Taxiing the C441 Conquest

[edpatino 1,960]

 

 

I wonder how many cases Alabeo ignores and provides zero help?

 

I agree, zero words from Alabeo. Just to take into account for future purchases!.

Cheers, Ed

[Chock 17,769]

What I can't understand, is how it could have been even remotely beta tested and still be like that; I mean seriously, you crank it up, release the brakes and it sets off across the airfield like the Bell X-1 being dropped from the belly of a B-29 over Edwards for a crack at breaking Mach 1 when Yeager lit up the rockets, and the beta testers go: 'yup, seems fine to me, it taxis exactly like the real Cessna Conquest does when the throttles are retarded.' Seems to me that it was the beta testers and not the throttles which were retarded lol

[edpatino 1,960]

What I can't understand, is how it could have been even remotely beta tested and still be like that; I mean seriously, you crank it up, release the brakes and it sets off across the airfield like the Bell X-1 being dropped from the belly of a B-29 over Edwards for a crack at breaking Mach 1 when Yeager lit up the rockets, and the beta testers go: 'yup, seems fine to me, it taxis exactly like the real Cessna Conquest does when the throttles are retarded.' Seems to me that it was the beta testers and not the throttles which were retarded lol

 

IMO, those reviewer reports are biased in favor of the developers, we should not pay attention to them.

Cheers, Ed

[Tango777 4]

If you look at the C441's website Alabeo says, Realistic behavior. Really? Based on what comparison??? What is realistic about it with the exception of the exterior visual model?

 

I heard that they will be releasing another new airplane very soon. A Tri-Pacer I think. So before releasing another new plane, why can't they concentrate and deliver on what they said they would do, and that is fix the C441's existing problems that have been reported by us, their customer's? Do they think that we will just go away if we eventually just shut our mouths?

 

It appears that the beta testers are also the developers because if not then they would be focusing on fixing the numerous problems with the C441 before putting their effort into a new release airplane. Customer service: Where?

 

What purpose does their Avidyne MFD serve? Noticed it is in many of their planes, both Cessnas and Pipers. Traffic does not show up on mine. The route does not even show up.

 

Aerosoft's Piper Cheyenne from how many years ago have more active instruments than this Alabeo C441?

 

They ignore you after 4 e-mails and from there on out all I get in my inbox is: "Thank you for your feedback, we are going to consider these issues to fix it for the next version." Does anyone think that they will fix what they claim they will address? Their key phrase is: we are going to consider...

 

The bottom line is: Will they fix a list of things, many of which are small things to be fixed, that they sent in a back and forth e-mail exchange with me and other customers or will they ignore and move on to another airplane model.

 

As for me: Never buying another Alabeo airplane.

 

If enough customers stand up here and echo it in their support tickets then maybe something will change with customer support and fixing things.

[edpatino 1,960]

 

 

As for me: Never buying another Alabeo airplane.

 

I'll second that!.

Ed

[Tango777 4]

I do not own a Carenado airplane. They are like sister companies, but are they better than Alabeo?

 

The flight instruments on both of their websites look identical.

[stans 702]

I do not own a Carenado airplane. They are like sister companies, but are they better than Alabeo?

 

The flight instruments on both of their websites look identical.

Alabeo is part of Carenado.  Originally, the Alabeo brand was to be less expensive and have less features than Carenado releases.  In the past few years, the Alabeo releases have been of the same quality (or lack thereof) as Carenado.  I have the Carenado Seneca II, Baron 58, and Navajo.  From Alabeo I have the Chieftain.  All of them have issues with systems modeling or missing night lighting or some other malady.  It's a pattern of behavior from Carenado/Alabeo and it remains unchanged.  I think their aircraft are stunning to look at, but when it comes to flying them, they always fall a little short.

 

By the way, Alabeo and Carenado do have beta testers.  I'm convinced they have thousands of them.  When you buy their products, find the flaws, send an email (which may be ignored) you are one of their beta testers.

[Tango777 4]

 

 

By the way, Alabeo and Carenado do have beta testers.  I'm convinced they have thousands of them.  When you buy their products, find the flaws, send an email (which may be ignored) you are one of their beta testers.

 

I was actually going to say the very same thing you said here. We the customer are their beta testers.

