Carenado 350I King Air released beware

[Guest]

It does work with my Navigraph - latest set shows up, so that's good.

 

As far as the FLC, I'll keep testing ... but I couldn't get it to maintain airspeed (200 kts in my case), it seemed to just hold VS?

 

Enjoying it though.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Patriot3810 182]

could someone suggest between the 350i, the c90 or the phenom 300, i have spent 100's of hours with heavies and ready to step down to a smaller aircraft thats easy to fly.i am wanting to use all my orbx scenery at higher settings that i simply can't do with because of ooms, for instance my favorite plane the pmdg 777.any suggestions would be much appreciated thanks.

[RamonB 449]

Hello

I don't have the C90.

 

The 350i and Phenom 300 are very nice easy to fly airplanes, FDE's seem alright to me and graphics are fantastic.

The PL21 and Garmin flight management systems are acceptable (albeit with some minor bugs), both accept Navigraph.

or if you have and add the GTN750 MODS, both are sure winners.

 

Cheers.

[NorCal69 0]

Just a quick question. The only King Air sim I've found that correctly models "real" turbine spool up has been the P3D default King Air 200. Carendo, Flight 1 & Milviz engines start up quicker than my car. Does anyone know of a King Air sim besides P3D that has real turbine spool up? Thanks

[KenG 492]

As far as I know the turboprop engine model is hard-coded into the sim. Thus you get the typical problems such as N1 and Torque surge on startup, unrealistic temperatures during climb out, lack of propeller drag when bringing the power levers to flight idle, etc. ACES  sort of modeled their turboprop engine on the PT6 (since it was the common engine in both the C208 and B350) and thus you have a very poor representation of a PT6 hard coded.

 

If you are saying that the default P3D turboprop is not displaying these issues then I would think, since this is hard coded this would be translated to all turboprops in the sim. Maybe they added more variables that only their default aircraft is using. Without looking at the .air and .cfg files for that aircraft it is difficult to say for sure.    

 

Developers can intercept the variables from the sim and use custom software alter them to fit expected output. I know of one developer who is currently doing that. Thus during engine start, the gauges will ignore what the sim is doing and run their own subroutine displaying what one would expect from a real aircraft. I also worked with another developer to solve the propeller drag issue and we used the spoiler system linked to the torque gauges. Anytime the torque was below 10% in flight the spoilers were used to provide aerodynamic drag. So there are ways to fake the system. 

 

If someone puts King Air on anything I tend to buy it like a moth to fire. I have not seen anyone who currently has a complete and correct King Air for the FSX/P3D market. 

[FDEdev 955]

FYI, Carenado/Alabeo found a way to correctly simulate propeller drag on their turboprops a long time ago without the need to fake drag with spoilers.

AFAIR at flightsim.com you can download e.g. the updated FDE for the default and the Carenado 208.  

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

 

If someone puts King Air on anything I tend to buy it like a moth to fire. I have not seen anyone who currently has a complete and correct King Air for the FSX/P3D market. 

 Neither complete, nor correct, but very nice to fly nevertheless:

 

http://www.simforums.com/forums/gtn-750-in-c90-gtx_topic54606.html

[KenG 492]

Bert,

 

 Thank you. I own and highly recommend the C90GTx as one of the closest FDEs for a King Air. I "nit-picked" it in the C90GTx forum here on AVSIM. I gave it a glowing "nit-pick."

 

Polizei,

 

 I am familiar with Careando's work in this area and while better, my opinion is it is still not accurate. As far as I can tell when at low pitch stop, they not producing drag accurately. If you chop the power levers on a 4 bladed King Air on landing, the nose will pitch down and many end up planting the nose gear.  

[FDEdev 955]

With the King Air it's a different story as another important factor is missing in the simulation. As the blades are going flat, they noticable reduce lift over the wing area behind the props, it's not only the drag increase.

The loss of lift isn't simulated, but the drag is there.  On planes like the 208 there's no loss of lift.

[KenG 492]

I've only been flying these aircraft for 3 decades and teaching them half as long, so what do I know...

 

Loss of lift does not cause the 3 bladed 90s and 200s to pitch down on landing... 

[FDEdev 955]

So where's the problem? First you wrote that this happens on the King Air with 4-bladed props, I've explained the reason and now you are saying it doesn't happen on the 3-bladed ones. Don't see any contradiction here.

