Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I was wondering if Avsim would add an Unofficial Real Air forum in the commercial forums so that we could have separate Real Air aircraft topics.   This one is getting pretty long.

 

Thanks.

  • Replies 554
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

 

 


I think most will find the following B60 Royal Duke operational info useful. This is courtesy of an actual owner.


Les, for take-off power with the -35's, at least what I target is about 1150 lbs of torque, as 1200 is the limitation. (actually I think it 1230 for T/O) and prop rpm not to exceed 2200 on the -35's. Mine governs about 2180. The ITT limit is 760c, but I've not ever seen that being an issue for takeoff. I may pull the props back a little more if its cooler.

Cruise power is really a function of how much your willing to spend? Generally you'll need to start reducing torque to keep ITT in check when you get up above FL250. Depending on OAT I can usually have 1000 lbs of torque +- 50 lbs to keep the my fuel flow around 33-34 gph per side for 66-68 total. I've found 2000 prop rpm is a happy number. If it's warmer than standard you may be ITT limited in the climb above FL260 but rarely do I see that. At those fuel flows at FL270-280 I will see between 265-270 kts true, indicating about 170-175. If it's cool enough and want to push more fuel thru it, push the levers forward until you limit the torque at 1200 or ITT at 760. It's generally not a problem to make the RTD go over 280 kts true, you'll just be running the ITT near the limit and burning 75-80 gph.

In the descent initially (depending the rate of course, but lets say 1500 fpm is your target) I will reduce torque to about 850 lbs and then adjust from there depending on rate and amount of turb. I will also come back another 100 prop rpm, as you come down and increase indicated airspeed prop rpm tends to come up slightly and the reduction initially balances that.

As I descend into the approach phase, I'm looking for about 400 lbs of torque. This is a good target number for downwind and base. As you put approach flaps out this number works pretty well for me initially and gets me into a good final stabilization. Gear down at the marker and glide slope capture 400 is still working and as the airplane starts to speed up coming down the glide path a reduction to around 350 may be needed. This where I bring the props slowly up to full rpm. I don't put full flaps down until I have convinced myself I have the runway made and make small adjustments to maintain blue line to the threshold, and then ever so gently reduce
torque until the props start to go flat on you. If all goes well, between the propeller drag and the reduction in torque, along with a slight flare, stall horn will beep just as you put the mains on

 

Les, thank you!  It'll be fun to try out!


 

 


I know the paint kit is a little ways out still. I went ahead and made a pair of simple re-registration paints from Sean's beautiful blue scheme. (including day/night panel reg numbers) Here is ZK-RTD and N4269T. I'll get them packed up and uploaded soon.

Cheers
TJ

 

I'll need that for sure!


 

 


I was wondering if Avsim would add an Unofficial Real Air forum in the commercial forums so that we could have separate Real Air aircraft topics. This one is getting pretty long.



Thanks.

 

Great idea.

Gregg Seipp

"A good landing is when you can walk away from the airplane.  A great landing is when you can reuse it."
i7-8700 32GB Ram, GTX-1070 8 Gig RAM

Posted

 

 


My word! ...... staggering how much juice these birds swallow!!!



68 gph..... my buddy owns a Tecnam Eaglet and gets a lot better than 6.8 gph !!!!

 

Hmm... 1100 HP vs about 100 HP (or less - depends on which Eaglet).  Yep, that shifted decimal point seems about right! :lol:

 

Scott

Posted

Interesting posts. The Duke is still so much cheaper than even the slowest and oldest of the Citation jets, which are barely 80 knots faster. If you think Turbo prop personal aircraft are expensive, have a look at the yearly ownership and running costs of the most beaten up "bargain"  private jet. Yikes!

Robert Young - retired full time developer - see my Nexus Mod Page and my GitHub Mod page

Posted

 

 


In the descent initially (depending the rate of course, but lets say 1500 fpm is your target) I will reduce torque to about 850 lbs

 

I find the sim version likes 400 or it'll over speed @1500FPM

 

 

 


Gear down at the marker and glide slope capture 400 is still working and as the airplane starts to speed up coming down the glide path a reduction to around 350 may be needed.

 

Spot on in the sim as well. I keep 350 until over the fence, then cut to flight idle.

Posted

The Turbine Duke, or even the piston Duke for that matter, are particularly infamous for their cost of ownership.

 

If anyone is ever serious about this kind of thing, A T Duke is pretty much a ZO6 corvette, and about as useful as one. You can get a NEW Meridian without having to have a twin cert, and with manufacture support and service that wont take whatever is left of your lotto winnings. The money you would spend on a TDuke would be about what you could expect to spend on a even better PC12 that is close in speed and GPH, but can have a bathroom, your family, and your Harley Davidson in the back. Thats why when you speak with brokers, the first thing they ask is; "What's the mission".

