Sign in to follow this  
Guest BeaverDriver

Mid-High Weight Flight Test

Recommended Posts

Well, that was an eye opener. I took off out of CYPR bound for PAGS, 1000 lbs under gross at takeoff. Now I know this isn't a Lear so don't go jumping to conclusions about what's coming. However I have been watching these things on Flight Aware the past couple of weeks and most of them (on flights of over 1 hour) are up in the high 300's and occasionally in the low 400's (flight levels). I made the assumption that the ones in the low 400's are corporate machines that aren't loaded too heavily, so discarded them. Very typically they were FL350 to 390. So off I go, Takeoff was ok and about what I expected in terms of distance (about 3500 ft to clear 50'). The initial climb was good and somewhat on the numbers, but I was only indicating 140 to 1500 ft (3000 fpm climb rate). That's pretty low. At that point I was cleaned up and accelerating to around 200, which I figured would be a good climb speed (again, not expecting to get 250 and a huge climb rate at the same time). However, above 10,000, things started to go south in a hurry. I was filed for 340. Not unreasonable at the weight I'd be at by time I got there, I figured. Well, this meant a climb rate of 1800 fpm, then by 18000 a climb rate of 1200, then down to 700 by time I got to the mid 20's. I'm at full power the whole time, which seemed a little unreasonable as well. To make a long story short, I was down to 300 fpm going through 310, and an IAS of 120. I should have been stalled at that point. Finally at 330, it did stall and I was indicating 95 kts. This isn't anemic, it's totally drained!

 

Long and short, I seriously, seriously doubt the real Citation is this bad a performer. Yes, it's not going to get M0.8 at any altitude, and it's not going to FL390 anywhere near gross (service ceiling says 430 but I would guess that's at a medium weight, and may also be more related to time to descend to 10000 in the event of a pressurization failure than what the airplane will actually do). But my heavens, I'm SURE it can do FL340 1500 lbs under gross!

 

Other things I noticed - I can't move the pressurization gauge that sets the cabin altitude. I can the rate knob but not the pressurization knob. I can't find anything in any of the manuals that tells you how you do move it. I've tried rotating the mouse thumbwheel, grabbing and dragging the mouse, clicking (R & L), but no go. I don't believe this is an automatic system in this airplane. The EADI readout in the VC is unreadable at the top and bottom of the gauge (previously noted); the Fuel Consumed gauge is non-functioning (probably not modeled); the Avionics all come on without the inverter being on (some instruments require an inverter - it seems more like decoration than anything); there is no stall warning (shaker, horn, nothing); and, as I noted above. Those are things I've noticed in just 2 flights. Others have noted many more, and equally as valid snags. GTN integration (or lack thereof) is also high up on my (expletive) list too.

 

This airplane needs a complete rework, but I know it won't get it. I thought Carenado had maybe changed. In terms of "sophisticated" aircraft, they produce not much more than "toy airplanes".  I'm tempted to ask for my money back, but instead I'm going to stick the receipt on my computer monitor as a reminder in case I ever get the urge to do this again. If this airplane were $15, maybe. You get a skin and a passing semblance of just enough systems to get you in the air and keep you there. At close to $50, it's getting into the realm of PMDG price, but nothing even close to the quality. If you like "lightweight" models, this may keep you happy. If you like simulations, sorry. I fall into the latter. What really burns me is that me buying this makes Carenado really smart, and me really stupid. I should know better. Maybe now.

 

To those who saw anything I wrote and bought this airplane based on that, my sincerest apologies. I wish I could make it up to you, but I can't. I do PROMISE however, that won't happen again.

 

Bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I agree with you that this is not modeled very well in terms of systems. I was able to move the controller knob by grabbing it and moving left. The pressurization did work.

 

The quick flights I did coupled with your high climb stall might indicate the engines are not producing full power. I had the levers crammed and was barely pulling 100% N1. Some altitudes and temperatures call for up to 103%.

 

It has been a while since I've flown this aircraft, but I did do a flight from KHOU TO KHPN a couple of years ago. This would obviously be at gross and high altitude given the distance. We did need to step climb a bit, but I forget the specifics. FL340 should not be too hard to accomplish given the fuel burn needed to get there. 410 and up is different. Mid to low weight for those altitudes.

