, and then I bring back MP and RPM to something like 24/2400 and I'm fine. I can't even be bothered with the almost constant baking anymore: it's nice having to do something all the time.

 

The glass is half full or half empty: it's just what you make of it...

17 inches....? Isn't that very low...? I am used to keeping MP somewhere around RPM... And 8 gal/hr: I suppose you mean 18?

 

Before the update that gave us non-linear control mappings, the Maule was extremely twitchy above about 100 knots. I got used to flying at that speed. This requires a low manifold pressure.

 

I set the mixture by leaning the engine until it starts to lose power, then enriching it until the power is back then adding just a bit. This usually gave me around 8 gallons per hour fuel flow at 17 in Hg, although I could run the engine with 6 most of the time. According to specs you shouldn't be above 10 to 12 gallons per hour at cruise with a properly leaned engine anyway.

 

If anything has changed on the Maule's performance, it's likely the thrust curve for the prop: they've reduced the thrust at max RPM while retaining the same thrust at 2300 RPM. This would fit what we've read in this thread. For a test, level the plane in cruise with prop set to full, then slowly bring the prop control back. The nose will rise, and the plane will climb, as if you're getting a lot more thrust. Somewhere below 2000 RPM you start losing thrust although the nose doesn't seem to fall as dramatically as it rose. If your game is acting differently, let us know.

 

Before the update I've gotten the Maule up to 18,000 feet by pulling the prop way back and careful mixture control. I wonder if we could beat that with the new Maule.

 

Hook

The plane literally jolts forward when you drop the RPMs down a bit, audio changes and you get a sudden turbo boost of 15-20kts instantly.

 

I think styckx has discovered that the so-called "RPM" control isn't an RPM control at all---it's an afterburner!

Overall, torque, engine regimes and also flap lifting coeficients and parasite drag have probably gone through tweaking.

 

The RV6 also suffered some adjustments.

 

ELITE, which is usually "by the book" in as far as performnce goes, has problems with it's Core C172R, regarding engine regimes, drags, etc...

 

No sim is perfect :-(

 

A pilot responsible for the Airbus full flightsims here at the TAP headquarters in Lisbon airport once mentioned a good deal of innacuracies on flight, systems including engines, etc ... models... :-)

Overall, torque, engine regimes and also flap lifting coeficients and parasite drag have probably gone through tweaking.

 

The RV6 also suffered some adjustments.

 

ELITE, which is usually "by the book" in as far as performnce goes, has problems with it's Core C172R, regarding engine regimes, drags, etc...

 

No sim is perfect :-(

 

A pilot responsible for the Airbus full flightsims here at the TAP headquarters in Lisbon airport once mentioned a good deal of innacuracies on flight, systems including engines, etc ... models... :-)

 

Companies like CAE in Montreal that make commercial Sims, get recorded actual data from test flights by Boeing for instance on the particular model. They get this data from several different planes, and then they take data from the plane that the test pilots consider middle of the road in terms of performance, and that becomes the flight model for the particular simulator model they are working on. This costs a ton of money, but at 20 million dollars+ a copy, the cost is absorbed by the selling price of the product. Considering the cost of Flight, I think the flight models are pretty good.

 

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-346652/

Considering the cost of Flight, I think the flight models are pretty good

 

That was my point :-)

 

It was the CAE A320/19/21 sim I had the chance to fly for 1 hr, performing landings and takeoffs from LPMA under real bad weather :-)

Another Maule flight, grossly overloaded, 4 passengers and about 53% fuel. Weight about 2850. The indicator goes off the scale around 2875. Max weight is around 2500.

 

The flight characteristics were the same as the 3 passenger flight mentioned previously, except that the plane was a couple of knots slower due to weight causing a higher angle of attack. It was not particularly difficult to get off the ground at Hilo, or to land at Ford Island. Just use short field takeoff procedures.

 

I guess the next test is a high altitude takeoff and landing, and possibly another service ceiling test (not looking forward to that one).

 

Hook

and possibly another service ceiling test (not looking forward to that one).

 

Hook

 

I reached 16,000k and Oracle reached 16,200k... The fuel flow is down to about 8gph at that point.. You're not getting any higher

I"ve got a screen shot that says 17928, and I was over 18000 at one point. Prop was at 1600 RPM, 7% fuel, I think 28 degrees flaps. HUD reads 64 knots. Fuel flow looks to be 5 or 6.

 

Hook