Carenado Facebook:

 

CARENADO H850XP FSX/P3D

We are preparing a Service Pack which will handle most of the bugs and details reported.

We will include an extra livery on it. Check it out.

 

If this will help???

We will see...

 

The Mustang is one of my favorite add-ons, but there are many simmers who have had performance issues and CTDs with this add-ons. The VC looks great, but if you don't have  a good video card, good luck getting the add-on to run properly.

 

I used the Flight1 Mustang on my old i5 2500k powered PC. That had a 1GB GeForce GTX 560Ti, and framerates were fine.

 

 

I am a customer and that gives me the same vocal authority as any other customer. Considering 99% of my efforts go into actual training systems... is it such an odd concept that I might want an addon to enjoy myself?

 

It wasn't a criticism, Ed! I was under the impression that you didn't want to say anything bad about it because of your involvement with other competing products. Hence the :smile: emoticon at the end.

Nobody has even mentioned the fact that systems unique to this aircraft are nonexistent such as the spoilers/flaps lift dump feature. How can a main feature of an aircraft just be completely left out.

m

 

Oddly enough, the Lift Dump IS modeled with 100% accuracy. It works exactly as it does in the real aircraft, and even has the proper sound effect.

 

I just wish they had taken the same time and care in modeling things like FMS functions, autopilot modes and engine performance.

I'm currently in Prepar3D with this aircraft. I took off with 27000lbs of weight and departed east with the intent to climb to FL370. According to the performance documentation, under ISA conditions climbing to FL270 with 27000lbs takeoff weight should take 944lbs of fuel, 111nm of distance and 21min of time. I am currently at FL330, having used 1679lbs of fuel and currently stalling out in level flight with a tailwind of 41kts. If that's "flys close enough to the real thing performance wise" I'll eat my shorts.

Just zeroing in on the stall. How in world can you stall any airplane when flying at Mach 0.70? Isn't that the recommended climb speed for your altitude change. duh? This isn't a Cessna, all jets require speed to work properly, that is why the charts are included.

 

Just a thought. Gotta run for now.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

Edited April 26, 201511 yr by n4gix
Removed excessive quote! Again!

How in world can you stall any airplane when flying at Mach 0.70?

C'mon Ray. Never heard of a high speed stall? Stall happens at any time and speed when the wing stops flying. Check the fighter pilots input on these type..

 

Oddly enough, the Lift Dump IS modeled with 100% accuracy. It works exactly as it does in the real aircraft, and even has the proper sound effect.

 

 

 

How do you engage the Lift Dump?

Re Upcoming Service Pack

 

If this will help???

We will see...

 

 

We all need to collectively reset our expectations, and Carenado could help by renaming their releases  ^_^

 

What we are flying/testing right now is "Public Beta 1".

 

After the Service Pack, we will be flying/testing "Public Beta 2".

 

After the second Service Pack, we will be flying the RTM version  B)

Just zeroing in on the stall. How in world can you stall any airplane when flying at Mach 0.70? Isn't that the recommended climb speed for your altitude change. duh? This isn't a Cessna, all jets require speed to work properly, that is why the charts are included.

 

Just a thought. Gotta run for now.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

Yes, implying I know nothing about flying the aircraft is always a good post to make in the forums. The fact is, the aircraft couldn't make the climb. It's woefully underpowered and drinking the jet fuel like it's lemonade on a hot day. In short, the FDE is completely hosed.

For lift dump you have to use the lever in the VC. My speedbrakes joystick command won't do it. Pull it down all the way - and it works when the wheels are on the ground

My speedbrakes joystick command won't do it.

Seems like an application for FSUIPC + LINDA then.

 

On another occasion, thumbs up to you guys giving some constructive feedback. :smile:

 

We all need to collectively reset our expectations, and Carenado could help by renaming their releases

  To be fair, I sometimes feel like they cannot win: Even when they issue a service pack, this very action receives criticism.

  To be fair, I sometimes feel like they cannot win: Even when they issue a service pack, this very action receives criticism.

If Eaglesoft had released the exact same product, complete with all of these issues... the global meltdown in these forums would have been in epic proportions. So I find this protectionism for Carenado hilarious.

 

Carenado released a product at a price point that has been used for rather advanced products. Their product is anything but advanced. One could forgive that... if what they did model was done correctly.