 

Your first segment climb numbers don't seem out of line. I'd be curious on the second segment numbers single engine out of Aspen. That would tell us all we need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also should mention that at FL320 the place does not hold altitude at all it hunts going up 1000 and down 1000 fpm which is very unrealistic still love this jet though I hope they release a SP1 for it soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Beaver Driver - I just did the sums and it's going to cost me $A54 to get this, which I would pay, if it didn't have all those issues you mentioned. I gave up waiting for the Carenado Hawker to ever make it to the sales counter so instead  waited patiently for the Citation, an aircraft I'm familiar with as I've had the Eaglesoft Citation 550 FSX since it's release, a great aircraft but now dated graphics and texture wise.

 

Unless there are major updates with the Carenado Citation I think I'll delay my purchase indefinitely.

 

steve s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with you of how the aircraft performs!

 

Over FL150 it fly like a stone, unable to go straight to FL330 had to stop at FL250 to gain some speed before continuing to FL330, and this was with a EMPTY plane only the 2 pilots and 1200kgs of fuel!

 

I don`t know what we can do to get it to have a little bit better performance, maybe change something in the aircraft.cfg file to make it fly alot better?

 

But this has to be fixed in a SP1 or something, it was the same issue with the Phenom 100, but there it did get a patch/fix for the incredible bad performance, and now it is fixed.

 

As it is pr now the C550 is unable to go to FL430 even with light weight!

 

BUT I have seen alot of C550 flightplans from Eurocontrol Servers and I actually never have seen any C550 that go above FL360 in real life, so it MAY be something behind it in real life as well?

 

Attach some real world ATC Flightplans down under here so you can see what I am talking about only one of all the C550 flights today is above FL360 and that is NJE917T at FL390 on a 2 hour flight from Le Bourget to Alicante:

 

(FPL-NJE899Y-IN
-C550/L-SDFGHIRWXYZ/H
-LIRQ1230
-N0399F340 OKMAP UQ125 OMAKU UT558 LUMAV UM726 BZO UT101 MATAR T101 OBAGA OBAGA3A
-EDDM0048 EDDN
-EET/LOVV0031 EDUU0034 REG/CSDHO PBN/A1B1D1 SEL/FSKM
 OPR/NJE DOF/150117 RMK/PPR 01605 ASL1601156362 NAV/RNVD1E2A1)
 
(FPL-NJE301R-IN
-C550/L-SDFGHIRWXYZ/H
-EDDM1600
-N0395F340 GIVMI4E GIVMI Y101 IBAGA/N0389F360 Y101 OSBIT UL984 NOSPA UN857 TOLVU/N0394F350 UN857 RENSA
-LFPB0121 LFOB
-EET/EBUR0050 LFFF0056 REG/CSDHO PBN/A1B1D1 SEL/FSKM
 OPR/NJE DOF/150117 RMK/ASL0901154102 NAV/RNVD1E2A1)
 
(FPL-NJE917T-IN
-C550/L-SDFGHIRWXYZ/H
-LFPB1530
-N0380F390 ERIXU UN860 VLC
-LEAL0156 LEVC
-EET/LECB0110 REG/CSDHQ PBN/A1B1D1 SEL/QSBK
 OPR/NJE DOF/150117 NAV/RNVD1E2A1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to 410 in an SII. Half way through a 4+ hour flight. It can be reasonably done.

 

I don't think the power output is there in this model. Can't pull more than 99.5% or so N1 on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to 410 in an SII. Half way through a 4+ hour flight. It can be reasonably done.

 

I don't think the power output is there in this model. Can't pull more than 99.5% or so N1 on the ground.

 

Maybe some edit in the aircraft.cfg to get little more power on the engines will do the thing?

 

Mean I did something like that on the NGX to get a BBJ config, and that worked really good :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure someone in the community can make the adjustments if Carenado doesn't soon. I would have already done it if I knew how. I would like to see the appropriate changes on the N1 gauge reflected as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure someone in the community can make the adjustments if Carenado doesn't soon. I would have already done it if I knew how. I would like to see the appropriate changes on the N1 gauge reflected as well.

