V1.5 Flight Test - For Flysimware

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Summed up - VERY, VERY MUCH IMPROVED!!

 

OK, the details:

 

Gents, truly great strides have been made here. I'm impressed. The details of the flight are as follows:

 

Flight:  PAHO - PAYA - Dist:  373 nm

Scenery:  (with apologies to Martin) - PAHO fully fat payware airport; PAYA - full fat payware airport; Regional scenery - Orbx SAK

FS Settings:  Autogen: Dense (usually I fly this region with "Normal" autogen unless down low - decided to keep the more detailed scenery for this test - see below*)

Lear 35 Version/Mods:  V1.5, VAS Dimmer Switch Patch (this gave me back my interior lights from the previous flight)

Time of Day:  Start - Late afternoon; Finish - Fully Night

Weather:  Good VFR at PAHO, Solid IFR with 4 layers of clouds at PAYA, ceiling 800 ft, vis 2 3/4 sm, rain on descent

Flight Time:  Approx 1.4 hrs start up to shut down

 

Findings:

OOM - not a hint, despite putting this to the acid test today. *Yes Martin, I know, but if I'm going to fly this airplane, I'm doing under conditions I fly everything else at. Sorry. The flight was very smooth/fluid all the way through, with only a few stutters at Yakutat. That's completely normal and totally expected given my autogen settings, the fat airport and the weather conditions. In fact, it was far smoother than expected.

 

Trim - here's an odd one. I found that as soon as I loaded the aircraft I hit the Cold and Dark option, then went into the cockpit (I start outside). Without touching anything else, I found I could trim the aircraft and get a proper indication on the gauge. This is a mystery as why I can't get an indication after power is applied to the aircraft. Once the needle has moved off the "stop", the gauge is operable throughout the range, although I was careful not to take it to full deflection prior to takeoff. Once in the air the trim needle is pegged again and becomes unmovable once again, including after landing. So, it does appear as though I can get it to work prior to takeoff, but after that, the gauge ceases to work. Finding: While I seem to have found the secret to getting airborne with this gauge, it is still broken and needs to be fixed. As with the pressure gauge, once you get to full travel, you cannot bring it back again. I also had the TO TRIM light on after landing. By the by, I'm getting the same problem with the pressurization gauge in the 441, as is a friend of mine, also with the 441. Please look deeply into this because the gauge is broken. It MUST read in the air and give a proper indication of where the trim setting is or the aircraft isn't legal (IRL obviously, but tool tips don't cut it for those seeking a realistic experience). Same with the pressurization gauge.

 

Autopilot - SPD Function:  This is not working correctly. As one fellow pointed out, it does not hold the speed as you climb out above FL200. Now I'm not sure of the logic of this function but it would seem to me there would have to be a switch somewhere (IRL) to tell the aircraft to hold a MACH number instead of the IAS as you intercept M0.7. I don't know how the autopilot would know when to switch over otherwise. I'm wondering if the SPD annunciator really should read "IAS" with the first push of the button and "MACH" with a second push? That would imply separate circuits being switched in. Anyway, how you can do this in FSX/coding-wise, I really don't know. That one might be "one of those things" or, as one developer is very fond of saying, "An FSX limitation".

 

GTN Display - PULEEEEESE disable the GTN Day brightness display (or give us a way to switch it manually)! This, unfortunately, is one of those things that works very well in real life, but doesn't translate well to the sim. Especially for us OF's (Old Farts), that screen during the daytime is almost impossible to read. If there already is a way, please tell us how to do it. Thanks!

 

Taxi and Takeoff - Start up is a hoot. VERY realistic sounding. I find the turbine and fan gauges come up much faster than the sounds do so they seem to be at idle long before the sounds get there. I'm wondering if that's fixable as FSX hasn't modeled turbines very well and I know that turboprop starts are miserable for the most part. It still might be something to consider down the road for a fix if possible. Ground handling in taxi is solid and well done. Again, cabin sounds for flaps and whatnot are quite good. Takeoff performance seems to be a bit hot, but I'll need a couple more to confirm distances. That may have been a trade off for the better cruise performance at altitude. So I'm just saying it might be something to look at but I'm not listing that as a problem at this point (I was at 15,500 for TO, with 94% turbine speed, Vr of 120 kts).