 

If you find yourself suddenly stupid rich, A TBM or Piper Meridian are fast and cheap(er) then the Tduke, with modern avionics already in the panel. You could then rest-o-mod a Twin Beech (18) for even cooler coolness and still be cheaper then the TDuke, and ramp appeal I think would be greater... especially when those twin wasp jr's start up.

Posted

Twins are never known for being cheap, nor having particularly good payloads, compared to similar sized singles. Twins have to lug around the weight of an extra engine, as well as the extra fuel for it. Twins are good for those who fly over rugged terrain or water and want peace of mind.

 

In flight sim we might look forward to the thrill of flying a Civil P-51 over the Rockies at night. In reality, doing something like that with a 70 year old airframe and engine wouldn't be the wisest thing to do. A mission like that would be ideal for a twin turboprop.

 

Interestingly the Turbine Duke's 'competition' might be the O&N Silver Eagle II, a Cessna 340 with twin Allison B-17-250F coversions. O&N also does the P210 Allison conversions. Here is a good AOPA article on the Silver Eagle

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/September/1/Cessna-Silver-Eagle

 

Anyway, back to the T Duke, it is a rich man's sports car, much like the Civil P-51, yet if you have the $$ to operate one of those, you are doing well and not concerned about payloads or operating costs. Planes like those are something to look good in as you taxi to the apron lol. Interestingly the P-51 is an extremely efficient airplane, even by today's standards. Ironically the Royal Turbine Duke's smaller sibling, the Cougar Baron might be the more practical plane considering Baron parts are a little more plentiful.

 

Remember the original Duke itself also had the misfortune of being sandwiched between two popular Beech Baron and King Air workhorses, which were much more practical and economical airframes. Kind of like the Cessna Cardinal...a fine airplane, stuck between two more popular designs. Most 172 pilots looking to upgrade would just go straight to the 182.

 

I am so glad that Rob and Sean choose to do the sports cars/exotic rides of the aviation world, let other developers do the everyday common planes. So Rob, after the next RealAir bush plane....how about a Beech Starship LOL....J/K...whatever you guys make, take my credit card LOL.'

 

Cheers

TJ

Posted

Just to, perhaps, provide more clues on the clickspots...I lost my click spots today while reloading a flight for practicing ILS approaches.  On the third reload, I lost the clickspots.  It kinda *felt* like this was something with the view...not sure why I thought that.  I tried a number of things and then, finally, opened a new copilot view and immediately had my clickspots back in both views.  I closed the new view and kept flying.  Of course, it may have been just instability from reloading the flight that caused it...not sure, but, I thought it might help to post what I found.  My system is not heavily loaded (45-50% CPU) other than the fact that I am reloading the flight several times.

 

Gregg

Gregg Seipp

"A good landing is when you can walk away from the airplane.  A great landing is when you can reuse it."
i7-8700 32GB Ram, GTX-1070 8 Gig RAM

Posted

+1 for the Realair forum, been mentioned before but never happens.  It wouldn't be for many support issues, with the quality of the products, but other stuff can be just as fun/important/interesting to read, even for people who read more than post, like myself.  The tech support from Rob by email is second to none, but maybe a forum section would give the answers to all the community and save Rob time, just a thought.

 

Well, for me, it's off to fly some flights from my home land of Scotland, a quick look at ASN shows EGPO with 22kts which will increase over the next few days as the low pressure approaches, fun times. 

-Iain Watson-

Guest ~Craig~
Posted

+1 for the Realair forum, been mentioned before but never happens.  It wouldn't be for many support issues, with the quality of the products, but other stuff can be just as fun/important/interesting to read, even for people who read more than post, like myself.  The tech support from Rob by email is second to none, but maybe a forum section would give the answers to all the community and save Rob time, just a thought.

 

Well, for me, it's off to fly some flights from my home land of Scotland, a quick look at ASN shows EGPO with 22kts which will increase over the next few days as the low pressure approaches, fun times. 

 

 

'ch aye, y'ken it's gonna be windy oot there! :smile:

Posted

I am hoping for a high quality PC-12... the Carenado is half done and no real system modeling. This is a single engine you take anywhere you need. Thanks RealAir for the Dukes. Perfect releases and great support.

 

You raise an interesting point.

 

I think quality and very expensive system modelling are not necessarily hand in hand. We will be grappling with exactly the same problem. That sophisticated avionics are either absent or not complete does not make an addon aircraft invalid or poor. What matters is if what is there is well done. There are numerous exanples of aircraft addons that offer complete systems, FMS, VNav, glass, Garmin XXXX etc, but the vast amount of time and effort designing these systems often mean compromises elsewhere. I think Carenado do a fantastic job with their offerings and they have identifiable strengths. 

 

Making custom gauges with the complexity, say, of the Collins Pro Line 21, involves thousands, not hundreds, of hours development unless you can buy a ready made package which further bumps up costs. I think there is far too much emphasis on "quality" being judged solely on how many trendy gauges you shove into a product. Unless you are going to price a product as "premium" you cannot survive on such an enormous development time and cost.