 

Totally agree with you, let`s just sit back and wait until a fix/change comes up :)

 

It should not take to long for someone who knows what to do, to edit something in the aircraft.cfg :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Did a quick flight to 350. Now a few things are coming back to me. The digital portion of the N1 gauge is not modeled properly. After you get above 100% N1, it is supposed to drop the 1 and display 01.0 for 101% N1. The tape portion of the gauge looks correct.

 

I still think there is something not right with the throttles/thrust. I did a quick little flight out of Aspen this morning where I should have needed 100% or more and was not getting it per the gauge.

 

The people that have been stalling the aircraft out at the mid flight levels are probably climbing too fast. This is addressed in the checklist I uploaded this morning. I remember now having to report slow climbs in the flight levels to ATC (report any climb less than 500'/min). I remember some really slow climbs in the summer. A lot of vectors for climb because some hotshot lear is climbing up your butt.

 

The airplane was climbing a little slow compared to the data in the checklist. KIAS climb speed at 30,000 feet is supposed to be 195 or so. I think I was indicating 150 or less. And I believe that was a 300'/min climb. This is probably one reason they don't publish too much data, because it will show how far off their model is. I would like to tweak their flight model a little if I knew how and was still flying the airplane enough to be certain of what the values are. However, we do have book data to support these claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried setting the Thrust Scalar to 1.1 yesterday. It seemed to make a bit of a difference. I was wondering if someone with a bit of time on type would give it a go and see if it's a bit closer to the numbers. It's not a great fix but it might make the plane more usable.

 

Regards Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see they have the correct poundage of thrust set at 2500. So would changing the thrust scalar to 1.1 give the aircraft 2750#/side? If so, that is not the right approach to whatever the problem might be. Whatever the problem is, I don't think it is too far off.

 

This airplane is not a Lear or other super performer. It does okay in the jet category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$15 for it?, BeaverDriver, come on, is not that bad...I agree with you in some things, but 15 it doesn't deserves 15...39.95 instead, would have been the right price IMO, I don't want to get into which is good or bad, as all we have seen, but 15 definitely not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, my last word on this. I did another flight tonight but this time out of Key West. I wanted to see what would happen in warmer air, particularly with the ITT's. My flight the other night was at surface temps of +5C so it was reasonably cool.

 

The flight was a disaster from the start. Using proper starting techniques, the ITT's spiked to the very top of the tape and even after the engine was running at idle, it only came down just to the redline. That's just nuts and how in the world did that make it past Carenado's eyes before it was released? Did they even start this aircraft when doing the beta testing?

 

I had increased the static thrust by 10% to see if I could get to altitude any better. I was at gross for takeoff and started for FL350. The first part of the climb was fine, except for the fact that the ITT's were above redline for the takeoff and at redline for the initial climb. That didn't come into line, despite climbing at 92% N1 (not atypical for a jet during climb) until above 10,000 ft. Initial RoC was 3200 fpm and by 10K it was down to 2000 fpm. Not too bad there. Above that though, things went south. I was climbing at 180 indicated and let it slip back to just over 170 as I continued my climb. By FL270 I was down to around 500 fpm and airspeed was starting to bleed back noticeably. It became very apparent that there was no way, unless I step climbed (and step climbing is for purposes of burning off fuel to get lighter so you can get to a higher altitude, not to pick up speed) that I was going to make FL320, never mind 350. Given how often I see these planes cruising at FL350 and above (well above!), this is completely out to lunch.

 

What also blows me away is how is it that the airplane was released with those dynamics (which don't even come close to the RW aircraft), and how you can't even read the digits on the EADI at the top and bottom of the gauge? Did Carenado think that nobody would notice? We always do, but still they maintain this practice. I guess then can and don't have to care when they know we'll buy it anyway.

 

Just a couple of notes in replies to my first post here:

 

@CraigC - yeah I finally got that one figured out (pressurization control). I did it with the mouse wheel but it took about 10 turns before it started moving. Why would they do it that way?? Just for fun, I left it set at SL for this trip and took the aircraft above the max differential point. No warning on the annunciator panel. So no stall warning and no pressurization warning. He's put that in there before (even though it wasn't modeled for the airplane it was put into and kept giving us false warnings!).

 

@awash202 - Sounds like you were stalling at that altitude. The aircraft handles very strangely for a stall, plus there's no stall warning horn. What was your airspeed at that point?