 

Climb & Cruise - MUCH better. The climb is still a bit "hit and miss" because of the above notation on the SPD function, but the climb performance to altitude was pretty good. One thing for people to remember is that you must increase your thrust as you get into the higher altitudes. Now, there is a RW Lear driver here, so I'm hoping he will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I use about 94% TURBINE for takeoff. For initial climb I come back to 90%, but as I get into the higher altitudes (i.e. high 20's) I'm starting to push those thrust levers back up until I'm running at about 95% percent or so. I **think** that's more or less correct procedure, but again, I'm hoping someone in the know can shed a little light here. What you will find, if you hold 280 KIAS / M0.7 as you climb (you may have to do that manually for now), you will find with a moderate load you can hold roughly up to 2000 fpm to FL390, which I was at tonight. That's very respectable for this airplane (it's not a Lear 23). I could easily have made FL410 at this weight. Cruise was also much improved holding about 85% (roughly) Turbine to achieve M0.73. I had lots of room to go 0.75, but 0.73 is a nice comfortable speed for this airplane and gives a little headroom to the barber pole. Of course, I was on autopilot all the way at this point. Cruise was very nice, and very immersive. I didn't study everything as closely as I could have so anyone who knows the real Lear may be able to pick up on a lot of things I would miss, but I was quite happy well above the solid undercast for the majority of the flight.

 

Descent and Approach - Again, much better. I came down at a leisurely 2000 fpm but could have come down much faster if needed (no spoilers used until slowing the last bit to 250 kts to meet the 10000 ft speed restriction). Descents are easy to plan with this airplane now. You seem to have found the happy middle ground between having lots of speed yet being able to get down NOW, which isn't easy. In my last report I complained about hand flying the approach, with it feeling like I was flying right up against the stall. I feel like this has definitely been improved, but I believe it should be a bit more "solid" yet. It still wallowed, even with the yaw damper on. I've heard some people (regarding a discussion on another airplane - not a Flysimware machine) that larger and/or heavier airplanes are harder to control and fly. That is completely wrong. The larger/heavier machines have more precise controls, the heaviness adds stability and things like yaw dampers and even the higher airspeeds going over the control surfaces really help to make these things very solid to fly. I will say that the "feel" of this aircraft is that of a heavier machine, and that's exactly what I would expect. Kudo's on that because that really helps the immersiveness. I just feel a little boost to directional and roll stability again would "seal the deal" (i.e. maybe a little less momentum when it starts to roll a bit, and a bit more stability to keep it from rolling too easily).

 

Landing and Taxiing - sweet. Those new lights are spectacular! The landing and taxi light splashes are some of the best I've ever seen and on par with Real Air's Duke (V2) (that's a huge compliment, in case you don't know that airplane). Ground handling again is positive and very good, with the airplane being very easy to control with power. Power response is very good (unusual in FSX for a turbine machine) and again, one of the best out there in that respect. I have no complaints in landing (again, airplane feels heavy in the flare as it should - good one). I will concur with what one fellow here said though - there is no reverser sound when they kick in. Those suckers are pretty noisy IRL and the cabin can only dampen them so much. I wasn't able to tell for sure that they were actually engaged unless I checked the engine gauges. Reverser sound sounds like it was disabled somehow in V1.5. I will reiterate again though, that trim needs to be fixed. Normally I would always center the trim on taxiing in, in preparation for the next flight (and so someone doesn't end up doing an unexpected immelman because they forgot to check the trim prior to takeoff!!). I can't do that as things stand now.

 

Essentially that's my report. Frankly, I didn't think this much of an improvement was possible (at least not without many more reworks). Just the fact that I did a flight in very heavy conditions (scenery, weather, etc.) and it flew the ideal flight plan without skipping a beat, was a really big deal to me. Personally I feel now like I have a viable airplane to use. I'll do some more flights over the next day or so and see if the trend continues, but with a few more (smaller) mods, I think this airplane could be a real winner.

