Systems issues -- submitted to Carenado

[C525B 86]

FYI for anyone considering this product or otherwise invested in it...

There isn't a ton of information readily available about the systems operation of the Shorts.  Not that Carenado is known for making a grand effort, but there are a number of glaring issues that make it very hard to pretend that you're trying to follow a procedure.  I spent some time with the only readily available POM I could find here (linked elsewhere in this forum...h/t whoever it was that posted it first): http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=2513 .  As it is a POM, it is not a full training document, but a general overview of systems.  However, I was able to glean some basic points that I sent to Carenado.

So the systems are horrendous, but I mean..It's a really nice model of a mostly un-loved workhorse...and they animated the fans!

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Exterior model: the left landing light has its lens illumination tied to taxi lights by mistake.

Engines:

-The RTOP/AUTOFEATHER buttons above the engine gauges should not be buttons.  They are just indicator lights and the top and bottom halves are separate lights (i.e. ARM vs. ON).

-Autofeather is always available in the SD360 as far as I can tell.  The only switch it has is the TEST switch on the co-pilot's side, but otherwise it's always on, so the autofeather ARM/ON lights should be working as they would in a King Air (for example).

-RTOP ARM should be displayed when the respective RESERVE POWER switch on the overhead is turned on and both engines are above 88% Ng (so basically the same conditions as the AUTOFEATHER ARM light).  If there was engine failure, RTOP ON would illuminate on the good engine side, and the dead engine side would go blank.  If both engines are off and you turn the RESERVE POWER switches ON, then both RTOP ON lights illuminate...this is the pre-flight test for this system.

Bleed air/environmental:

-The bleed switches are the two small black buttons at the top that light up "P2.5/P3" when they are pressed. Right now the MAIN FAN switch is controlling the bleed valves (or at least the two valve indicators)...that's not right. The manual says that the P3 valves should take a few second to open, so I bet the P3 text inside the button wouldn't light up for a few seconds after each button is pressed to turn the bleeds on.

-The valve indicator for the MAIN FAN/RAM AIR switch and the two indicators for the GASPER/RAM AIR switches are showing the valves are open when the fan is on.  The valves should ONLY show open when these switches are placed in RAM AIR.

Hydraulic:

The hyd. press gauge is always showing 3000 psi.  It should only show pressure if at least one engine is running & the hyd pump on the running engine is on.

Lights:

The emergency exit lights switch is missing its labels.  As with most planes, there is a little light above the switch to show that the lights are on.  That light would only come on if the emergency lights switch is ON...or if the switch is ARMED but you lose all electrical power (both generators and battery).

Anti-ice:

Why is all the anti-ice equipment is "EQUIPMENT DEACTIVATED"?  I guess we have an airplane that's only flying around the Caribbean islands.  

The bleed air SHUT/NORM switches only control is bleed air is available to the de-ice boots.  The 5 green lights on that panel show when each section if the boots is firing based on the timer.  The TIMER switch is what causes the boots to activate in sequence.  The TIMER switch has three positions 3 min cycle (UP), 1 min cycle (LEFT), off (centered).  Right now it has no effect.  [[The way it looks now...you open the air supply for your boots and the wing boots all inflate continuously and nothing happens on the tail...yep, that's definitely not airworthy and should be MEL'd, but they think people want to pay for surprises like this?]]

Fuel:

The three valve indicators on this panel should also be clickable push buttons as well.  The first is the CROSSFEED button that's down near the bottom of the fuel panel.  The two button next to the fuel gauges are the levelling valves...right now, the indications there are linked to the BOOSTER PUMP switches, which is not right.  You open/close the levelling valves independently by pressing the on the button/indicator.

Electrical:

There are a few problems here.

-The two Volt/Amp meters next to the left/right gen switches should always show battery voltage as a minimum.  Same for TAIL BAT voltmeter.  These go to zero if the generators are off, so right now you have no way to see battery voltage.

-The GROUND SERVICES & RIGHT SHED BUS switches are normally left in NORM.  In that case, the indicators below each switch should show that the bus is connected (green) only if the respective generator is online.  If you put the switches to O/RIDE, then that forces the bus to connect, even if the generator on that side is OFF.  EMG always forces that bus to disconnect.

