Is the Carenado C340 realistic? Look and you be the judge...

[cvearl 60]

I often wonder how close to the numbers these things are. I have a video of a c340 landing from inside the cockpit so I thought I should compare. Is the Carenado C340 realistic? You be the judge. Looks good to me though.

 

Although I do notice it's not PERFECT. However we all know you cant get a perfect comparison. I dont know his weight loading and I can only aproximate the weather not having his METAR or ATIS. I got the temperature as close as I could.

 

Approach... 22.5" MP, 2300 RPM, 1 Notch Flaps, Gear up, 3000 feet = 140 KIAS and 700fpm.

 

 

 

Here at 18" - 19" MP and 2200 RPM, Gear Down, 2 Stage Flaps = 115 KIAS and 600 fpm

 

 

 

Going to 300 feet AGL, Short Final, Landing Config and Same settings...

 

Cossing the numbers and pulling it back...

[fppilot 4,339]

Well, nobody responded the other day when you posted this topic, but there is at least one other member here who enjoys this C340. I have been flying it this week on a multi-segment trip around the midwest and find it enjoyable and pretty realistic. A week ago I was flying my MilViz C310. I've taken a few rides IRL in a C340 but have never been in a C310. I find the handling of this Carenado model to be pretty authentic. The C310 seems too light and free by comparison.

 

Here is a topic I posted today in the Screen Shots forum of screen captures from a flight today in the C340 with current weather from Ypsilanti, Michigan, to Columbus, Ohio.

 

http://forum.avsim.n...in-the-midwest/

 

I have been working on my 340's panel, fitting in a pair of crossfilled RXP GNS430s with the RXP Unlimited Pack, though I am not yet happy with the fit. The initial fit has the 430s to tall in profile vs width. As I work with the sizes and placement I keep overlapping them slightly, despite double checking my math. I am also working out some autopilot issues after configuring a better pop-up and trying to get it to cooperate with my Saitek Multi-Panel. It seems occasionally one cancels out the other.

[cvearl 60]

I found it easy to plop an RXP430 in there but I use FS Panel Studio. Makes it a little easier.

 

And ya. Im a sucker for these little GA birds.

 

C.

[Rations 102]

Wow—the second and third FSX images are actually very beautiful and lush! Is that FTX?

 

Interestingly, I recall having taken off and landed at a similar—if not identical—airport during a GA simulator session.

[fppilot 4,339]

Wow—the second and third FSX images are actually very beautiful and lush! Is that FTX?

 

Interestingly, I recall having taken off and landed at a similar—if not identical—airport during a GA simulator session.

 

Which post are you referring to? Can't tell.

[ron6468 1]

An engine upgrade is available on flightsim.com and maybe Avsim (haven't checked). It adds the RAM VII conversion which increases HP from 285 to 335. It does make a diiference in cruise and climb but not by much - still worth doing.

I flew the 340 exactly according to Cessna charts and frankly I find this plane to be slower than the real world verision. A Piper Navajo, while not as attractive is a much better performer.

[megs8888 20]

Ill check that out thanks.

[Rations 102]

Which post are you referring to? Can't tell.

I was referring to the FSX images.

[cvearl 60]

Wow—the second and third FSX images are actually very beautiful and lush! Is that FTX?

 

Interestingly, I recall having taken off and landed at a similar—if not identical—airport during a GA simulator session.

 

That is ORBX KHQM (Bowerman) and it is free. http://fullterrain.com/freeware.html

Located here... http://skyvector.com/?ll=46.95651157200729,-123.94207763877811&chart=301&zoom=3

 

You should have the PNW scenery from them. If you dont, they have a demo of it... http://fullterrain.com/product_demos.html

 

Dont install the PNW demo if you already have ORBX PNW. If you use the demo and but the PNW scenery, uninstall the demo first.

 

Charles.

[cvearl 60]

An engine upgrade is available on flightsim.com and maybe Avsim (haven't checked). It adds the RAM VII conversion which increases HP from 285 to 335. It does make a diiference in cruise and climb but not by much - still worth doing.

I flew the 340 exactly according to Cessna charts and frankly I find this plane to be slower than the real world verision. A Piper Navajo, while not as attractive is a much better performer.

 

You might think its slower than the real world version but the charts for this plane are in True Airspeed and the AI only shows KIAS which once in cruise altitude is more or less CAS (Calibrated Air Speed).