[MartinRex007 390]

Glenn, glad to hear you didn't have any OOM's with your current scenery settings, that's great!  Glad Flysimware were able to reduce the VAS usage (thanks in part to you).  Hope those few other issues can be addressed that you mentioned. Enjoy!

 

Cheers

Martin

[CW46 101]

Guy's here is a general idea of what expected climb performance should look like.An average climb to say FL370-410 would take 20 to 25 minutes on any given day.So you would average around 2000 fpm rate of climb.That means you see the high rates down low and the last 1000 foot or so you may be 500 to 1000 depending on what ever condition you had that day. Is it ISA or ISA + 10, are you light or heavy? There are as many variations in conditions as directions the wind blows.Some days you ride a rocket and other days the temperature aloft affects performance and you cruise at 370 instead of 430. Typical cruise Mach .72 to .75 to stretch the fuel or .76 -.79 to keep the speed up.

 

Your comment on the speed mode is correct, It should either display IAS or Mach , push for IAS, push again to reference Mach.It does not display both at the same time.Tried SPD mode today and does not work.I went direct to 410 but autopilot would not capture even at a low climb rate.The AFCS said it was captured but kept climbing anyway.Notice this at high altitude, seems okay down low. BTW mach meter was reading .87 at the barber pole, this needs a fix as real limit is .82

 

Regarding engine gauges for performance reference:

 

N1 ( FAN) is used for takeoff thrust setting, it comes from the performance chart with your V speeds.You must use that N1 setting for single engine climb and runway performance, it is all based on that.The N1 reminder guage (0,0,0) is on the panel and you put it there for reference before take off.

 

Never referenced N2 (Turbine) for anything other than 10% indication at startup, as long as it is green and rotating the high pressure turbine is happy and you are happy.

 

Use ITT for climb reference 795C was recommended but if you need it you could go to 830C. You get what ever you get. At level off  adjust thrust for your Mach number, every engine will be different. As you burn off fuel you will reduce thrust to maintain the cruise speed.

 

If some body can figure out how to post a jpg. I dug up an image from a flight a number of years back at FL370 to compare engine parameters in cruise flight.They are not the same as replicated in the sim. It may be a useful reference to use for figuring the correct performance numbers.I don't have a clue how sim code works vs reality

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Gary, thanks very much for this. This helps a whole lot.

 

Couple of questions for you if you don't mind:

 

1) I'm wondering if the "Fan" and "Turbine" labels are swapped? The Turbine gauges in this aircraft are on the top of the stack and always give the higher readout. Seems to me those are really the Fan (N1) gauges and the gauges marked "Fan" now are actually the Turbine gauges. Would that seem correct to you?

 

2) Do you know anywhere we can pick up power setting tables and (even more importantly) speed charts, particularly for takeoff and landings? It's pretty tough flying an airplane like this without something more detailed than what we have.

 

The numbers you gave for climb times and whatnot are pretty close to what I saw on my next flight. On that I went from Bardufoss (ENDU) to Trondheim (ENVA). I was a tad under gross at takeoff and hand flew the aircraft to 10,000 before engaging the autopilot (Flysimware, please see down below the dashed line - really good stuff). After engaging the autopilot I let it control the navigation while I controlled the airspeed during climb. I maintained 280 kts / 0.70 M to FL360 (decided that was high enough given my weight). During that my climb rate was a bit under 2000 fpm by time I was above FL350, which seems to jive pretty closely with what you are telling us here. Of course, it's Northern Norway in late fall so the temps are reasonably cool (-5C at takeoff). I used 90% to about 20K (94% for takeoff, but again we really, really need some charts here!), then 95% after that. That all said, I was using engine speed (what I think is really N1 but marked Turbine) and not temps as you suggested, so this may all be moot. Anyway, does all that make sense to you?

 

Thanks again Gary

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Flysimware,

I mentioned in my earlier report a couple of things that I need to amend here. First is the trim. Using the same technique as before, I was again able to trim for takeoff. This time though, after landing, I was able to trim the aircraft back to neutral. Not exactly sure what was different this time, but it worked. Unless others are reporting issues as well, this might be a "bug" left alone for now at least. If others are having trimming problems (and again, not sure why I can't trim once I put power to the aircraft on start up, but this may be one of those little mysteries that will be solved over time), then I'd definitely revisit this, but for now it's not a problem for me.