 

@Airway88 - that maybe an EASA/ATC restriction due to congestion there. Here in North America I see them above 350 all the time. Tonight at one point, 5 were in the air, the lowest one being 370 and the highest at 430. He was probably a single pilot with 1 or 2 passengers though, but the others were on long flights so they would have had full fuel and likely a full cabin (they were charter operators).

 

@CraigC - Yeah, I upped the power a bit in this and while it helped, it still didn't get me there. There's something that's really messing with it once you get into the thinner air. Now that's normal for high altitude ops, but based on RW numbers and what I see on FA, no way it should be this bad. Jets operate best at high altitudes.

 

@CraigC - They shouldn't be stalling the aircraft at mid levels no matter what, You maintain an airspeed (as you know) which should be around 160 to 180 in this machine, and as you get higher, your RoC will decline. In my case, I decided to just let it go and see what it would do. My IAS was down to about 95 kts, and if it was any higher, the airplane would not climb at all. At that point, the RoC was dropping to zero and if you came back on the nose just a touch, you stalled. That's sure not right for that altitude and weight in this airplane.

 

@CraigC/Airway88/Dave - agreed - someone sure needs to "tweak" this (I'm thinking 'rebuild' for this one though - worst FDE's I've seen yet in a Carenado product). When we start paying premium prices though (and even when we aren't, but I'm willing to cut the developer a little more slack when they aren't charging too much for their product), then we should be getting a premium product. In the case of this airplane, we are getting poor and lacking systems modeling, very poor engine dynamics and almost equally poor flight dynamics. It does look great though. So does this mean we should be paying premium dollars for something that looks great but can't perform? Might work for the casual simmer who is mainly interested in taking screenshots and never steps inside to fly the plane, but many of us are either RW pilots (or were); or are serious simmers who want to replicate flights and flying as closely as possible. It is us who are getting taken here. If the casual person wants to pay $45 for looks and nothing more, I guess that's up to them. I do take issue with your (Craig) comment that "it does ok in the jet category". The real machine sure does, but this one doesn't come close to that. I'd say it's a long way from ok.

 

@jjimp - see previous paragraph.

 

We all know that FSX is never going to come close to the real thing. We all know there are restrictions and limitations on scenery, aircraft, frame rates, etc. To expect perfection is a complete fantasy. I don't think most of us are foolish enough to think that we can achieve perfection in any model. What I compare a model to is what has been done by others, and knowing what CAN be done in FS. I bought the Flight 1 Mustang after buying this aircraft. That airplane matches the numbers (within reason) of the real airplane. The vast majority of systems in it are modeled, and modeled extremely well (particularly the avionics, and I have some expertise in RW avionics, so I know whereof I speak). When I get in that airplane, and look up the V speeds (something Carenado doesn't seem fit to provide us with), I know what to expect as I near rotation speed. I know that I need to climb to V2+10 before raising the flaps, and when I do, I know what to expect in the way of a change of performance. I know that when I select the A/P to ON, then select Nav Mode and FLC, what the airplane is going to do. I know that if I select V/S, the FLC will de-select on it's own because you can't have both of those engaged at the same time. Something that escapes Carenado. I know that as I'm climbing through FL340 on the way to 370, I'll still be climbing at a reasonable speed and while my RoC will have declined greatly from the 3000 fpm I saw down near SL, I'll still make it there if I hold my speed. I won't make it to 400 at my current weight, but I will make it to 370. On and on it goes. I paid $49.95 for that model. I paid $45 and change for the Carenado model. It is obvious that all the systems in the Citation (which are far less sophisticated than in the Mustang) CAN be modeled. It is equally obvious that the engine dynamics can be very closely modeled; as can the flight dynamics. In the Mustang, I don't have to worry about not being able to read fonts and whatnot, because they weeded that sort of thing out in Beta. Part of the cost of the aircraft is paying for good and thorough beta testing. Now before someone says that no release can be perfect, yeah, I know that. I've been around this sim since the days of SubLOGIC. The Mustang had bugs too, but most were of the more deeply hidden and hard to find type, not things like not being able to read the numbers on an EADI. So why are we paying $4 less for an airplane that isn't that much more than skin, vs an airplane that is extremely well and thoroughly modeled? I guess if you are into looks only, maybe it is worth the money, but it seems a lot to pay for 1/3rd of a product.

