Beach Baron 58 performance at high altitude (or lack thereof)

[Guest nickle]

Good suggestion.However, the turbo Baron was the 58TC not the 58.Turboed and cruise specs for 20k.The reason the standard Baron won't meet specs to 18k is GMAX.Does not accurately simulate piston powered engine performance above 7 or 8k.ALL piston powered aircraft and not just Baron.If you have specs, test for TO performance.Seconds or feet to flight.Adjust power and prop scalar to meet.Test then for published max speed at altitude in specs.Use parasite drag to meet these specs.Rem: Critical alt is the altitiude at which an aircraft falls below 100 fpm climb. (My assessment)By manufacturer and at very low fuel and load. Like 150 lb pilot and no other weight and minimum fuel.

[LAdamson 240]

>Does not accurately simulate piston powered engine performance>above 7 or 8k.>ALL piston powered aircraft and not just Baron.>I generally find that most simulated piston (non-turboed) aircraft DO seem to perform rather normally in the 8,000-12,500' msl range. My simulated and real flight activity usually starts at airports ranging from 4500' to 7200'. I keep the mixture leaned, and feel that the simulated ones do a reasonable job, as I'm usually always at 9,000 to 11,500' with them. I have run sims, where the aircraft are underpowered no matter what, but don't have the problem with FS2002, FS2004, or FSX.

[Geofa 108]

Here is a performance chart for the B55. Notice they don't even go above 16000 ft-(probably too embarassing). Also-notice the performance differences depending on whether a standard day or not.The best TAS is at 6000 ft-above 10k it goes down quite a bit.The bottom shot shows me cruising along at 12000 ft.-to my recollection it was about 80 degrees on the ground. The performance charts show 19.7 inches and Cas of about 143-pretty much on.I have never been much above that and frankly wouldn't want to-the performance-especially climb was dismal -it was hard to get much climb at 12,000-100-200fpm is my recollection. However for jumping over a mountain pass (like the Tetons in this shot)-one might want to visit that level briefly and legally.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166219.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166220.jpg

[zfehr 1]

>Good suggestion.>However, the turbo Baron was the 58TC not the 58.>Turboed and cruise specs for 20k.>>The reason the standard Baron won't meet specs to 18k is>GMAX.>Does not accurately simulate piston powered engine performance>above 7 or 8k.>ALL piston powered aircraft and not just Baron.>>If you have specs, test for TO performance.>Seconds or feet to flight.>Adjust power and prop scalar to meet.>Test then for published max speed at altitude in specs.>Use parasite drag to meet these specs.>>Rem: Critical alt is the altitiude at which an aircraft falls>below 100 fpm climb. (My assessment)>By manufacturer and at very low fuel and load. Like 150 lb>pilot and no other weight and minimum fuel.>>My suggestion was not meant to emulate the Beechcraft Baron B58TC which uses different engines and has a higher gross weight. I thought it was clear in my post it is meant to emulate a legal STC which adds turbonormalizing to normally aspirated Baron B58's.GMax is a 3d modeling tool and has nothing to do with the Flight Dynamics Envelope.Critical altitude is the altitude at which a turbocharger no longer can produce maximum boost, the lower the ambient pressure (so the higher you climb) after this altitude the less maximum boost available. So in other words after climbing past the critical altitude a turbocharged engine will start to behave like a normally aspirated and less power is available the higher you go.

[n4gix 4,947]

>The reason the standard Baron won't meet specs to 18k is>GMAX.>Does not accurately simulate piston powered engine performance>above 7 or 8k.>ALL piston powered aircraft and not just Baron.Excuse me? GMAX has absolutely nothing to do with the flight model or performance. The only thing GMAX does is create the 3d model's mesh! ;)

[Guest nickle]

Heres a link to Baron 58 performance:http://portfolio.finelight.com/NBAA_beechc...PDF/58_2001.pdfFor a quick test I set FS to read TAS, climbed to 6k and cruised at max power in A/P, heading hold, 6k alt hold, 5,200lbs.Well below the 6k specs of 202kts TAS.Several iterations of Power Scalar and Prop Thrust Scalar.Adjust weight to 5,200 lbs each run.1.075 both Power and Thrust Scalar resulted in 200kts TAS read on the A/S indicator.Climbed to 8k and speed was 200kts.Didn't do the 10k. Should be 190 kts TAS.What did you find your test?

[Geofa 108]

Did you do your tests at 59 F and 29.92? I assume those company specs are for standard conditions (not to mention a brand new airplane,test pilot :-) ). If you notice the chart I have above-non standard conditions can influence these speeds quite a bit.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Thanks for all the input. I haven't had time to get back in the "cockpit". I will soon and I'll report back.