 

I was all set to write her off until I remebered some lessons from the past. The charts are based on ISA or STANDARD DAY. Any variation to that will dramatically effect the speeds.

 

Example 1:

Standard Day = 0 feet (Sea Level) @ 15C - 135 KIAS (Knots Indicated) = 135 TAS (True Air Speed)

Temperature Minus 10C at Sea Level, 135 KIAS = 127 TAS

 

Example 2:

Standard day at 10000 feet, temperature may be aprox -5C or so. Your AI will still show 135 KIAS. But the TAS is 156 Knots.

At pressure altitude 10000 feet if it is -20 your KIAS is still only 135 but TAS will be 151 Knots.

At pressure altitude 10000 feet if it is +15C your TAS is 161 knots.

 

Example 3:

f you leave the ground in the summer. 20C on the ground at sea level. Fly to 20,000 feet. Airspeed indicating about 140 KIAS (Achievable at high cruise setting) you will be doing 190 TAS This seems to match the document below.

 

http://www.jtatwins....A - the MVP.pdf

 

Depending on the 340’s engine and power settings, 340s will average a fuel consumption of 30 –

36 gallons per hour. The Flight Plan Speed for a 340 is 190 KTAS. Typical cruise speeds in the

high teens to low twenties will be 190 –205 KTAS. I rarely take a 340 above 21,000 feet and

usually cruise between 18-21,000 feet.

 

So to check the chart you have to calculate TAS and I find it pretty damn close. And since these would be older planes, subtract 2 - 5 knots from what the chart says. They are no longer new and perfect. ;)You need a flight computer to compute these or the RXP GNS430 and 530 have a page for this stuff. This is also affected by barometric pressure. Standard day at sea level is pressure 29.92 15 degrees celcius.

 

Charles.

[ron6468 1]

Good response!

 

I do realize this and actually fly my twins with a glass cockpit (Project Magenta) on a separate cockpit LCD monitor so the IAS, TAS and Groundspeed are always indicated.

My impression was that the indicated and true speeds were lower than I expected them to be but with a little more research and your info, I determined this is the case on this aircraft and many similar.

Its really just a standard twin with pressurization and more automation. A nice one though.

 

Ive become sort of attached to turboprops lately with all their complexity and performance.

 

[Rations 102]

That is ORBX KHQM (Bowerman) and it is free. http://fullterrain.com/freeware.html

Located here... http://skyvector.com...hart=301&zoom=3

 

You should have the PNW scenery from them. If you dont, they have a demo of it... http://fullterrain.c...duct_demos.html

 

Dont install the PNW demo if you already have ORBX PNW. If you use the demo and but the PNW scenery, uninstall the demo first.

Thanks for the information. It seems like an excellent package!

[cvearl 60]

Good response!

 

I do realize this and actually fly my twins with a glass cockpit (Project Magenta) on a separate cockpit LCD monitor so the IAS, TAS and Groundspeed are always indicated.

My impression was that the indicated and true speeds were lower than I expected them to be but with a little more research and your info, I determined this is the case on this aircraft and many similar.

Its really just a standard twin with pressurization and more automation. A nice one though.

 

Ive become sort of attached to turboprops lately with all their complexity and performance.

 

Ya. The C340II is more a personal light twin cabin class plane. Not really meant to keep up with the likes of a Duke with a Turbine conversion or a JS4100 or BE1900 long haul charter birds. Just not in that arena. However. It can definately true out at 200 knots and get above the weather in the land of "we need oxygen". A step up plane I guess for someone transitioning (with alot of $$$) from the likes of a turbo Cessna 210 or something like that.

 

I use it for hops just under 200 miles as I only sim for about an hour total in an evening. The plane chooses the flightplan I guess based on cruise speed for me.

 

C.

[Dirk98 354]

I found it easy to plop an RXP430 in there but I use FS Panel Studio. Makes it a little easier.

 

And ya. Im a sucker for these little GA birds.

 

C.

 

I'm curious, cvearl, do you use the 3D knobs by Carenado or remove them?

 

Thanks,

Dirk.

[kowgli 2]

What exactly are you comparing? No two planes fly identical. They may have different propellers or engines in different states. In the flight school where I rent planes they have multiple C152's which although they look almost the same fly completely different. The speed differences are around 20%. They behave differently in the air. On some of them you just need 2200RPM to maintain 95kt, on others it's 2300RPM. All of them are C152's and all of them are 100% realistic None of them flies as the charts in the POH say.