Lionheart Lear 24 released

[737guy1 39]

 

 

Yes. Keep in mind that the database cycle is a few years old. If you're looking to test the capabilities of the GTN's, Garmin has a trainer for download which is pretty much an identical copy of what the Flight1 gauges are.

 

Can they not be updated with Navigraph?  I am fine with paying for an up to date cycle if that is all that is required.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

Can they not be updated with Navigraph?  I am fine with paying for an up to date cycle if that is all that is required.

 

Not with Navigraph.  The database can be updated with current cycles direct from Garmin, but it costs a lot and I might of heard that you need an actual unit to purchase the up to date cycles

[Boeing or not going 578]

I purchased the Lear from day one of release and have used it in FSX and Prepar3D 1.4 and v2.3. I can describe it as a 'nice' aircraft. The autopilot is terrible and frequently loses track when using the GPS mode. I bought this aircraft because I was sick of waiting for the Carenado Hawker 850 release, which will sell for a similar price.

 

It's a niche purchase, flying with old technology as the Lear had in the 60's, is different and takes a bit of getting used to for Nav purposes. The graphics are good but not outstanding(my system is set to max).

 

If you want something different it's worth the investment, if you want a modern bizjet then, it's not up there.

 

Carenado posted on their Facebook the Hawker wont be released this year.

 

I am waiting for their Pilatus PC-12 that's the only airplane I want to fly in FSX!

 

This classic Lear looks nice and fun though.

[Guest JustanotherPilot]

Carenado posted on their Facebook the Hawker wont be released this year.

 

I am waiting for their Pilatus PC-12 that's the only airplane I want to fly in FSX!

 

This classic Lear looks nice and fun though.

Thanks for that...my patience for this release has now gone. I'll go the other way and hope QWsim release their 737C/L or 787 before then. Funny how simmers seem to spend a lot of time waiting for product releases.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

Funny how simmers seem to spend a lot of time waiting for product releases.

 

Hmm... I spend more time flying.

 

There's no shortage of really good stuff to fly, this release being one of them!

[twharrell 38]

I'm a huge fan of the Lear and love that I have a choice to fly with old technology or new technology. Just yesterday I tried a flight on Pilot Edge using the GTN 750 and really enjoyed it.

 

Todd

[vololiberista 205]

I'm a huge fan of the Lear and love that I have a choice to fly with old technology or new technology. Just yesterday I tried a flight on Pilot Edge using the GTN 750 and really enjoyed it.

 

Todd

You should try the visual approach to rwy 08 at Innsbruck without having an FMC or VNAV. Just fly the NDBs

[ryanbatc 12,857]

Are the NDB's used as a backup to the mk I eyeball or what?

[vololiberista 205]

Are the NDB's used as a backup to the mk I eyeball or what?

The answer is yes and no!

The Rattenburg NDB is a hold. And, also where you turn to establish on the localiser for rwy26. Absam is also non visual. As you come up to it on the right the needle will start to deflect and at that point you change your heading to the INN NDB. This one however is different in that if you wait until the needle deflects i.e. by passing over it you "will" scratch the paintwork. It's best to turn about 1.1DME before. Without an FMC that requires mark 1 eyeball. There's a sloping ridge on your left turn just before it ends. it's much easier in real life!!

Having said all that the real difficulties at Innsbruck are not the approaches. The difficulty is the missed approach procedure for rwy26 and 08 visual. It is at Absam. If you can't see the rwy you must initiate a missed approach. Which is a steep climbing turn to the left back to Absam  with a max radius of 1,700 metres. If your a/c can't do that then you are not permitted into Innsbruck. The only exception is if you have a "performance" a/c in which case you can execute a normal missed approach. The Lear would qualify. So assuming you can see the rwy then you are committed to landing from Absam whatever. That's the difficulty!!

[raymar 969]

Has anyone with the LHC Model 24B tried 'slow flight' or any high altitude stalls? OR any stalls for that matter.

 

Very interested in your comments.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

Has anyone with the LHC Model 24B tried 'slow flight' or any high altitude stalls? OR any stalls for that matter.

 

Sort of.... Last night I was on approach fiddling with the AP since it failed to capture the glideslope (again) and I had pulled power back and had the airspeed drop pretty low while my attention was elsewhere.  I noticed my AoA needle was in the yellow and it started to sort of sink...  Luckily there's an abundance of 'zip' available (good or bad ) and I was able to punch the power levers on my TQ ahead and rebound out of it.

 

Funny enough, immediately after that, it caught the glideslope.  Right in time for me to turn off the AP and land it.

 

I still have a few issues with the AP; notably my G/S CAP light never turns on, and although it will capture and hold lateral guidance on the approach, it is pretty hit or miss whether it captures vertical guidance.  I am using this in conjunction with the GTN750, so perhaps it's a compatibility issue.  I may have to remove the gauge from the panel and hand fly an approach to see if that makes a difference.

[raymar 969]

Sort of.... Last night I was on approach fiddling with the AP since it failed to capture the glideslope (again) and I had pulled power back and had the airspeed drop pretty low while my attention was elsewhere.  I noticed my AoA needle was in the yellow and it started to sort of sink...  Luckily there's an abundance of 'zip' available (good or bad ) and I was able to punch the power levers on my TQ ahead and rebound out of it.

