First impressions

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

48 minutes ago, fppilot said:

  Got the autopilot figured out except for RNAV approaches.  Is there a way to get vertical guidance?  No APR setting....

 

If you approach in NAV mode, the readout on the mode controller will change to GS when the glideslope indicators become active. No need to push APR.. the autopilot switches it for you.. and what is really interesting, the factory manual for the Cessna 800B autopilot confirms this behavior..

[fppilot 4,360]

11 hours ago, Pidder said:

Pitot Heat 1 and 2 can be switched on, but only 1 can also be switched off

And all of the switches on that panel fail to move! One way or the other! 

Rescinding my observation about that panel.  When I was flying this afternoon they did not move, but I was also fighting impending  OOM issue at the time.  Sitting on the ground going through cockpit familiarization again tonight I found that the switches on the left side panel do move. All but the #2  pitot heat switch that has already been pointed out.

Edited June 1, 2018 by fppilot

[fppilot 4,360]

2 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

If you approach in NAV mode, the readout on the mode controller will change to GS when the glideslope indicators become active. No need to push APR.. the autopilot switches it for you.. and what is really interesting, the factory manual for the Cessna 800B autopilot confirms this behavior..

Thanks Bert!

[Tim-HH 572]

23 hours ago, Tim-HH said:

But it seems that the instrument reflections are missing, which looks a bit odd.

I was able to fix this issue. If you also miss the instrument reflections, go to your '...\Alabeo C421_Golden_Eagle\Texture.Common' folder and create a copy of the 'win_texts.dds' file. Rename it to 'wintext.dds'. That's it

[AndiKunzi 62]

I was asked by PM for my opinion on the Alabeo C421, since I‘m flying a C421 in real life:

Hi Les,

I purchased it immediately and checked it out briefly.

It flies very nicely!

I don‘t like the old Cessna 800B autopilot - neither in real life nor in the sim. A lot of C421 have been upgraded to better systems, like the King one in the C404 with a VS mode. However, I could get used to it. 

The 2-bar Flight Director is becoming out of fashion, too. All glass cockpits, like the Aspen EFD1000 or the Garmin G500/600 use V-bar type FDs (= single cue FDs). I have an Aspen EFD and an S-Tec 60-2 autopilot in my real world C421C.

Correct Basic Empty Mass for a C421C with the trailing link landing gear would be about 5,300 lbs, not 4,700 lbs. My non trailing link gear is 5,154 lbs.

For my needs, I like DME, OAT (can be read in the C404 via the GTN750 only) and pressurization - however the pressurization is not working correctly. It should stop inflating at max differential pressure on climb, otherwise you would have to immediately depressurize because of malfunction of both the regulation and the safety valve (set to 5.1 to 5.2 psi).

After checking out, I continued flying the C404. Reason for this: I modified the C404 in a way that the windmilling prop and the feathering of an engine are simulated correctly. The effects on the sim - either C421 or C404 - are far from being anywhere near realistic. My tuned version now is. A windmilling prop is -500 fpm by the book and more than that in real life. With a windmilling prop in a real C421, you can‘t trim for level and coordinated flight. You have to feather. And feathering in real life is a matter of seconds, regardless of airspeed. This is not working on any piston twin I checked out on FSX and P3D. As a result, I adjusted the Prop Drag and Thrust tables to achieve this on the C404 and would have to do that on the C421, too, in order to realistically simulate OEI procedures there. 

What I don‘t like on the Alabeo C421 either: you can‘t swing / turn the Rosen sunvisors (or I‘m too stupid for that). You would swing them to the headroom normally and have an unrestricted view. Seat position by default is much too low in the sim. You‘re seeing a lot of nose in the C421 and I‘m only 5 ft 8 in.

Suction pumps: a twin has one on each engine...

As for the fuel pumps, you‘re right: LOW - OFF - HIGH. The last one only in case the engine driven fuel pump failed. Otherwise you’d flood the engine without further leaning.

BTW leaning: still a mere desaster, like on all piston aircraft I‘ve flown on the sim. Fuel flow on an injected engine is just not changing with altitude. You don‘t touch the mixtures on climb or descent once the correct power is set. The position of the mixture control is the same at 1,000 ft as it is at FL 270 for a given power setting. Take-off fuel flows are much higher. Minimum for max. take-off power is 40 GPH per side for a C421! For any reading below that, the take-off must be rejected! Best power is at 150 to 100 dF rich of peak EGT and for richer mixtures, the torque of the engine is decreasing only at a very small degree. For cooling and to avoid detonation, you go full rich on take-off. For short fields you use full power: 39.0 in Manifold Pressure, 2235 RPM and 42 GPH per side.

Besides that, I like the Alabeo C421 very much! Nice flying, great visual effects. Performance seems to be a good shot, when the correct Basic Empty Mass is adjusted.

Edited June 2, 2018 by AndiKunzi

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Andi,

Thanks so much for your insights !!!  42GPH per side - LMAO - freak'n OUCH...

