How is everyone getting around the performance issues?  I have gotten the FMS to work pretty well, but the actual aircraft performance is a problem.  The climb tops out around FL 340-360 and the airspeed once there is about 330KTAS or less.  That is with N1 ~ 101%  Throttle back to match the real a/c performance tables and it stalls out.

 

Do we just have to wait for the first patch for a new air file?

Mine is matching the book on speeds provided I use full power. My throttles tend to be lazy and are not calibrated for this one so the CJ2 only achieves the book speeds and altitudes using 100% throttle power to provide the necessary thrust. A better calibration is needed but, I haven't got around it yet.

 

Make sure you are providing the full thrust necessary.

 

Regards,

Ray

"The climb tops out around FL 340-360 and the airspeed once there is about 330KTAS or less.  That is with N1 ~ 101%  Throttle back to match the real a/c performance tables and it stalls out."

 

Using a Wx program?

What was the OAT?

What was the fuel flow?

Your KTAS is a spec at 10000 feet?

"The climb tops out around FL 340-360 and the airspeed once there is about 330KTAS or less.  That is with N1 ~ 101%  Throttle back to match the real a/c performance tables and it stalls out."

 

Using a Wx program? Yes.  Active Sky Next

What was the OAT? ISA + 2

What was the fuel flow? 700 lbs/hr, should be like 1000.

Your KTAS is a spec at 10000 feet?  Didn't check but I will.

 

I will check the throttle although it appears to be full forward.

 

 

How is everyone getting around the performance issues?  I have gotten the FMS to work pretty well, but the actual aircraft performance is a problem.  The climb tops out around FL 340-360 and the airspeed once there is about 330KTAS or less.  That is with N1 ~ 101%  Throttle back to match the real a/c performance tables and it stalls out.

 

Do we just have to wait for the first patch for a new air file?

Our goto guy that writes the fde for the flightsims retired a couple of months ago (retired from writing fde) so I don't know who is going to step up and correct this one for us. It is not rocket science or I would take a crack at it.

 

I am surprised this one is so far off because Carenado got the Phenom 300 almost on the money and we eventually got the S/II close enough to enjoy.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

Our goto guy that writes the fde for the flightsims retired a couple of months ago (retired from writing fde) so I don't know who is going to step up and correct this one for us. It is not rocket science or I would take a crack at it.

 

I am surprised this one is so far off because Carenado got the Phenom 300 almost on the money and we eventually got the S/II close enough to enjoy.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

 

Well it's been 20+ years since I programmed assembler but I will take a look.

 

Does anyone have the POH tables for the CJ2?  I have them for the CJ2+ but the FADEC apparently made it a completely different airplane performance wise.

I went up to 41000 STD day no Wx program


Good climb speeds
Good speeds at 41000

Did many screenshots on the way all looked good

Later I throttled back .. did not want to go too fast! Just kidd'in!

 

Edit:

Top photo: nearing end of climb 39000 feet : TAT -56  SAT -57 N1% 102.4  KIAS 145 TAS 277 PPH per engine 434 (ISA +6 ? FSX)

Bottom photo reached TOC an let the speed build up : TAT -56 SAT -57 N1% 102.4 KIAS 204 TAS 397 PPH 376 per engine (ISA +11 ? FSX)









 

Our goto guy that writes the fde for the flightsims retired a couple of months ago (retired from writing fde) so I don't know who is going to step up and correct this one for us. It is not rocket science or I would take a crack at it.

 

I am surprised this one is so far off because Carenado got the Phenom 300 almost on the money and we eventually got the S/II close enough to enjoy.

 

Regards,

 

Ray

I changed the Thrust Scalar in my CJ2 from the original value of 1.02 to 1.10. 

 

Using Active Sky Next, the CJ2 now climbs through 25k at 2k/minute, and 180 KIAS. At that point, I lower the climb to 1k/min to maintain speed. At FL400, she'll cruise at 400 KTAS with the throttles at 98-99% N1.

Yes, that is similar to how we started with the S550 performance increase. I later got Bernt Stolle to rewrite the fde to match the super S/II at SIJET.com. Changing the scaler is just a quick fix but it does get it to altitude. I hope we can eventually get the CJ2 up to CJ2+ performance specs so we can use all the freely available CJ2+ data.

 

Thanks

 

Ray

I changed the Thrust Scalar in my CJ2 from the original value of 1.02 to 1.10.

Yes, in the meantime this works, Thanks

 

BTW: Does someone knows how to fix the ITT gauge?

My default climb at 25000



 

Hey guys, that pdf that I posted with the wall poster has the performance charts from the FPG for the CJ2 included.

 

Ray

I guess you have to define "properly"...

 

Jim,

 

 I go to the FAA and manufacture procedures and/or manuals when I determine what is properly. Some things you can give it the ole hat tip and say its a sim. But in the case of navigation it should be generally precise enough to meet the requirements of AC 90-100. That being said I would remark that Carenado's interpretation of Direct-to does not meet the lateral requirements defined by the FAA and is a poor implementation. 

 

 When given clearance to fly direct to a point, Air Traffic Control does not expect the pilot to choose any other method other then present position direct. If I were to attempt to fly an aircraft in the NAS with Carenado's implementation I  would be violated.

 

 Once again we have software engineers (programmers) refusing to fix something based on incorrect understanding of how it is suppose to work. Carenado states that what they implement is implemented correctly, in this case I call foul. 

 

 Why should I pay for another broken Pro Line 21 implementation when other manufactures are spending time with subject matter experts to ensure their product works correctly. Carenado makes some great products, but it is time they are called out on refusing to fix glaring errors. I am tired of being a paid beta tester who is left with a product that never quite works right.  

Ken,

 

"Carenado states that what they implement is implemented correctly, in this case I call foul."

 

Just wondering if you purchased the CJ2 and tested the Cj2 DIR function?

../

 

 Why should I pay for another broken Pro Line 21 implementation when other manufactures are spending time with subject matter experts to ensure their product works correctly. Carenado makes some great products, but it is time they are called out on refusing to fix glaring errors. I am tired of being a paid beta tester who is left with a product that never quite works right.

Paid or unpaid beta tester?

 

Ray