So let me get this straight -- MS has spent a considerable amount of effort "improving" (cough) aircraft that didn't need improving -- and that AFAIK nobody ever complained about -- yet they can't be bothered to address the biggest complaint their customers DO have about toy aircraft without cockpits? They're throwing assets at non-problems while ignoring real problems?

 

Someone on that team seriously needs to be fired.

MS has spent a considerable amount of effort "improving" (cough) aircraft that didn't need improving -- and that AFAIK nobody ever complained about

 

Actually, there has been a pretty steady stream of "why can't the Maule get up to it's claimed service ceiling" questions since Day 1.

 

Actually, there has been a pretty steady stream of "why can't the Maule get up to it's claimed service ceiling" questions since Day 1.

 

Who is asking that? Surely the same people are asking how a P51 Mustang can break Mach 1?

MS has spent a considerable amount of effort "improving" (cough) aircraft that didn't need improving

 

So far I've seen very little evidence that anything has changed on the Maule. I noticed that the Stearman has more of a left rolling tendency, and the Maule may or may not have a tiny bit more. Other than that, I'm *looking* for differences and can't find them.

 

In any case, I would hope they would continue to make improvements on the various flight models.

 

Who is asking that?

 

Some people just have to have something to bitterly complain about. And it seems like a lot of them had... concerns... about the Maule ceiling.

 

Hook

Some people just have to have something to bitterly complain about. And it seems like a lot of them had... concerns... about the Maule ceiling.

 

Hook

 

There is a lot of things to be concerned about but a service ceiling is the least of those (I would say).. That's like the max ceiling if variables w-x-y and z are met. That's like a car being advertised at 40mpg.. That 40mpg rating is in like the most ut-most perfect weather, car cleanliness, weight, tires, speed management, condition of the road etc etc.

There is a lot of things to be concerned about but a service ceiling is the least of those

 

Oh, I agree. But then, you posted yourself that 16000 feet was the best anyone could do just a few posts ago.

 

Hook

Oh, I agree. But then, you posted yourself that 16000 feet was the best anyone could do just a few posts ago.

 

Hook

 

That was a matter of fact stat.. New update, it was time to play "how high can I go". Oldest game in the flight sim hobby. :)

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 :-)

 

I toured the CAE factory about 12 years ago, which was really interesting. What was really amazing, was the hydraulic system that moves the simulator cockpit assembly physically to give you the sensation of motion, back then cost over a million dollars by itself. I am sure now that the cost is even higher. On takeoff, you actually get the sensation of being pushed back into your seat, a bounced landing results in a real jarring motion, and emergency braking on takeoff will throw you right out of your seat, if you are not strapped in. It's just like flying .

I did the climb to the service ceiling "test" to publish some info in the hope that it might help others who were struggling to climb higher than 8-10K. Incidentally, I found that I could not climb as high as published, but it is not meant as a complaint.

 

LHookins,

 

I haven't been simming much as of late, but I recall that the Maule was able to cruise noticeably faster than now. Unfortunately, I can't rollback to compare this now, but I'm not concerned about it. I still performs the same at low speeds, that's for sure.

On closer examination of the updated files, I noticed that some of the missions which involve the Maule have been updated !

Hamburger Run, Light Cargo, Cargo-Animals and 2-4 passengers.

This most likely could be why folks are seeing some changes with the Maule ?

The Maule itself has not been updated.

 

Fred.

Dave: I didn't mean you when I mentioned people concerned about the service ceiling. There were some others. But if the published number was 20,000 and people could only get 16,000, I can understand some complaints. I was able to get over 18,000, but that was pushing it. The trick is to reduce the prop RPM and use manual mixture control. Obviously you want nearly empty fuel tanks.

 

Fred: I don't remember being able to put a half tank of fuel in a loaded aircraft previously. If anything, it looks like things should be lighter, which should give *better* performance. Is everyone remembering to offload fuel to keep within weight limits? I'm watching the weights and they seem to be the same, or at least reasonable.

 

Last flight was 4 passengers out of Bradshaw, 6100+ feet, 2850 pounds. There was no way I was gonna get off the runway with prop at max... I watched the airspeed creep past 50 knots while the end of the runway was moving toward me somewhat faster. I pulled the prop control back and pretty much instantly hit 70 knots and was able to lift off. I don't remember if this is changed since the previous version.

 

Now... I used to do the same thing in FSX from high altitude airstrips. When you take off from 11,300 feet you have to pull the prop back right away or you won't get off the ground.

 

Hook

Does anyone know if the changes to prop speed and their relationship to total power is more or less realistic than the previous behavior?

 

I haven't really had a chance to play around with it since the update, but my understanding is that this is closer to the way CS props should work. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, full RPM does not mean max power. At higher RPM the prop pitch will be lower, generating less lift, at lower RPM (but still at max throttle) you'll get a higher pitch, producing more lift and making you go faster.

 

There was a thread here a while ago about manifold pressure and prop speed that linked to a really detailed lesson on this (and fuel mix). I don't know which thread it was but the lesson is here: http://www.advancedpilot.com/downloads/prep.pdf.

 

It would be nice if they would just tell us what they changed in the update, but it's also a bit fun to try puzzle these things out for ourselves.

I don't think the increase in speed - instantaneous and under any flight regime - is anywhere closer to real, not for the Maule or any other aircraft, CS or variable pitch prop, yet, it may have resulted from the same principle that makes the relationship between MP and prop RPM being absent from the reciprocating engine model in MS FLIGHT, maybe due to simplification...

 

I've flown as a passenger on a few CS aircraft, mostly the Cessna 337 serving the Portuguese Airforce, and as a simmer and real life glider pilot, I payed a LOT of attention to all procedures, parameters, etc... On that particular aircraft, after flap retraction MP is retarded, then Prop RPM adjusted as well from MAx, then MP increased again, and this happens during climb.

 

Of course in cruise these adjustments are also done, using the same sequence - decrease MP, then decrease RPM, or increase RPM then increase MP.

 

The speed gain in the Maule just as it is now modelled could possibly result ( I don't know) from such a procedure, but it would take it's time... and certainly not happen instantaneously like in MS FLIGHT, but then again, so should MP rise when RPM is reduced and the way around...

 

Of course, I have emailled [email protected] with this report, and a few more things...

but then again, so should MP rise when RPM is reduced and the way around...

 

I thought it was the other way around - MP drops off a touch when you reduce the RPM. This is all way over my head.. I never flew a CS prop over about 5k', so never needed to worry about it.

I thought it was the other way around - MP drops off a touch when you reduce the RPM.

 

Nope ;-),

I allways recommend reading http://www.advancedpilot.com/downloads/prep.pdf