Regards,

Scott

Edited June 2, 2018 by scottb613

[AndiKunzi 62]

Maximum Power for most Piston Engines:

Fuel Flow [GPH] = 0.11 * Power [hp]

Usually, climb is at 75 % and FF going back to 60 % of max. Take-Off Power.

[Les Parson 99]

Andy, 

Thanks for all the valuable info. I just noticed I am only getting about 29 GPH per side on takeoff with full power, full rich at MSL using the Shadin fuel flow.

So I guess we'll have to start messing around with the fuel flow scaler in aircraft.cfg. This is what we've had to do with several aircraft over the years. Do you have or anybody else have a better solution? 

[AndiKunzi 62]

The 29 GPH is the result of the way the Microsoft ESP is simulating piston engines. Best power is at chemical correct mixture (which is wrong from start) and any richer is leading to loss of power and to lower (!) fuel flows.

Thus, the developers of the Alabeo C421 used the correct numbers under these premises, which result in correct fuel flows for cruise, but like all piston engine aircraft I know in P3D and FSX, best power and especially full rich behavior is completely wrong.

I haven‘t found a way to adjust that. It‘s not just a table in the .air file. I’ve checked all of them. But I‘m pretty sure it could easily be done by Lockheed Martin, having the source code of MS FS and MS ESP.

I would be willing to provide all necessary data to the developers of P3D.

Whenever you have engine problems on a twin with injected engine, memory items before any checklist (shut down or trouble shoot, depending on situation) are:

foreward, foreward, foreward, flaps up, gear up, identify (dead foot), verify (dead engine by retarding the throttle).

The 3 forewards being mixture, props and throttles, right to left. At higher altitudes, you‘re losing power in the sim going full rich, e.g. when departing LSZS or in the critical climb on a SID in IMC out of LOWI. That‘s what I train for.

Edited June 3, 2018 by AndiKunzi

[Les Parson 99]

Thanks very much Andy. I'm almost sure by adjusting the FUEL FLOW SCALER in aircraft.cfg, something else in the equation is being screwed up.  I think this in part explains why many people (myself included) have been taking a serious look at XP11. 

[AndiKunzi 62]

I forgot to explain the reason for Fuel-Air-Ratio to be about 30 % above chemical correct mixture (CCM) at max. Manifold Pressure: 

At max. MP and CCM, detonation will occur (uncontrolled explosive combustion). That will harm the engine within seconds and destroy the engine completely within minutes. For most engines, CCM is allowed up to 65 % MCP (max. Continuous Power).

Adjusting Fuel Flow Scalar to correct max. Power fuel flows will result in cruise fuel flows being about 30 % high and will do nothing about the sim’s leaning requirement with altitude (and the non-requirement to do so when changing power).

I checked out XP11 before purchasing P3D last year. Nice approach to flight dynamics, without being better than P3D in the normal flight envelope. Fully developed stalls and spins are better, of course, but not that important for multi-engine and instrument training. You prevent those.

Edited June 3, 2018 by AndiKunzi

[C525B 86]

15 hours ago, AndiKunzi said:

I forgot to explain the reason for Fuel-Air-Ratio to be about 30 % above chemical correct mixture (CCM) at max. Manifold Pressure: 

At max. MP and CCM, detonation will occur (uncontrolled explosive combustion). That will harm the engine within seconds and destroy the engine completely within minutes. For most engines, CCM is allowed up to 65 % MCP (max. Continuous Power).

Adjusting Fuel Flow Scalar to correct max. Power fuel flows will result in cruise fuel flows being about 30 % high and will do nothing about the sim’s leaning requirement with altitude (and the non-requirement to do so when changing power).

I checked out XP11 before purchasing P3D last year. Nice approach to flight dynamics, without being better than P3D in the normal flight envelope. Fully developed stalls and spins are better, of course, but not that important for multi-engine and instrument training. You prevent those.

That's great info, Andi.  So how do you lean this airplane, in real life?  Does the fuel servo incorporate the steep fuel flow curve you described...or do you have to lean significantly for climb and cruise?

Edited June 4, 2018 by C525B

[AndiKunzi 62]

It‘s basically the same on all injected piston engines, regardless of if it is a Piper Cherokee or a Cessna 421. According to the POH / AFM:

Take-off: full rich

Climb (after passing 400 ft and clear of terrain and obstacles): recommended climb power. Usually about 75 % MCP, which normally is end of green arc for MP / Throttle and RPM / Prop; leaned to best power or slightly rich of that, about 150 dF rich of peak. Mixture controls remain untouched for the whole climb, since fuel flow remains the same. On normal aspirated or on turbocharged engines without a wastegate, you have to add power by throttle to keep MP (that‘s simulated correctly in FSX and P3D).

Cruise: recommended leaned mixture, usually 50 dF rich of peak. Lean of peak operations approved on some aircraft, like the Piper Malibu Mirage / Matrix. Cruise Fuel Flows are close to chemical correct mixture and thus are simulated correctly in FSX and P3D.