 

OK, enough already. I'll wait for SP1. If 90% of the bugs and systems aren't fixed (and they won't be - he's never completely fixed an airplane before), I will ask for a refund. I bought this on good faith that what he advertises on the front page of his website on this aircraft as "Features", would actually be in and working. Clearly that is not the case, and I feel the product has been seriously misrepresented.

 

Sorry for the long-winded diatribe. I guess if it's going to be my last word on this subject, I might as well get as many in as I can :P .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple things...thrust does not seem to be there and speed brakes appear way too effective. Also, it does not fly the glide path well.

Let's see what they do with the first patch/update. Is there a way to inhibit the aural glide path warnings?

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, however, I'll too wait for the SP and those bugs to be fixed...

 

Just a note...they don't do refunds, they offer you to choose another aircraft by free...at least that's what they did when I asked for a refund with the Cirrus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple things...thrust does not seem to be there and speed brakes appear way too effective. Also, it does not fly the glide path well.

Let's see what they do with the first patch/update. Is there a way to inhibit the aural glide path warnings?

Dave

That is only IF and only IF it gets a SP1 for it, I doubt it will come an SP on it, since Carenado himself do NOT follow this forums as far as I know..And as far as I know, he haven`t released any SP for the Phenom, or all other planes he have made..

 

And if it comes, it will get months before we see any kind of SP since he has his hands full for the Piper Navajo and Hawker..

 

That is to bad because here it is alot of fixing to do before the plane is usable..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as far as I know, he haven`t released any SP for the Phenom, or all other planes he have made..

 

And if it comes, it will get months before we see any kind of SP ...

 

Well, for what it's worth, there was a SP for the PC-12 about a month after its initial release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did notice a few things on a C550 leaving EGGW for ENVA, XJC700 GCGOA

 

This is taken from FR24:

 

Aircraft(C550)
Cessna 550 Citation Bravo   Altitude
35,814 ft Vertical Speed
+384 fpm   Speed
287 kt Track
26°   Latitude
53.6998 Longitude
2.2395   Radar
T-MLAT Squawk
1435

 

(FPL-XJC700-IN
-C550/L-SDRWY/S
-EGGW1100
-N0348F370 MATCH Q295 DAGGA UQ295 CLN UL620 ARTOV UM604 LARGA DCT TINAC DCT KARLI Z261 NIMVO Z329 NELSU
-ENVA0235 ENKB
-EET/EGPX0054 EKDK0107 ENOR0115 REG/GCGOA PBN/A1B4 OPR/XJC XCLUSIVE JET CHARTER
 DOF/150118 RMK/CHANGE OF ROUTE BY IFPS ACCEPTED ASLEGGWDNV0144000)

That is even a Citation Bravo climbing that slowly, so it may be something behind this?
 
This was recorded way out in the Norwegian sea between UK and Norway about 40 minutes after departure from EGGW, so I guess it is something behind the low climbrate?
 
This is just like +400ft/min above FL350..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already stated that the real airplane isn't a super great performer at high altitudes. I'm not saying nothing is wrong with the flight model to some extent, but I think some might expect a 1,000'/min climb in the 30's and it isn't realistic.

 

I will say that my test to 350 the other day wasn't looking very good when compared to the book. Really slow indicated airspeed to keep the climb going at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Airway88 - his autopilot is leveling the aircraft off at FL360. Likely that's what he filed for. I saw 4 550's on FlightAware last night. All were 390 and up. This airplane may not be a Lear, but it can still get up there.

 

@CraigC - no, 1000 fpm above FL350 when taking off at gross might be optimistic. But taking off at gross, the airplane very much should be able to get to 350 and even 370 without any trouble. ATC expects that when they clear you to a given altitude, you can maintain 500 fpm or better. If you can't, they give you lower (whether you want it or not). Given that I've seen these things very often at FL410 to 430 over the past few nights, I think it's very safe to say that the FDE's on this airplane are pooched, never mind the hot starts, ITT's for climb, etc.

 

I've put this away now until the SP. We'll see how it does after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Airway88 - his autopilot is leveling the aircraft off at FL360. Likely that's what he filed for. I saw 4 550's on FlightAware last night. All were 390 and up. This airplane may not be a Lear, but it can still get up there.