 

I don't wish to appear too luddite about this but on my own system I run the bog standard GPS, not because I'm unimpressed by some of the marvellous gauge on offer, but because I quite like the challenge of dealing with navigation with modest avionics. The standard FSX gps is much maligned. it has flaws but it does the job very well.

 

Perceptions of quality through appreciation of sophisticated avionics, 90% of which the average simmer hardly even delves into, is analogous to owning a watch or mobile phone in which telling the time or making an actual call are very low on the list of features. 

 

I've flown enough addons, and co-designed quite a few, where the compulsion to satisfy demand for over-kill, particularly with contemporary gauges that to my eyes really don't translate very well to the simulator screen, starts to chip away at more important things like frame rate, aesthetics, ergonomics, practicality and basic quality in other more important areas.

 

This drive towards more and more sophistication is present too in the real aviation world. I'm quite interested in aviation safety, and what stands out is that not only is there little evidence that glass gauges with tons of info crammed on to one screen is safer, but there is substantial evidence to suggest they offer less safety. That could be lack of training of course. It could also be that learning how a glass system works is no guarantee in the absence of fundamental aviation skills. 

 

All this could be assumed to be an excuse as to why we will not be producing forthcoming projects with trendy gauges! My personal view is that however well done, the somewhat brashly multi-coloured gauges with endless functions and layer upon layer of information not only do not look very good in a simulator unless you permanently zoom in to them, but they are unproven as a contribution to safety. I realise this is a controversial view.

 

Some of my favourite addon aircraft are the simplest ones. I appreciate that accurate system modelling is attractive to some. There are to my mind more important things if such system modelling means compromises elsewhere. Now exiting stage left!

+1 for the Realair forum, been mentioned before but never happens.  It wouldn't be for many support issues, with the quality of the products, but other stuff can be just as fun/important/interesting to read, even for people who read more than post, like myself.  The tech support from Rob by email is second to none, but maybe a forum section would give the answers to all the community and save Rob time, just a thought.

 

Well, for me, it's off to fly some flights from my home land of Scotland, a quick look at ASN shows EGPO with 22kts which will increase over the next few days as the low pressure approaches, fun times. 

 

We've gone over this many times in the past. We've offered bespoke email support for nearly fifteen years and it has worked very well. It also works well to contribute on public forums. But if we had a dedicated RealAir Simulations forum here or elsewhere, it would inevitably result in poorer email support. I know this is not a conventional view, but we are a team of two and manning a support forum would mean a repeat of our well established and normally very quick personal support which our customers tell us they like very much, and it has worked for many years. General discussions on our stuff are not censored and anyone can say what they like, within reason, here in the public forum. We have a system that works and I don't see much point in changing it.

 

best wishes,

 

Rob - RealAir

Robert Young - retired full time developer - see my Nexus Mod Page and my GitHub Mod page

Guest ~Craig~
Posted

We've gone over this many times in the past. We've offered bespoke email support for nearly fifteen years and it has worked very well. It also works well to contribute on public forums. But if we had a dedicated RealAir Simulations forum here or elsewhere, it would inevitably result in poorer email support. I know this is not a conventional view, but we are a team of two and manning a support forum would mean a repeat of our well established and normally very quick personal support which our customers tell us they like very much, and it has worked for many years. General discussions on our stuff are not censored and anyone can say what they like, within reason, here in the public forum. We have a system that works and I don't see much point in changing it.

 

best wishes,

 

Rob - RealAir

 

Hi Rob,

 

I think what I am reading a lot of people want regarding a forum for RealAir, is not actually to expect support from yourself and Sean as the Development team, but rather for mutual hobbyist discussion, info sharing, and self helping eachother.    In other words, not particularly a 'support forum' for RealAir because as you've demonstrated, you do that efficiently and successfully by email, but instead a 'community forum' for those interested in your products.

 

I wouldn't see it as anything that should burdon or lean on yourself and Sean - noone wants that - but simply an AVSIM sub-section where multiple threads based around RealAir products could encourage and entice community participation.

 

As an example - the "unofficial Carenado forum" here on AVSIM has never ever (AFAIK) attracted the participation of the guys who run and develop for Carenado :smile: ... but it's neverthless - as a community led forum - a huge benefit to users of Carenado products.    You have people helping eachother, sharing customizations, discussing what they like / don't like about products.    It's a wealth of info about Carenado, despite Carenado themselves not having to have anything to do with it.

 

Cheers.

Posted

Um...does the gear warn still work?  I just did a no power, full flaps, no gear approach to a snow covered cornfield in Canada and never got a light, or beep. 

 

In case you're curious...I did it on purpose...this time.  :)

Gregg Seipp

"A good landing is when you can walk away from the airplane.  A great landing is when you can reuse it."
i7-8700 32GB Ram, GTX-1070 8 Gig RAM

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...