[KenG 492]

Your reason is flawed and the difference in landing behavior in the 3-bladed props and 4-bladed props highlight why your reason is flawed. If loss of lift due to the propeller no longer producing additional flow over the wing caused a pitch forward then this would happen with both propellers. This, in fact, does not happen. Why? Because the center of lift is behind the center of gravity thus airplane would pitch up when additional flow induced lift caused by propellers is lost.

 

However, when the propeller reaches the low pitch stops and is no longer being driven by the engine, not producing thrust (~200 ft-lbs on a three-bladed model 200) the propellers are producing drag. On the 3-bladed airplanes, this drag causes a nose down moment around the pitch axis but it is generally counteracted by the nose up moment caused by the loss of propeller flow induced lift over the wing. Thus we have a very well behaved airplane during the flare. But, when Beech put that extra blade on the 200 things changed. Whereas the Hartzell blades on the 3-bladed propellers the low pitch stop was ~18 degrees the 4-bladed propellers went to a flatter pitch (depending on the propeller manufacturer as low as 16 to 13 degrees.) Not only are there more blades whipping around but they are flatter when on the low pitch stop.  Thus below about ~200 ft-lbs or 13% torque, these propellers start producing drag. Because this drag is greater than the three bladed airplanes and the propellers are forward of the center of gravity you get the typical nose down pitch if you chop the power on landing. The typical training for pilots moving from 3 to 4 blades is to carry a little power until the instant before the main tires touch down. (Zero torque as the nose touches the runway.)

 

When Beechcraft introduced the straight King Air 300, this pitch down got even worse. These airplanes (except a few specially modified versions) all carries 4-bladed propellers with a 13-degree low pitch stop. This was on the same fuselage length as the B200. Thus when pilots pulled power on these airplanes they noticeably pitch forward. On the model B300 (B350) the blade angle was further reduced to 12 degrees. 

 

Fast forward to the 21st century and Raisbeck in cooperation with Hartzell offers the EPIC Platinum package with new swept turbofan propellers for installation on the C90, 200 and 250 airplanes. Now you have a wide chord propeller that produces noticeably more thrust and consequently more drag when on the low pitch stops and low torque. Even more power now has to be carried, from TCH into the initial flare or these airplanes will land on their nose like the early model 300s.

 

I have had the chance to try their latest turboprop, the Meridian and the trick of putting negative torque on the engine also seems to do the same thing as the spoiler trick. Chop the power on the PA46 and it is like hitting the speed breaks. Not sure how I like as it keeps the power lever fairly high in flight. I am not a real PA46 pilot so I will leave that determination to someone who is. It definatly feels different in flight and behaves well overall. Worth the cost of admission.

 

[FDEdev 955]

If you re-read your own post you should realize that it's your explanation that's off.  The center of lift is (normally) behind the CG, that's correct, so if lift is being lost a (straight wing) plane pitches down. According to your explanation every plane would pitch up when stalling, instead of down. 

 

Furthermore I don't see a 'trick' in putting negative torque on the engine. If you look at the airfile you will see that's just a nicely designed turboprop (within FSX boundaries as Carenado/Alabeo apparently can't do anything that's outside the standard SDK) and I assume with speed breaks you mean speedbrakes.

[KenG 492]

The problem is the wing is not fully stalled on landing. Thus the pitch forward due to stall effect make no sense. In fact in stalling the King Air since we tend to keep forward trim on the airplane during the stall it is the relaxing of the elevator that provides more of the forward pitch. In full stalls, the airplane wants to roll off to the right, hard. As far as I know the King Air does not deep stall or more correctly is not as susceptible to deep stalling as some other T-tail aircraft (DC-9, MD8x, B717.) I have never and will never attempt to deep stall a King Air. 

 

 

I circled it for you. Negative torque on the Carenado PA46. This was after I was surprised by pulling the power back initially and getting nearly -400 LB-FT. Controls are set for exactly how I use them on every other aircraft and were not in reverse. 

[FDEdev 955]

Concerning deep stall you are comparing apples and oranges. I've never ever heard of any straight wing prop plane which is being operated within its CG and operating limits that is able to go into a deep stall.

On a swept wing high performance jet it's a very different story and e.g .the loss of the BAC-111 and the Tu-134 were both at tests with the CG behind the aft limit.

The beauty about most of the Beech planes (e.g. Beech 18, Queen Air, King Air) with their unusual thick NACA 23018/23012 is that you can keep the wheel all the way back and they will recover on their own with the whole stall/unstall thing repeating as long as you keep the wheel at the aft stop. (that's btw something the Milviz/Carenado King Airs do very realistic in contrast to the incorrect stall behaviour of a certain Duke)

And why shouldn't torque be negative? This isn't a Garrett engine.