 

@CraigC - no, 1000 fpm above FL350 when taking off at gross might be optimistic. But taking off at gross, the airplane very much should be able to get to 350 and even 370 without any trouble. ATC expects that when they clear you to a given altitude, you can maintain 500 fpm or better. If you can't, they give you lower (whether you want it or not). Given that I've seen these things very often at FL410 to 430 over the past few nights, I think it's very safe to say that the FDE's on this airplane are pooched, never mind the hot starts, ITT's for climb, etc.

 

I've put this away now until the SP. We'll see how it does after that.

 

I'm not going to disagree that there is something wrong with the engines/dynamics of this simulated aircraft, but one thing I will state as a fact and I know first hand is that this real life airplane can not always do 500fpm in the mid 30's and up. I've already stated that somewhere else in this subforum. Several calls to ATC notifying them of the rate of climb which was less than 500'/min. And no, they don't always give you lower whether you like it or not. Sometimes it is as simple as a vector for climb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been reading these with great interest, I bought the 500 II a few days ago and have run into every one of the issues posted here.  The planes modeling is awful, no two ways about it.  I KNOW it's not a Lear but while it may have a slow climb rate getting into the upper 20's, the airspeed should NEVER be as low as this.  Here's a few other "bugs" I've noticed, in no particular order:

 

- Pressurization knob as noted, I notice I seem to be able to get it to rotate once bleed source air is selected.  The rate knob moves but the value, which defaults at 10ft/min for some bizzare reason, won't change until you're airborne.  I got a CABIN ALT warning with the guages well within limits on one fligth, got no warning at all with the Cabin ALT needle buried on another.  Terrible. 

 

- Power issues as noted, including the redline on the ground at idle and the ITTs dropping to the 400's once at altitude

 

- Autopilot.  Can't really even call it that, the thing is a mess.  I've seen freeware units better than this.  ALT ARM ... doesn't.  I have to select ALT at I approach the altitude I thought was set, and hope I get close.  VS?  The 500 has a digital VSI gauge with a knob that lets you very simply select your rate of climb up or down.  On this the knob is non-functional, which is unbelievable.  Worse yet, the scrolling of the AP wheel to set a rate in either pitdch or VS is backwards.  In ANY aircraft, rolling the wheel from the bottom up causes the plane to pitch DOWN or VS to DECEND VALUE; roll the wheel from top down and the plane should pitch UP or VS to ASCENDING value.  Not this thing - they got it backwards .. and it says how it should work right on the face plate itself!!  Pitiful.  When level in altitude hold (lower 30's since I was never able to get the plane much above that even at mid-weights) The VSI display bug also snaps to a 1500 fpm climb rate any time the plane crosses a flight plan waypoint.  EVERY time.  ##### is that about??  Especially considering that the is NO VNAV functionality with this model whatsoever. 

 

- Simple HSI graphics are cut -off, engine gauge values basically unreadable.

 

- FMS.  This is apparently an "improvement" over their 1st attempt at a Univeral box in the 1900 and if so it scares me to think how bad that must've been because this version is an abortion.  No VNAV function at all, minimal LIST functionality, DIRECT TO an intermediate point neither displays on the MFD or couples up correctly ... its a joke. 

 

For reference, I will point out that I'm a real life corporate Captain.  I fly a G200 internationally, and was a sim instructor at a company I guarantee you've heard of prior to my return to the line. Even though I fly for a living I still enjoy simming, especially the GA stuff since there isn't much GA avaialble for me to play around with here in SE Asia.  I taught the Hawker 800XPi and have more than a few hours in the CJ1 and C500 sims and I know avionics (used the Universal L & K models in the Piaggio Avanti (Piaggio II's have PL21 like the Hawker 800-900 does) so I know my critiques are valid.  There are more but you get the idea. 

 

I so not expect FS planes to be balls on accurate, but I do expect them to fly as a reasonable representation which models from iFly and PDMG do.  I have a few other Carenado aircraft (T210, and PA46 JetProp) which I love and which work well.  The CII looks the part, it taxi's nice and hand-flies well but the flight modeling would have to improve just to be called amateurish, and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt.  This is not worth $50 and frankly, when any company takes money for a product they should damn well support it. 

