Kodiak vs Cessna 208B Grand Caravan EX Improvement Mod

[Pivot 154]

2 hours ago, Adrian123 said:

Does MSFS not model Beta range?

Nope, they do not. It goes straight to reverse. If you release the parking brake and go into BETA, it starts backing up as opposed to sitting idle until you add further reverse thrust. I questioned this a while back too Lind of a pain. 

[Stearmandriver 2,333]

Huh, I tried the "prop reverse" (vs throttle reverse") and couldn't get the plane to move in either direction, even near full throttle.  Seemed like beta to me. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Stearmandriver

[fppilot 4,407]

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

Huh, I tried the "prop reverse" (vs throttle reverse") and couldn't get the plane to move in either direction, even near full throttle.  Seemed like beta to me. 

Did you fly today with the performance mod?

[Stearmandriver 2,333]

3 hours ago, fppilot said:

Did you fly today with the performance mod?

I just did and am really pleased. The plane feels more solid, while at the same time showing a little more realistic response to turbulence. The "sticky nose wheel" is gone, so you can pick the nose up early in a soft field takeoff (and hold it off after landing), and most importantly - it comes down more positively. Original flight model, idle full flaps at 70kts, I was seeing 400-500fpm descent.  With the mod, I'm seeing 1300-1400fpm.  Makes much more sense, and makes the plane more usable for steep approaches in the bush.

Color me impressed. Only con I see is that I think it took away too much of the left turning tendencies on takeoff.  I think the orig model felt better in that respect (the "corrected" orig model; I didn't have it until after they corrected their torque typo.)  But it's a minor point to me, for a better feel in pretty much the rest of the envelope.  

YMMV of course, but I'd say it's worth a try. 

[fppilot 4,407]

Great! I flew the as-released non-mod today, climbing and descending, maneuvering, and shooting several T&G approaches.  Will fly the mod tomorrow through the same paces. In its released state it is arguably (LOL) already my best paid addon aircraft. 

The issue I seem to face, with my 73 year old but still 20-20 vision, is that with a 28" screen at about 36" viewing distance, with the same ambient light, for some reason the MFD engine metrics are not as readable as in other models.  So I am resorting to speed adjustment based on placement of my quadrant levers along their graduated scales rather than FF and Prop readings.  Not how I ever flew.

Edited January 22, 2022 by fppilot

[Stearmandriver 2,333]

Hah I know what you mean... torque and RPM numbers are a little small for my 46 year old eyes too ;).  

Let me know what you think if you try the mod; I'm interested in how it strikes someone else with the similar amount of testing (ie not too much) as I've done. 

[Ixoye 1,841]

Is it a fan that makes so much noise in the cockpit? If so, where do I turn it off? Or is it the turbine? I thought newer planes had better soundproof insulated cockpits, on longer flights the sound gets annoying, especially in headphones.

[Stearmandriver 2,333]

55 minutes ago, Ixoye said:

Is it a fan that makes so much noise in the cockpit? If so, where do I turn it off? Or is it the turbine? I thought newer planes had better soundproof insulated cockpits, on longer flights the sound gets annoying, especially in headphones.

Aux fuel pump maybe? I noticed it was pretty loud. 

[meerkat 86]

5 hours ago, Ixoye said:

Is it a fan that makes so much noise in the cockpit? If so, where do I turn it off? Or is it the turbine? I thought newer planes had better soundproof insulated cockpits, on longer flights the sound gets annoying, especially in headphones.

After turning on aux bus, the A/C comes alive, making a lot of noise. You can lower the fan speed in the panel right of the pedestal.

[fppilot 4,407]

17 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Let me know what you think if you try the mod; I'm interested in how it strikes someone else with the similar amount of testing (ie not too much) as I've done. 

This afternoon I completed two flights in the Kodiak with mod. Felt improvements in some areas but appears to require to much left rudder in ground steering.  And I want to work on landings more with the mod.  On my first landing, on short final, I had about a 20 knot quartering headwind and  paid too much attention to my indicated airspeed and allowed my ground speed to bled too low. It was like I was in a hang glider.  I was all over the place and should have gone around.  My landing at the second airport was a better experience, but seems to require more attention than the as-released Kodiak. 

I never flew an aircraft like the Kodiak so have no real experience to fall back on.  My next flight will be back in the as-released Kodiak for more comparison.

[crimplene 634]

I tried the mod and somehow didn't like the feel of it. In approach phase it adds lots of flap drag, which seemed way too much.

With the original FM I at first tried descents with high idle and always gained speed. But with low idle descent feels very good. So I'll keep the original FM.

[Stearmandriver 2,333]

I'm reasonably sure low idle is not approved in flight.  We never did that in Caravans anyway, and a Caravan at idle with full flaps comes down a lot more like the modded Kodiak.  The original model strikes me as far too little flap/flat prop drag.

[fppilot 4,407]

Just now, Stearmandriver said:

I'm reasonably sure low idle is not approved in flight.  We never did that in Caravans anyway, and a Caravan at idle with full flaps comes down a lot more like the modded Kodiak.  The original model strikes me as far too little flap/flat prop drag.

I expect that with a headwind or quartering headwind I should not be using full flaps.  Is that logical for the type?

[Stearmandriver 2,333]

16 minutes ago, fppilot said:

I expect that with a headwind or quartering headwind I should not be using full flaps.  Is that logical for the type?

Unless there's a Kodiak-specific quirk I'm not aware of, I don't see why not.  Flaps yeild a lower airspeed and that's always nice.  Headwind is just free airspeed with a lower groundspeed, which is easier on the plane.  

Where it's advisable to limit flap usage is with a strong crosswind or gust component.  More flaps equals more surface area, which means more weathervaning tendency into a crosswind, and more speed fluctuations in gusts. So in those conditions it can be beneficial to land with less than full flaps. But with a normal, fairly steady mostly headwind, full flaps should be good. 

The performance of this plane, though, makes them pretty unnecessary at a normal airport. Most of my testing has been in the PNG bush, and even there with uphill landings, landing distance is not an issue.  So if you prefer a flaps 20 landing on a normal runway, I say stick with it ;).

I did notice she gets squirrely if you get slow (which might well be accurate).  I've been referencing the AoA indexer more than the airspeed on final, and a green cross (the on speed indication) seems to run a few knots above the default Vref, so if you're flying ref, it's easy to get slow. Maybe try using AoA and see how it feels. 

[hangar 661]

5 hours ago, crimplene said:

I tried the mod and somehow didn't like the feel of it. In approach phase it adds lots of flap drag, which seemed way too much.

With the original FM I at first tried descents with high idle and always gained speed. But with low idle descent feels very good. So I'll keep the original FM.

Have a look, while I feel that the mod has too much drag and needs to tweak it per flap setting (he did a sloppy job and just doubled the overall drag scalar as a quick & dirty I guess) the default flight model probably didn't get it right either and has too little drag because you should not gain speed in an idle descent with props forward...you should have to point the nose down alot just to maintain 100 kts I believe. have a look at both videos:

 

https://youtu.be/lmIIv9_bAvI?t=91

https://youtu.be/BomTbJpr8Pw?t=20

*EDIT - so for now I've just dialed the flaps scalar down to 1.3 in the flight model config file (instead of 2.0) and already it's much closer to what I see in these videos as far as attitude vs ias. This also allows the aircraft to accelerate more normally after takeoff whereas before it would struggle to reach 85 kts during takeoff. