First Look

[nippa 26]

I'm fond of the C441 and have both Flight 1 and Flysimware versions.

The F1 model is too dated now but the Flysimware version remains one of my favourite aircraft so I was keen to see the alternative Alabeo treatment.

 

In a nutshell it's rather good.

I wouldn't say better than the Flysimware version but nice to have.

The exterior is good although for me the wow factor that I get when I look at something like the Carenado Do228 is missing. 

The interior is very good and beats the Flysimware version quite easily.

 

When it comes to flying I've not had the model long enough to play with start up procedures etc but it seems to fly well with expected fuel burn at FL280.

EGT temps seem too high and I've a couple of warning lights that I can't explain but that could easily be my fault.

 

Nice to have another C441 and I look forward to seeing what you guys make of it.

[onebob 125]

I'm fond of the C441 and have both Flight 1 and Flysimware versions.

The F1 model is too dated now but the Flysimware version remains one of my favourite aircraft so I was keen to see the alternative Alabeo treatment.

 

In a nutshell it's rather good.

I wouldn't say better than the Flysimware version but nice to have.

The exterior is good although for me the wow factor that I get when I look at something like the Carenado Do228 is missing. 

The interior is very good and beats the Flysimware version quite easily.

 

When it comes to flying I've not had the model long enough to play with start up procedures etc but it seems to fly well with expected fuel burn at FL280.

EGT temps seem too high and I've a couple of warning lights that I can't explain but that could easily be my fault.

 

Nice to have another C441 and I look forward to seeing what you guys make of it.

Thanks for pointing out the release of the 441, been checking the site daily except for the last couple of days, (updating P3D).

 

Bob

[KenG 492]

Two cautions lights remain on the entire flight. L HYD FLOW LOW and R NTS CHECK. 

 

L HYD FLOW LOW

1. Indicates that insufficient flow exists for normal hydraulic system operation from the left hydraulic pump.

 

R NTS CHECK 1. Illuminates during the NTS CHECK procedure.
It does not indicate in flight NTS operation.

 

Seems like the NTS light should not be on unless I am performing the NTS check and no idea why I have a L HYD FLOW LOW with the engines running. 

[davenicoll 103]

I wonder if someone will come up with a mix..

 

The Alabeo textures and modelling but with the Flysimware flight dynamics dropped in...

 

Dave

[C525B 86]

Nippa, I agree with what you're saying about EGT.  There was no attempt made to calibrate the engine gauges.  EGT will be over the 450C limit pretty much from the get-go.  You should have maximum torque (1738 ft-lbs, the yellow line) available until about 12,000' at ISA temperature, but I couldn't even reach the torque limit at sea level.  I tweaked the maximum_torque in the aircraft.cfg to 4000, and reduced the EGT peak value in the .air file to 1350 which brought those values back in range.

 

Aside from the wacky power settings, it looks like they figured out the same approach that PMDG took with the J41 to model the TPE331 engines (although even that wasn't perfect).  I will give them credit for that.  Basically, they allowed the props a huge range of pitch such that the governor is able to select and hold a very low RPM, i.e. 70% at idle.  This is much better than what Flysimware did from the standpoint of in-flight operation, but it has some downsides that become apparent when starting and taxiing around--for instance, you get crazy spikes and surges in RPM when you go in and out of reverse--but that's really an MSFS problem.  On the other hand, Flysimware had realistic start-up with an appropriate amount of spool time, with sounds to match.

 

Also, yeah, I see those two annunciator lights that are definitely stuck on.  On the exterior model, the lens to the taxi light on the nose gear is missing when that light is off...anyone else see this?

[iflygary 17]

I wonder if someone will come up with a mix..

 

The Alabeo textures and modelling but with the Flysimware flight dynamics dropped in...

 

Dave

 

Dave I couldn't agree with you more.  I really think the guys at Flysimware try very hard to exact their models performance but man, I just can't get beyond those bland textures.  Both interior and exterior. As much as I tried to convince myself to get their Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 model on sale, half priced, I just couldn't do it because of those bland textures.  A mix of the two companies together would be spot on!!

 

Gary

[scottb613 1,187]

Hi Folks,

 

Yeah - I hear you on the Flysimware - but - only recently started with flying their Lear 35A comparing it to my only other bizjet the Carenado C525A - while their model and textures aren't quite up to Carenado/Alabeo standards - they are quite good and I much prefer having things work like they should instead of just being pretty... Granted - it's newer than their C441 which admittedly looks pretty bland in the screenshots I've seen... The Lear 35A is rapidly becoming one of my treasured favorites...

 

Regards,

Scott

[Bob650 31]

Interesting information on the Conquest EGT gauges at this link...  http://www.cessnaconquest.net/30/29.html

[Spackman 1]

 

 

and reduced the EGT peak value in the .air file to 1350 which brought those values back in range.

 

Could you point me in the direction of a "How to get into, & edit", the .air file?

Thanks

[nippa 26]

Thanks for the egt fix and for introducing me to editing the air files

 

As mentioned earlier I used the freeware here to edit the air file of the C441 in the SimObjects/Airplanes/etc folder

https://ootb.wordpress.com/aam/

 

probably wise to make a copy before you start editing

[Spackman 1]

Thanks for the egt fix and for introducing me to editing the air files

 

As mentioned earlier I used the freeware here to edit the air file of the C441 in the SimObjects/Airplanes/etc folder

https://ootb.wordpress.com/aam/

 

probably wise to make a copy before you start editing

Thanks for Editor link.

[Marcus27 0]

does anyone know why the Alabeo is slower than the Flysimware? i took both up to  30000ft and "red lined" them, Flysimware went to 190kias and the alabeo only to 160kias.. i know Flysimware has a -10 and alabeo a -8 but the red line should be the same right? or am i missing something? exact same conditions.

Marty 

[Les Parson 99]

I was checking power settings with the Alabeo version primarily to check EGT/Torque behavior with increasing altitudes. Using the Elite KA throttle quadrant, I could not get torque much above 1500 ft/lbs. With the Flysimware version, there was not problem. I did not climb above FL200 because it became more than evident the Alabeo version had already failed every performance parameter. In answer to your question, the torque differences alone could account for the differences you describe.

 

By the way, they both failed at EGT limitations w/ altitude as do most with ITT/EGT limiting factors in FSX. I know many folks don't care about this, but I do.

 

Les Parson

[Marcus27 0]

I did the same tweaks as described earlier by "C525B" after that i could go to 1738 ft-lbs with corresponding temps

sad that we have to do this ourselves but that's another story... hope the tweak works for you! and if you decide to go to 30000 please let me know about that kias

Marty

[C525B 86]

I was checking power settings with the Alabeo version primarily to check EGT/Torque behavior with increasing altitudes. Using the Elite KA throttle quadrant, I could not get torque much above 1500 ft/lbs. With the Flysimware version, there was not problem. I did not climb above FL200 because it became more than evident the Alabeo version had already failed every performance parameter. In answer to your question, the torque differences alone could account for the differences you describe.

 

By the way, they both failed at EGT limitations w/ altitude as do most with ITT/EGT limiting factors in FSX. I know many folks don't care about this, but I do.

 

Les Parson

 

Les,

 

You won't be able to achieve correct torque settings without the editing some entries in the aircraft.cfg at the very least, and your EGT values for T/O are going to be out-of-whack until you edit the .air file.  See my post, #5 in this thread.

 

Re. ITT/EGT behavior: This is one of those "limitations of the sim".  Torque will correctly decrease with altitude in FSX/P3D as you've seen--but so will ITT.  If you want a realistic increase in ITT/EGT with altitude, you basically have to fake the reading of the gauge.  I guess you have to pour over the charts and do some dreadful math to create a function that outputs the correct ITT as a function of torque and density altitude.  That's what developers who are more sophisticated than Alabeo/Carenado have done.  It's also one thing Autogyro did with his overhaul package for the Carenado PC-12.  If there is a way to accomplish this without going to that length, it's been someone's closely guarded secret.