 

I was looking forward to their Hawker release but honestly, I'm not now.  I can't imagine how badly they're going to slaughter the Collins PL21 in that machine if they can't get a 20 year old Universal right. 

 

In the meantime I will wait a bit for a SP - but listen guys, don't think there isn't recourse for this if they don't do anything.  FS community is large, very dedicated and word spreeads quickly.  Carenado also has an obligation to its paying customers - and if they don't pull their head out of their exhaust pipe I'm thinking a bit of class action might be in order. Personally I can't stand the nameless, faceless, voiceless world of online business, but there ARE people running it, and it IS possible to get their attention.  They should be ashamed for releasing a product this bad - but more importantly they need to be held to task for it. 


OK, my last word on this. I did another flight tonight but this time out of Key West. I wanted to see what would happen in warmer air, particularly with the ITT's. My flight the other night was at surface temps of +5C so it was reasonably cool.

 

The flight was a disaster from the start. Using proper starting techniques, the ITT's spiked to the very top of the tape and even after the engine was running at idle, it only came down just to the redline. That's just nuts and how in the world did that make it past Carenado's eyes before it was released? Did they even start this aircraft when doing the beta testing?

 

I had increased the static thrust by 10% to see if I could get to altitude any better. I was at gross for takeoff and started for FL350. The first part of the climb was fine, except for the fact that the ITT's were above redline for the takeoff and at redline for the initial climb. That didn't come into line, despite climbing at 92% N1 (not atypical for a jet during climb) until above 10,000 ft. Initial RoC was 3200 fpm and by 10K it was down to 2000 fpm. Not too bad there. Above that though, things went south. I was climbing at 180 indicated and let it slip back to just over 170 as I continued my climb. By FL270 I was down to around 500 fpm and airspeed was starting to bleed back noticeably. It became very apparent that there was no way, unless I step climbed (and step climbing is for purposes of burning off fuel to get lighter so you can get to a higher altitude, not to pick up speed) that I was going to make FL320, never mind 350. Given how often I see these planes cruising at FL350 and above (well above!), this is completely out to lunch.

 

What also blows me away is how is it that the airplane was released with those dynamics (which don't even come close to the RW aircraft), and how you can't even read the digits on the EADI at the top and bottom of the gauge? Did Carenado think that nobody would notice? We always do, but still they maintain this practice. I guess then can and don't have to care when they know we'll buy it anyway.

 

Just a couple of notes in replies to my first post here:

 

@CraigC - yeah I finally got that one figured out (pressurization control). I did it with the mouse wheel but it took about 10 turns before it started moving. Why would they do it that way?? Just for fun, I left it set at SL for this trip and took the aircraft above the max differential point. No warning on the annunciator panel. So no stall warning and no pressurization warning. He's put that in there before (even though it wasn't modeled for the airplane it was put into and kept giving us false warnings!).

 

@awash202 - Sounds like you were stalling at that altitude. The aircraft handles very strangely for a stall, plus there's no stall warning horn. What was your airspeed at that point?

 

@Airway88 - that maybe an EASA/ATC restriction due to congestion there. Here in North America I see them above 350 all the time. Tonight at one point, 5 were in the air, the lowest one being 370 and the highest at 430. He was probably a single pilot with 1 or 2 passengers though, but the others were on long flights so they would have had full fuel and likely a full cabin (they were charter operators).

 

@CraigC - Yeah, I upped the power a bit in this and while it helped, it still didn't get me there. There's something that's really messing with it once you get into the thinner air. Now that's normal for high altitude ops, but based on RW numbers and what I see on FA, no way it should be this bad. Jets operate best at high altitudes.

 

@CraigC - They shouldn't be stalling the aircraft at mid levels no matter what, You maintain an airspeed (as you know) which should be around 160 to 180 in this machine, and as you get higher, your RoC will decline. In my case, I decided to just let it go and see what it would do. My IAS was down to about 95 kts, and if it was any higher, the airplane would not climb at all. At that point, the RoC was dropping to zero and if you came back on the nose just a touch, you stalled. That's sure not right for that altitude and weight in this airplane.