 

Secondly about the aircraft handling. I flew the entire departure from ENDU to 10,000 ft and the aircraft hand flew beautifully. Then, on approach, I hand flew about the last 25 to 30 miles. I think I see what you have done here, so correct me if I'm wrong. You have designed the flight dynamics so the airplane handles more crisply and reacts faster to controls as speed builds up, and the opposite as it gets slowed up. That certainly seems to be the case, and if so, major kudos to you because that's what I would call very in-depth design. So what I found on approach was that if I slowed below 140, things really got sloppy. It was hard to control as I reported above, and in the previous (1.4) test flight. On approach then, when that started to happen I speeded up a bit to 145, and things got really nice again. It was very easy to fly and handled beautifully. Not as "crisply" as when at 250 kts, but of course it shouldn't be as crisp. At this point, I have 2 requests:  1) Don't touch the flight dynamics - they are excellent as they are; and 2) Please, please get us some speed charts!! I did see some ref speeds for a Lear 35 (and I have a DVD on a Lear 35) their reference speeds were way above what you included in your documentation. On this approach I had a ref speed of 125 (using the SWAG method) and held Vref + 20 from the OM on in, and that worked beautifully. Man, get too slow in this airplane and good luck! Anyway, again, we really, really need charts!

 

The flight from Bardufoss started at night and finished at day, although the runway lights at Trondheim were still on. I had one little worry in some flashing after landing which usually indicates things are starting to get a bit tight in the memory department, but no aural warnings and I taxied into the ramp, shut down and exited the aircraft with no problems. I slewed my view around a bit as well afterwards with no indications of an OOM. Things look pretty good on that front. I'm really going to "stick it to it" (so to speak) tomorrow, and if the aircraft survives that flight, then I'm a real believer (I'm 90% of the way there now in terms of the OOM). So good job updating things. It's much appreciated!

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Gary, not sure if you actually have the aircraft or not, so here's a pic of the engine gauges for you from the Lear 35. This is re my question about the labeling:

 

Do those look mislabeled to you?

 

By the by, to post a pic, you have to have a screenie in JPEG mode and then uploaded somewhere that will host the image (like Photobucket for example). Then click the little image icon at the top of the reply window and type in the URL to that pic. It's not hard once you've done it a few times but might take a few tries to get. Hope that helps.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Glenn, glad to hear you didn't have any OOM's with your current scenery settings, that's great!  Glad Flysimware were able to reduce the VAS usage (thanks in part to you).  Hope those few other issues can be addressed that you mentioned. Enjoy!

 

Cheers

Martin

 

Thanks Martin. FYI, I never disputed that scenery plays a big part in VAS and potential OOM's. In my case here, I've been running very heavy scenery AND airplanes for a long time now and never had any issues with that. It would seem that whatever Flysimware did, they were very successful at it. I did that "acid test flight" this morning (although it wasn't quite as heavy on the system as I was planning, but nevertheless...) and all was great. In fact, it was an outstanding flight. I went from Victoria (CYYJ), over top of Seattle, then on to West Yellowstone. That had me going from a very heavy airport (CYYJ is enhanced but without many of the VAS saving methodologies employed so it's a brute on the system), right through the heart of the Terrible Triangle and into a fully fat airport at the other end. Not so much as a burp out of it. This was a great flight as I say. I'd say they have the problem solved insofar as the issues I was having in terms of OOM.

 

I will say this - I've been very critical of Flysimware in the beginning because it felt like they thought I was the only one with OOM's and therefore I was out of luck. But they stuck with it and improved greatly on many things in just a few releases. Not every developer can make that claim, and I am very comfortable now in recommending Flysimware aircraft to others.

[onduty 5]

Hi Guys,

 

Some comments on some previous posts:

 

1. CW46: Yes, the cruise figures are far from RW LR35 figures (not to speak about climb/descent flight dynamics). Guys, NO it is NOT an inherent FSX problem please! Many quality addons (almost in the same price category) can produce FDE figures 2-3% close to the real thing. This product is so far from a real 35 that it is not a 35!  An expensive toy only (sorry for my harsh remarks, but my high expectations just evaporated).