Thanks Jim,

 

If you get a chance, take your Lear up to some safe altitude, say 12,000 - 15,000 feet and see how she feel when you reduce power to idle and try to hold level flight. See what attitude and indicated speeds you see as you approach stall speeds.

 

If it does indeed stall try to describe what it looked like. Same if it doesn't stall.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

[Jimmy RFR 406]

Alright Ray, I did as you asked...

 

• At 12,500 feet level flight and 265 knots I reduced power to idle.  After a bit, speed started to bleed off slowly, and v/s started to go negative.  couldn't tell if the nose was starting to drop, I assume it was, but pretty imperceptible in the sim.  So I started to apply gentle back pressure to the yoke, keeping it level at 12,500.
• After a bit more of watching speed very slowly drop off, I started to get bored ^_^ and pulled the yoke back to achieve a 500 fpm climb rate.
• At 13,000 feet and ~200 knots, I leveled off.
• Increasing back pressure on the yoke required as speed bleeds off; nose perceptibly raising, AoA needle moving towards the yellow.
• At about 80 - 90 knots the AoA needle was in the red, and vertical speed gauge displays a rapidly increasing descent.
• Aircraft in complete stall; v/s gauge reading maxed at past -6000 fpm. At this point, left wing starts to drop until nose pitches straight down. 
• Airspeed quickly builds, firm back pressure on the yoke brings me back to level flight.

I wouldn't call this behavior realistic from what I've read online; but then I don't plan on stalling my Lear often. ^_^  I couldn't find much quickly accessible info on the proper stall characteristics of the Lear 24.  I've read that on the Lear 35, fighting the nose dive that precedes a stall by pulling back on the yoke when flaps are up will cause loss of control; likely this behavior wouldn't be able to be replicated in FSX easily. 

 

The few things i did read pointed towards the Lear 24 having very a pretty abrupt stall tendency.   I would say that in FSX, it's very forgiving.

 

Also worth mentioning is that I've read that at above 220 knots or above FL180, it wasn't a very stable plane to fly, and autopilot operation was preferred.  This is definitely not reflected in this model, as this one is super controllable at pretty much any speed, high or low (well, until it falls out of the sky, that is).  Of course, you would likely know better about that than my internet perusing.

 

Another thing that I'll have to email Bill about:  Although I can test them and hear sounds, when the plane actually stalled, those stall warning bells were nowhere to be heard...

[raymar 969]

Thanks Jim,

That is pretty much what I experienced with stalls also. The real world early models evidently gave almost no warning of an impeding stall. The wing design was such that normal buffeting or one wing dropping off wasn't present. The stall was quick, violent, and usually deadly.

This was the driving force for all those leading edge wing modifications and other slow speed add ons. I think it took a long time to train the pilots not to expect normal stall characterics. The stick shaker was one way to alert the crew.

Read about the 'coffin corner' sometimes. I think the early Lears created that term. Only at the upper Flight Levels though.

The stall warning horns have to be powered up. Did they work during the checklist test prior to takeoff?
Use the Spoilers to bleed off airspeed rapidly.

Thanks again for taking the time to fly the stalls.

Here is a quote from my nearly complete review:

The original LearJet, though an instant success , had shortcomings that became painfully obvious to aviation consumers. The original wing on the Lear 23, and some of the early Lear 24s, earned the nickname "Flash" because of it's stall characteristics. In most aircraft an impending stall is felt by an aerodynamic buffet on the controls, due to the slick wing of the early Lear, stalls came with no warning at all, often ending tragically.

Additionally, many military pilots coming from the fighter jets of the time had the mentality that since the Lear design was based on that of a fighter, it should have the same limitations. Before people could grasp what was happening, an alarming number of LearJets would simply disappear from radar screens with signs of alarm, they would later be found in many pieces scattered across a field.

Pilots were taking a corporate aircraft into near supersonic speeds and producing a shockingly severe control flutter that would eventually tear the aircraft apart.

After discovering the abrupt stall tendencies and erratic overspeed characteristics, designers altered limitations of the aircraft and began the first of many improvements to the standard wing.

Ray

[vololiberista 205]

Thanks Jim,

 

That is pretty much what I experienced with stalls also. The real world early models evidently gave almost no warning of an impeding stall. The wing design was such that normal buffeting or one wing dropping off wasn't present. The stall was quick, violent, and usually deadly.

 

This was the driving force for all those wing modifications and slow speed add ons. I think it took a long time to train the pilots not to expect normal stall characterics. The stick shaker was one way to alert the crew.

 

Read about the 'coffin corner' sometimes. I think the early Lears created that term. Only at the upper Flight Levels though.

 

The stall warning horns have to be powered up. Did they work during the checklist test prior to takeoff?

Use the Spoilers to bleed off airspeed rapidly.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to fly the stalls.

 

Ray

Stick shakers are relatively easy to reproduce in the sim at least the sound of. Stick pushers are another kettle of fish. In effect it involves arbitrarily disconnecting the yoke/joystick from the sim, forcing a nose down attitude and then reconnecting the yoke/joystick. Without that even the slightest resistance on the part of the simmer will overcome a stick push algorithm.