 

Thank you for your answer. But speaking of answers in this forum is that I responded to another post on this forum where someone asked if the Alabeo C441 was a good buy. I just looked at that the thread and my post has disappeared. I wonder what happened to it?

[FDEdev 955]

As I was testing the taxi behaviour for the Do 228 I re-installed the C441 as well and as mentioned in the Do 228 taxi thread, Alabeo missed to reduce the fuel flow with the condition levers in the 'start and taxi' position.

(Maybe it is impossible to combine the prop and condition levers if one stays within standard FSX SDK)

 

Tested the C411 at different weights and found it to be very nice to taxi with the condition levers in the 'take off climb and landing' position.

No need to keep the throttles at the start locks!

At very low weight (2 pilots + 50% fuel) taxi speed doesn't get any higher than a perfectly suitable 20kts and at MTOW the speed at idle is only 14kts.   

 

@Chock, but even with the condition levers in the 'start and taxi' position the speed at low weight doesn't get higher than 40kts. I don't think Chuck Yeager would have become famous at that speed :wink: 

[thefrog 18]

What I can't understand, is how it could have been even remotely beta tested and still be like that; I mean seriously, you crank it up, release the brakes and it sets off across the airfield like the Bell X-1 being dropped from the belly of a B-29 over Edwards for a crack at breaking Mach 1 when Yeager lit up the rockets, and the beta testers go: 'yup, seems fine to me, it taxis exactly like the real Cessna Conquest does when the throttles are retarded.' Seems to me that it was the beta testers and not the throttles which were retarded lol

It might be worth mentioning that not everyone shares your experience with fast taxi speeds. I don't know why though. I have not had a problem with keeping it to a reasonable 10 to 15 kts with Condition levers in the Start/Taxi position and occasional dabs on the brake.

[toddc 0]

Unfortunately, I have had the same problem.  I purchased the aircraft a couple of weeks ago and have encountered the same issue: extremely fast taxi speeds even while having the Conditions levers pulled back.  I find that I have watch the speed very closely.

[FDEdev 955]

Have you noticed that (until Alabeo fixes the 'reversed' condition lever behaviour) the 441 taxis realistic with the condition levers at max (take off climb and landing)?

[Tango777 4]

On 2/26/2017 at 0:13 AM, polizei said:

Have you noticed that (until Alabeo fixes the 'reversed' condition lever behaviour) the 441 taxis realistic with the condition levers at max (take off climb and landing)?

Yep. A lot of us have this problem with incorrect engine performance on the ground and Alabeo continues to ignore the reports of this from many of us. Alabeo (unless something has changed recently) even ignores problems like this on their website's so called forum. But the disheartening thing is that they released another plane (Tri Pacer) before fixing this plane's (C441) basic problems that preceded it. And now I understand that they are working on a SP for the Tri Pacer. So will they not fulfill their promise on another SP for the C441?

[softreset 33]

Interestingly enough I had the exact same issue with the Dornier 228.

The Dornier has Engine Speed levers, essentially the same condition as the C441's condition lever. I observed that the levers were behaving opposite of how they should. I had reached out to a couple of YouTube content creators that feature the Dornier 228 to see if they could replicate what I was seeing and have yet to receive confirmation.

I made the YouTube video, sent in a bug report to Carenado and heard back pretty quickly. They indicated that they'll look into fixing the function in a future release.

Interestingly enough the PC-12 (Carenado) has a single lever for the prop in the form of a Condition lever. It behave properly when in Ground idle.

 

[FDEdev 955]

@Tango777 

I understand why Carenado/Alabeo aren't taking part in discussions in this forum anymore.

I don't know a single company that reacts that quickly to bug reports and most of the time issues an initial patch within the first days of release.

Once this patch with the most important fixes has been released they apparently concentrate on their next projects but are consider fixing remaining issues at a later date.  

Don't see anything wrong with that.  Especially es the 441 and the 228 can be taxied nicely with their speed/condition Levers fully forward.

 

@softreset.  The speed/condition levers aren't reversed, they 'simply' forgot to add the actual FSX condition lever function which reduces the fuel flow in the low position. The 441 and the 228 condition & prop levers are functioning only as a prop lever.

On the PC-12 this is the other way round, the condition lever actually works as a condition lever and you can't manually alter prop RPM, contrary to the 441 and the 228.