 

2. After a couple of flights and desperate struggle with the AFCS vertical modes I quit, it is simply not working.  

 

3. BeaverDriver: In the Lear the turbine gauges ar on top and the FAN indicators ( these are the primary power reference instruments) are on the bottom (Learjet fashion) check it on cockpit photos. Takes a bit of time to adapt to it when transfering from another type.

 

4. The FSX community is still awaiting for a high quality bizjet in the market!

 

Cheers,

 

Tamas

[CW46 101]

Images of engine parameters in climb and cruise flight.Conditions were hot, summer afternoon out of Miami and the cruise image was about thirty minutes after departure.

[MartinRex007 390]

For some reason on my system the jpg are not showing. In short Gary, did you think the climb and cruise were realistic?

 

Thanks - Martin

[CW46 101]

It was supposed to download the image from DropBox but did not happen.Have to figure why it will not download correctly to appear in the post. BTW way I replied to your screen shot regarding which gauge is N1 but that did not post for some reason. As stated by Tamas, N1= Fan, N2=Turbine.The image you posted is the correct display as in the aircraft

[Flysimware 647]

Guy's here is a general idea of what expected climb performance should look like.An average climb to say FL370-410 would take 20 to 25 minutes on any given day.So you would average around 2000 fpm rate of climb.That means you see the high rates down low and the last 1000 foot or so you may be 500 to 1000 depending on what ever condition you had that day. Is it ISA or ISA + 10, are you light or heavy? There are as many variations in conditions as directions the wind blows.Some days you ride a rocket and other days the temperature aloft affects performance and you cruise at 370 instead of 430. Typical cruise Mach .72 to .75 to stretch the fuel or .76 -.79 to keep the speed up.

 

Your comment on the speed mode is correct, It should either display IAS or Mach , push for IAS, push again to reference Mach.It does not display both at the same time.Tried SPD mode today and does not work.I went direct to 410 but autopilot would not capture even at a low climb rate.The AFCS said it was captured but kept climbing anyway.Notice this at high altitude, seems okay down low. BTW mach meter was reading .87 at the barber pole, this needs a fix as real limit is .82

 

Regarding engine gauges for performance reference:

 

N1 ( FAN) is used for takeoff thrust setting, it comes from the performance chart with your V speeds.You must use that N1 setting for single engine climb and runway performance, it is all based on that.The N1 reminder guage (0,0,0) is on the panel and you put it there for reference before take off.

 

Never referenced N2 (Turbine) for anything other than 10% indication at startup, as long as it is green and rotating the high pressure turbine is happy and you are happy.

 

Use ITT for climb reference 795C was recommended but if you need it you could go to 830C. You get what ever you get. At level off  adjust thrust for your Mach number, every engine will be different. As you burn off fuel you will reduce thrust to maintain the cruise speed.

 

If some body can figure out how to post a jpg. I dug up an image from a flight a number of years back at FL370 to compare engine parameters in cruise flight.They are not the same as replicated in the sim. It may be a useful reference to use for figuring the correct performance numbers.I don't have a clue how sim code works vs reality

V1.7 has updated the barber pole to match mach .81.

 

Climb temps were also adjusted for accuracy but idle and max might not be perfect as we could not get the exact range from this air file.

 

We have tested the high altitude climbs with full weight at 1000 FPM above FL400. So like CW46 says this will change based on weight or weather. So with full weight you can still manage to climb to FL4500 at a descent rate. Go lighter and it might be a rocket. 

 

So i would like to say to onduty that what CW46 has posted did not say we were miles off on our flight dynamics and according to many customers including Learjet pilots they are not waiting for a high quality bizjet. This is a new product and we are still tweaking for more realism.

 

V1.8 will have more stable pitch as i noticed when you increase power the nose drops and when decreasing the nose raises. This gave the SPD hold mode which does work unlike CW46 stated better accuracy. I also changed the pitch rates to match any thrust lever change during SPD hold. So no matter how much you change power settings the speed stays within 5 knots and then corrects itself if you jam the lever full blast it might stay within 10 knots and then correct itself. This new version will be on the market soon.