Sign in to follow this  
RichieFly

Mooney M20R Version 1.1 Available

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Excellent, cheers Richie for the H-U  - off to grab it now!

I have to say, accepting it's limitations and "Alabeo-ness", I am loving the Mooney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JYW said:

Excellent, cheers Richie for the H-U  - off to grab it now!

I have to say, accepting it's limitations and "Alabeo-ness", I am loving the Mooney.

WoW...that I think is a first. I may have to take back my remarks and eat a bit of crow over this one. I may buy it now just to incourage them in the future. At least they seem to now be trying! It is layed out very nicely. Looks like they did something about the flaps. Bill does it fly better than the original release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me Alabeo is doing a bit better than Carenado.  They listened when people begged for steam gauges on the Seminole and this looks like a good release as well.  Now, if they could take a little time and fix the remaining issues on the Conquest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flaps now have 3 positions: Up, Takeoff and Down.

Before there were 2 more positions, I think. As to whether this is accurate, I guess so. I haven't flown a Mooney in about 30 years.

I think it flies pretty well. I have a sense that there's too much power with the throttle closed, but that's just a sense and not based on anything. Come to think of it, Mooneys were pretty 'floaty'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RichieFly said:

The flaps now have 3 positions: Up, Takeoff and Down.

Before there were 2 more positions, I think. As to whether this is accurate, I guess so.

Yes this is (now) correct.   There was a Mooney pilot in the other main thread on this airplane who pointed out that there should only be 3 positions for the flaps.   Unfortunately, although I've installed 1.1 I haven't yet had time to try it out to see what else has been fixed up.    I hoping the trim wheel now moves in the right direction!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JYW said:

There was a Mooney pilot in the other main thread on this airplane

Hi JYW, that was me - yes, the flap indicator is 3 stage and is now correct. I still agree that it is over powered, however I was kind of put in my place by a simmer who told me "it's not an M20M" - so I deferred to his experience and no longer participated in the thread since he must have had more experience on type than mine in the M20M - but yes, it is an Ovation, not a Bravo, which is turbo charged. Having slowed it down many, many times in real life IFR approaches, I can categorically say that the M20R shouldn't take as long as it does.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DavidP said:

...he must have had more experience on type than mine in the M20M

Wrong assumption. I only compared the Ovation 2 POH data with the Alabeo Mooney performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DavidP said:

I can categorically say that the M20R shouldn't take as long as it does.

Does that imply too little parasitic drag?  Also, how's the stability in turns?  My sense is that FSX/P3D makes them too stable and I'd wonder if this one is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drag is ok as the L/D ratio matches the values from the POH. Apparently it's the prop drag at idle that might be too low, but this depends a lot on the installed prop!

If the M has a different prop, and more important a different blade angle at idle, idle drag will be quite a bit different.

What do you mean with 'stability in turns'? Spiral stability?

 

edit: just compared the prop values and blade angle is quite a bit different:  M minimum pitch 15°,  R 16.5° which means less idle drag on the R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, J35OE said:

What do you mean with 'stability in turns'? Spiral stability?

Not sure what "spiral stability" is for sure but, some airplanes I've flown tended to want to keep leaning over if you didn't catch them...which would result in a spin.  How do Mooneys handle slow speed turns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

Not sure what "spiral stability" is for sure but, some airplanes I've flown tended to want to keep leaning over if you didn't catch them...which would result in a spin.  

Positive spiral stability means that the plane tends to roll out of the turn and negative means that the bank angle steepens. This depends a lot on speed and bank angle.

If you don't apply back pressure on the yoke when the 'leaning over' occurs (negative spiral stability), the result should be a spiral dive but no spin!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, does this plane model RPM sound vs. prop speed correctly.  Very few planes in FSX or P3D get this even close to correct.  Interestingly the Alabeo C207 has this modeled correctly, as does the Carenado Cheyenne.  When you increase or decrease the throttle or power lever in a constant speed prop airplane at normal operating ranges, you  shouldn't hear the RPM increase or decrease.  Microsoft Flight had this right, X-plane has it right, and FSW has it right.  What puzzles me is that, if someone at Alabeo has figured out how to do this in FSX or P3D, why doesn't it henceforth carry over to other Caranado and Alabeo planes? Once you are aware of this problem, it's really hard not to notice it.  It doesn't really spoil your flying experience; it's just a little bit of an annoyance (at least for me).

The first FSX plane that I'm aware of that modelled sound vs. prop speed correctly was Digital Aviation's Cheyenne, sold by Aerosoft.  Aerosoft's own Twotter is correct in this regard also.  I don't know about A2A's  C182 or Commanche, since I don't have them, but I would be surprised if they didn't have it correct.

Regards,

Tom

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That this 'works' on the 207 is surprising as this is a basic bug in FSX/P3D. (Don't know why LM didn't fix this item as they sell P3D as a training tool and not as a game)

Even Aerofly FS2 is correct. 

Interesting that you mention FSW as I've read that it's the same like in FSX/P3D.

On the turboprops in FSX/P3D this error doesn't normally occur. It works as it should e.g. on the Carenado King Air and 1900 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, J35OE said:

That this 'works' on the 207 is surprising as this is a basic bug in FSX/P3D. (Don't know why LM didn't fix this item as they sell P3D as a training tool and not as a game)

I think it requires extra coding outside the sim engine to accomplish this, because FSX and P3D don't provide it natively.  As I said, I would love to see Carenado/ Alabeo provide this feature for their other planes, at least, going forward, since someone on their team knows how to fix it.

This leads me back to my original question; has anyone noticed if the problem is fixed in the Mooney?

Cheers, 

Tom

PS,  Your point is well taken regarding this problem still being present in a training simulator.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Murfman said:

I think it requires extra coding outside the sim engine to accomplish this, because FSX and P3D don't provide it natively.  As I said, I would love to see Carenado/ Alabeo provide this feature for their other planes, at least, going forward, since someone on their team knows how to fix it.

This leads me back to my original question; has anyone noticed if the problem is fixed in the Mooney?

I can assure you that the guys at Alabeo/Carenado can't do anything which is outside the sim engine. Just reinstalled the 207 and it doesn't really work as it should.

E.g. once you are not in the peak RPM and MP range the standard error occurs again. It was just a coincidence IMO that it makes the impression to work in a realistic way in some areas on the 207.

Btw, it doesn't work in the Mooney either.  

For me this is a real deal breaker as their PA44 and C340 have really nice sounds, but the way FSX/P3D handle them takes away quite a bit from immersion and realism.

In FSX I'm normally only flying jets and turboprops for that reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J35OE, 

I appreciate your feedback. I don't know why I didn't notice the 207 not working properly throughout its RPM range.  I don't have real time in a complex aircraft, only fixed pitch. Well, there was the time my wife bought me an hour's time in a Cardinal RG for my birthday, which I used to complete my biennial flight review requirements.  I can assure you I was much too busy trying to keep up with that airplane to notice anything having to do with sound relation to prop RPM 😰

 

Cheers,

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one of the most important items you learn when flying constant speeds props: You can't adjust power by listening to the engine/prop noise!

Btw, that's one sleek bird the 177RG! 

Had one checkflight on an Arrow IV with constant speed prop and retractable landing gear but I had only flown 152s before that.

Felt like a 747 in terms of complexity and workload. :laugh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, J35OE said:

Felt like a 747 in terms of complexity and workload.

That's about how I felt at the time, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this