-The bus tie indicator at the bottom of the electrical panel appears to be blanked out at the moment.  It should be controlled by the COUPLE position of the generator switches.  If one of the generators is placed in COUPLE, then the bus tie should close (show green along the line) and the working generator will power everything.  This situation would also bring power to the GROUND SERVICE/SHED BUS on the other side, assuming that its switch is in NORM.  Right now, the COUPLE switches do nothing except turn off the respective generator...COUPLE controls the bus tie, but it should leave the generator online.

[scianoir 610]

That is certainly an impressive piece of systems detective work! Hopefully Carenado will address at least some of those issues if they release a further update.

Unlike aircraft from some developers such as PMDG, A2A, etc, where I expect anything I purchase to be ‘study level’, I have learned not to expect this from Carenado. Indeed I keep waiting for them to include a properly functioning FMC in the aircraft where they attempt to model it but I am not holding my breath for this either! 

I guess Carenado are happy enough with the sales they currently achieve producing 3 or 4 new aircraft a year and would prefer to stick to this business plan rather than putting a lot of extra development time and effort to achieve study level simulation. How amazing would it be however to have Carenado’s superb visual modelling combined with good systems depth? We can only but dream!

Bill

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by scianoir

[edpatino 1,976]

1 hour ago, scianoir said:

I guess Carenado are happy enough with the sales they currently achieve producing 3 or 4 new aircraft a year and would prefer to stick to this business plan rather than putting a lot of extra development time and effort to achieve study level simulation. How amazing would it be however to have Carenado’s superb visual modelling combined with good systems depth? We can only but dream!

Couldn't agree more.

Cheers, Ed

[C525B 86]

3 hours ago, scianoir said:

That is certainly an impressive piece of systems detective work! Hopefully Carenado will address at least some of those issues if they release a further update.

Unlike aircraft from some developers such as PMDG, A2A, etc, where I expect anything I purchase to be ‘study level’, I have learned not to expect this from Carenado. Indeed I keep waiting for them to include a properly functioning FMC in the aircraft where they attempt to model it but I am not holding my breath for this either! 

I guess Carenado are happy enough with the sales they currently achieve producing 3 or 4 new aircraft a year and would prefer to stick to this business plan rather than putting a lot of extra development time and effort to achieve study level simulation. How amazing would it be however to have Carenado’s superb visual modelling combined with good systems depth? We can only but dream!

Bill

Thanks.  I have given Carenado-Alabeo plenty of my money over the years.  In fact, their aircraft make up a majority of my active stable of aircraft.  So, I'm fine with an expectation of "lite" or "basic" systems.  The King Airs, AC690, Cheyenne II, Citations, Premier...at the very least the switches are all there and they have the correct positions.  That's my basic expectation of them...I think it's pretty fair.  I don't need the ability to simulate emergencies or abnormals. 

The problem for me is that they're inconsistent, even as far as a "lite" aircraft goes.  When they get basic switch-ology (I don't even mean the workings of the systems...the physical controls, their labels, etc) wrong in a way that is glaring or silly, I think it's too much for me.  The overhead on this Shorts is all messed up in a fundamental way.  This is the aspect that makes me question if they have any respect for their customer base at all.  Of course...if you go on their Facebook page, 90% of the comments are DEMANDS IN ALL CAPS THAT THEY MAKE THIS AIRPLANE OR THAT AIRPLANE so maybe they do know their base and there's a huge swath out there beyond Avsim users.

[scianoir 610]

4 hours ago, C525B said:

The problem for me is that they're inconsistent, even as far as a "lite" aircraft goes.  When they get basic switch-ology (I don't even mean the workings of the systems...the physical controls, their labels, etc) wrong in a way that is glaring or silly, I think it's too much for me. 

I agree - they often fall short, as you say, in aspects of the fundamental switch-ology to a point which makes me wonder who beta tests the aircraft for them. Sometimes it almost seems like they are relying on their customers to test their products! It’s a pity really as it would just take a couple of hours of using their aircraft to identify most of the basic issues.

Bill