The fact is, the aircraft couldn't make the climb. It's woefully underpowered and drinking the jet fuel like it's lemonade on a hot day. In short, the FDE is completely hosed.

 

I've never flown in a business jet let alone piloted one, but after doing a bunch of research online it seems one of the things pilots really like about this plane is its ability to carry decent sized loads and still perform admirably.  It SHOULD be able to make these climbs without any problems.  A test flight here (http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/jets/hawker-850-xp-delivers-risk-free-improvement?page=0,3) indicates the pilot climbed at 3700 fpm initially, even AFTER reducing throttle.  VNAV couldn't even maintain 1500 fpm for me.  It was stalling at around 11,000 feet with throttles fully forward.  That was with higher load than the article mentioned, but still.  I doubt an aircraft manufacturer would publish max range figures with the caviat that you could only fly at 10,000 feet.  The plane seemed so underpowered to me it didn't even feel "safe" to fly.

 

Due to the invisible refund policy that was made known, I decided to try this one out.  I really shouldn't have.  The FMC and autopilot are just so borked I'm not sure what to do.  I plan to do more performance testing once I get home, but I have serious doubts about the flight model too.  The VC clickspots are really hard for me to use with Track IR.  No amount of quick "service packs" is going to fix these fundamental issues.  The whole thing needs to be rewritten by someone who knows how to code and cares about the details.

If Eaglesoft had released the exact same product, complete with all of these issues... the global meltdown in these forums would have been in epic proportions. So I find this protectionism for Carenado hilarious.

 

EXACTLY!

 

Not only that, if you bought any service or good in real life that had issues like this you'd be irate, demanding everything be fixed, and/or getting a refund and never buying anything from them again.  For whatever reason, Carenado gets a "pass" from some people.  Maybe they've lowered our expectations so much that we just expect it now.  That'd be fine painful, but acceptable if it was a $20 addon.

I think it's a case of "Quantity" and not "Quality" with Carenado. With so many products, it would take a huge team of developers to correct all the bugs...Take PMDG for example how relatively few products they have published and the effort they put into a quality product. It's takes months to receive service packs for their aircraft because they want to deliver a product which is flawless. With Carendo, I think it has now just become impossible to keep up..

Yes, implying I know nothing about flying the aircraft is always a good post to make in the forums. The fact is, the aircraft couldn't make the climb. It's woefully underpowered and drinking the jet fuel like it's lemonade on a hot day. In short, the FDE is completely hosed.

 

Neither the FF indication in the MFD or the FMS show the correct fuel usage.

 

The FMS is closest, however includes the phantom APU fuel use which isn't actually happening.

 

You can verify yourself by timing the fuel usage over time - it uses close to, but not exactly the fuel typical of the real Hawker.

 

Hopefully Carenado will fix this in SP1 as it's a very easy fix.

 

The woeful performance can be fixed by the aircraft.cfg and the .air file, for now as a quick fix I personally have just bumped up the thrust scalar up to 1.3 (for many reasons however 1.3 feels about right).

How do you engage the Lift Dump?

 

After landing on Flaps 45 and with weight on wheels, then engage the lift dump flaps (set the airbrake to dump).

Neither the FF indication in the MFD or the FMS show the correct fuel usage.

 

The FMS is closest, however includes the phantom APU fuel use which isn't actually happening.

 

You can verify yourself by timing the fuel usage over time - it uses close to, but not exactly the fuel typical of the real Hawker.

 

Hopefully Carenado will fix this in SP1 as it's a very easy fix.

 

The woeful performance can be fixed by the aircraft.cfg and the .air file, for now as a quick fix I personally have just bumped up the thrust scalar up to 1.3 (for many reasons however 1.3 feels about right).

 

 

After landing on Flaps 45 and with weight on wheels, then engage the lift dump flaps (set the airbrake to dump).

I used the per engine values from the FMS itself, that's it.

 

As for thrust, it appears they have modeled the Honeywell TFE 731-5BR engines for the Hawker 850XP instead of the Honeywell TFE 731-50R engines. That would be a difference of 4750 thrust versus 5000 thrust, as a start.

As for thrust, it appears they have modeled the Honeywell TFE 731-5BR engines for the Hawker 850XP instead of the Honeywell TFE 731-50R engines. That would be a difference of 4750 thrust versus 5000 thrust, as a start.

 

Were the 50's ever used on the 850XP?