Alabeo C441 - is it a good buy?

[Libra204 4]

Hello

I am asking those familiar with the type/add-on. I am planning to purchase Alabeo's C441. Could you please let me know the following:

Can you kill the engine by firewalling the throttle for long durations?
When flaring, does it behave like Carenado planes, i.e. just falls out of the skies at stall without any buffeting, like a brick or something?
Would you recommend this plane to a pro-simmer, or it is just for eye-candy lovers?


Many thanks in advance

Cheers

Csaba

[AOB 78]

Mutleys Hangar have a review of the plane but they do not cover your very specific questions.

[Libra204 4]

Mutleys Hangar have a review of the plane but they do not cover your very specific questions.

Thanks, I have read that text. Regrettably, they dont really go into details in terms of my queries. I dont want to throw EUR 30-40 down the drain to have a second Carenado "simulaton".

[Kaashaas 7]

Keep in mind that buffet doesn't always occur noticably (is that a word...?) when stalling a wing.

Especially when the air in which the wing travels is moving at an angle

(let's say you have a slight crosswind or is a bit turbulent to begin with) buffet is often 'blown off the wing'

and the wing will drop without buffet even being felt.

 

To be honest I only know the C152 by Carenado. By experience I can tell

you it's a pretty good flightmodel compared to the real thing. Simming

will, in the end, never be the same as the real thing.

[Boeing or not going 578]

If realism is more important than eye candy, go with this http://flysimware.com/website/Cessna441.html

[Chock 17,769]

The FlySimWare one is a waaaay better simulation of the real thing. It's undeniable that the Alabeo one is the prettiest of the three different Cessna 441s you can get for FS, the other being the Flight 1 version which dates from 2008, when it was pretty good and also the only contender, but it's showing its age these days, if you're curious however, here's a link to my old Avsim review of it:

 

http://avsim.com/pages/0907/441/441.htm

 

Why is the FlySimWare one better? It features a far more realistic simulation of the Garrett TPE 331 engine and its related systems, whereas with the Alabeo version, although simulating most systems, until it is patched (don't hold your breath), its ground handling characteristics are preposterously bad (see the many complaints about that on this and other forums).

 

So unless you enjoy taxying to the holding point at 45 knots whilst riding the brakes in a desperate attempt to slow the thing down, this despite having all the levers on minimum and carrying a maximum payload, which is what you will be doing in the Alabeo one, then get the FlySimWare version, because that handles properly. If on the other hand you can tolerate the poor modeling of engine power, but want a really pretty model, the Alabeo one is for you, as it is undeniably a really beautiful 3D modeling and texturing job, both inside and out.

 

If they patch the Alabeo one, I'll happily try it out again, but for now it is in my virtual maintenance hangar, whereas the FlySimWare one gets regular outings in my sim.

[scianoir 610]

I would agree with the comments above on the Flysimware 441. It appeared long before the Alabeo one and, as I already had it and was happy with it, I did not see any reason to consider getting the Alabeo version when it was released. I cannot therefore give a personal opinion on the Alabeo 441 particularly with regard to systems depth, but I have a lot of Alabeo/Carenado aircraft and let's just say they can show a bit of variability in terms of systems depth and function, although some, to be fair, are very good. This is a pity as Alabeo/Carenado aircraft are beautifully modelled both externally and internally and their VCs are great to look at and I am sure the Alabeo 441 would win in an 'eye candy' battle!

 

Bill

[stans 702]

Flysimware's C441 is not as pretty as the Alabeo C441, but the Flysimware products have better flight models and systems modeling.

[scianoir 610]

Duplicate post - sorry!

[aentwis 61]

Why oh why can't the systems gurus team with the visuals gurus and produce great-looking, great-working addons?

 

In a perfect world...  

 

I have the FSW C441...

 

Andrew

[JYW 2,977]

Personal view - aside from the pretty textures, the Alabeo C441 is trashware for me - deleted and won't be installed again.  Lacks any of the sparkle of Alabeo/Carenado's better offerings.  Just feels like they had a serious 'off day' with the flight and ground handling characteristics.  Feels dull in flight and lacks immersion.

 

The FSW C441 is better but not perfect.  Texturing is not the best, and (IMHO) neither are the engine sounds.

[FDEdev 955]

@Bill, what's specifically wrong with the flight handling and what do you mean with 'it feels dull in flight'. R U type rated on the real 441?

I'm asking because e.g. concerning the Navajo, B200, Tomahawk RW type rated pilots like the handling and say the FDEs are quite realistic.

[Libra204 4]

Thanks chaps for sharing your thoughts. I own Carenado Beechcraft, and that thing is just the most unreal of all, with its brick like behavious when it comes to flare. In addition, I hate it when cockpit lights are not dimmable, and the lighting in that plane is like fireworks at midnight.

[Tango777 4]

@Bill, what's specifically wrong with the flight handling and what do you mean with 'it feels dull in flight'. R U type rated on the real 441?

I'm asking because e.g. concerning the Navajo, B200, Tomahawk RW type rated pilots like the handling and say the FDEs are quite realistic.

 

These airplanes do not require type ratings.

[FDEdev 955]

@Libra204

1. The Baron still has the old generation FDE

2. There's an FDE update available since ages at flightsim.com that fixes the flare, take off rotation and pitch moment problem.

 

@Tango777

If it makes you happy: RW pilots with experience on this plane, furthermore you can include the Carenado 350i as well concerning very good FDE and that one does require a type rating.