Mid-High Weight Flight Test

[jjmp 2]

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

[Airway88 17]

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..

[gunther 167]

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.

[Airway88 17]

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..

[CraigC 0]

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.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

@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.

[nippa 26]

Shelved..yes

[CraigC 0]

@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.

[usflyer 0]

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 .

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

[Guest BeaverDriver]

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.

[autogyro 18]

Carenado are definitely showing signs of improvement though. FDEs becoming much better. IAS climb working instead of an autothrottle. Sounds getting better. And with the Hawker 850xp, even navigraph support. They're starting to apply some lessons learned but it's a slow process.