The exact settings can be found in the POH / AFM. For the C421C, you can view the power setting table at the end of the checklist ready for download in the other thread I opened yesterday.

Unfortunately, the AFM is protected by copyright and I can‘t link it for download unless Cessna would allow to do so.

Edited June 4, 2018 by AndiKunzi

[onduty 5]

Hi Guys,

I've been  personally, desparately waiting for a good "study level", pressurized piston twin for FSX. Reading through your knowledgable remarks, it is not the Alabeo 421c, at least at this stage. :-(

Just two remarks to this interesting discussion:

1. AndiKunzi wrote " Fuel flow on an injected engine is just not changing with altitude". It is not correct, normaly aspirated, fuel injected engines do require leaning with altitude!  The quoted sentence is true for turbocharged engines.

2. Many developers refer to the inherent coding problems of FSX, P3D, etc. simulation and consider them as a problem what we, customers have to accept. The piston engine behaviour (Fuel Flow, leaning problems) and especially turboprop engine urealistic behaviour are the most common on their list.

But, with some "miracle" some developers could solve these "inherent problems" and provide us with accurate engine behaviour and physics: A2A C-182, PMDG j41,

Majestic Q400 and the good old DA Piper Cheyenne and with some limitations the F1 B200. That's why I'm reluctant and highly sceptical  to accept the theory of FSX/P3D inherent/unavoidable coding problems emphasized by some developers.

Cheers,

Tamas

[RobertBernardK 7]

On 6/2/2018 at 11:30 PM, AndiKunzi said:

I was asked by PM for my opinion on the Alabeo C421, since I‘m flying a C421 in real life:

Hi Les,

I purchased it immediately and checked it out briefly.

It flies very nicely!

I don‘t like the old Cessna 800B autopilot - neither in real life nor in the sim. A lot of C421 have been upgraded to better systems, like the King one in the C404 with a VS mode. However, I could get used to it. 

The 2-bar Flight Director is becoming out of fashion, too. All glass cockpits, like the Aspen EFD1000 or the Garmin G500/600 use V-bar type FDs (= single cue FDs). I have an Aspen EFD and an S-Tec 60-2 autopilot in my real world C421C.

Correct Basic Empty Mass for a C421C with the trailing link landing gear would be about 5,300 lbs, not 4,700 lbs. My non trailing link gear is 5,154 lbs.

For my needs, I like DME, OAT (can be read in the C404 via the GTN750 only) and pressurization - however the pressurization is not working correctly. It should stop inflating at max differential pressure on climb, otherwise you would have to immediately depressurize because of malfunction of both the regulation and the safety valve (set to 5.1 to 5.2 psi).

Quote

After checking out, I continued flying the C404. Reason for this: I modified the C404 in a way that the windmilling prop and the feathering of an engine are simulated correctly. The effects on the sim - either C421 or C404 - are far from being anywhere near realistic. My tuned version now is. A windmilling prop is -500 fpm by the book and more than that in real life. With a windmilling prop in a real C421, you can‘t trim for level and coordinated flight. You have to feather. And feathering in real life is a matter of seconds, regardless of airspeed. This is not working on any piston twin I checked out on FSX and P3D. As a result, I adjusted the Prop Drag and Thrust tables to achieve this on the C404 and would have to do that on the C421, too, in order to realistically simulate OEI procedures there.

 

What I don‘t like on the Alabeo C421 either: you can‘t swing / turn the Rosen sunvisors (or I‘m too stupid for that). You would swing them to the headroom normally and have an unrestricted view. Seat position by default is much too low in the sim. You‘re seeing a lot of nose in the C421 and I‘m only 5 ft 8 in.

Suction pumps: a twin has one on each engine...

As for the fuel pumps, you‘re right: LOW - OFF - HIGH. The last one only in case the engine driven fuel pump failed. Otherwise you’d flood the engine without further leaning.

BTW leaning: still a mere desaster, like on all piston aircraft I‘ve flown on the sim. Fuel flow on an injected engine is just not changing with altitude. You don‘t touch the mixtures on climb or descent once the correct power is set. The position of the mixture control is the same at 1,000 ft as it is at FL 270 for a given power setting. Take-off fuel flows are much higher. Minimum for max. take-off power is 40 GPH per side for a C421! For any reading below that, the take-off must be rejected! Best power is at 150 to 100 dF rich of peak EGT and for richer mixtures, the torque of the engine is decreasing only at a very small degree. For cooling and to avoid detonation, you go full rich on take-off. For short fields you use full power: 39.0 in Manifold Pressure, 2235 RPM and 42 GPH per side.

Besides that, I like the Alabeo C421 very much! Nice flying, great visual effects. Performance seems to be a good shot, when the correct Basic Empty Mass is adjusted.

Hi AndiKunzi, its great to have a real point of view about the golden eagle, from  a real pilot like me and some here, 

Do you can apply in the 421C those modifications that you have done in the 404, and share with us ?? At least the behavior on the same engine in the 404 will be in the 421, and that can get better the plane ! 

 

Thanks in advance

Robert Bernard