Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest BeaverDriver

Mid-High Weight Flight Test

Recommended Posts

Guest BeaverDriver

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

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
Guest JustanotherPilot

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
Guest BeaverDriver

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

  • 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.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    18%
    $4,700.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...