 

@CraigC/Airway88/Dave - agreed - someone sure needs to "tweak" this (I'm thinking 'rebuild' for this one though - worst FDE's I've seen yet in a Carenado product). When we start paying premium prices though (and even when we aren't, but I'm willing to cut the developer a little more slack when they aren't charging too much for their product), then we should be getting a premium product. In the case of this airplane, we are getting poor and lacking systems modeling, very poor engine dynamics and almost equally poor flight dynamics. It does look great though. So does this mean we should be paying premium dollars for something that looks great but can't perform? Might work for the casual simmer who is mainly interested in taking screenshots and never steps inside to fly the plane, but many of us are either RW pilots (or were); or are serious simmers who want to replicate flights and flying as closely as possible. It is us who are getting taken here. If the casual person wants to pay $45 for looks and nothing more, I guess that's up to them. I do take issue with your (Craig) comment that "it does ok in the jet category". The real machine sure does, but this one doesn't come close to that. I'd say it's a long way from ok.

 

@jjimp - see previous paragraph.

 

We all know that FSX is never going to come close to the real thing. We all know there are restrictions and limitations on scenery, aircraft, frame rates, etc. To expect perfection is a complete fantasy. I don't think most of us are foolish enough to think that we can achieve perfection in any model. What I compare a model to is what has been done by others, and knowing what CAN be done in FS. I bought the Flight 1 Mustang after buying this aircraft. That airplane matches the numbers (within reason) of the real airplane. The vast majority of systems in it are modeled, and modeled extremely well (particularly the avionics, and I have some expertise in RW avionics, so I know whereof I speak). When I get in that airplane, and look up the V speeds (something Carenado doesn't seem fit to provide us with), I know what to expect as I near rotation speed. I know that I need to climb to V2+10 before raising the flaps, and when I do, I know what to expect in the way of a change of performance. I know that when I select the A/P to ON, then select Nav Mode and FLC, what the airplane is going to do. I know that if I select V/S, the FLC will de-select on it's own because you can't have both of those engaged at the same time. Something that escapes Carenado. I know that as I'm climbing through FL340 on the way to 370, I'll still be climbing at a reasonable speed and while my RoC will have declined greatly from the 3000 fpm I saw down near SL, I'll still make it there if I hold my speed. I won't make it to 400 at my current weight, but I will make it to 370. On and on it goes. I paid $49.95 for that model. I paid $45 and change for the Carenado model. It is obvious that all the systems in the Citation (which are far less sophisticated than in the Mustang) CAN be modeled. It is equally obvious that the engine dynamics can be very closely modeled; as can the flight dynamics. In the Mustang, I don't have to worry about not being able to read fonts and whatnot, because they weeded that sort of thing out in Beta. Part of the cost of the aircraft is paying for good and thorough beta testing. Now before someone says that no release can be perfect, yeah, I know that. I've been around this sim since the days of SubLOGIC. The Mustang had bugs too, but most were of the more deeply hidden and hard to find type, not things like not being able to read the numbers on an EADI. So why are we paying $4 less for an airplane that isn't that much more than skin, vs an airplane that is extremely well and thoroughly modeled? I guess if you are into looks only, maybe it is worth the money, but it seems a lot to pay for 1/3rd of a product.

 

OK, enough already. I'll wait for SP1. If 90% of the bugs and systems aren't fixed (and they won't be - he's never completely fixed an airplane before), I will ask for a refund. I bought this on good faith that what he advertises on the front page of his website on this aircraft as "Features", would actually be in and working. Clearly that is not the case, and I feel the product has been seriously misrepresented.

 

Sorry for the long-winded diatribe. I guess if it's going to be my last word on this subject, I might as well get as many in as I can :P .

You're spot-on with this - and Carenado needs to hear it.  Taking people's hard-earned money for a product this bad?  Unacceptable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad truth is, they have heard it before. I emailed them re another release with less wrong with it than this one. I emailed because I know they never look on these forums. Sadly, it fell on deaf ears (as did the email I sent prior to that one). THAT is what I get so upset about. They could have the market on GA aircraft cornered if they wanted, but if another developer (or the ones out there now - A2A, Flight 1, Real Air) who does GA machines ever decided to kick things into high gear, Carenado would find themselves on the outside looking in unless they smartened up. That's not what I want to see though. I want to see more, not less good developers. Then we all win. Of course, the reason F1, Real Air and A2A take longer with their aircraft is because they take a lot of pride in their work and make sure as many things are right as possible and fully modeled as possible before they release. I am thankful for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this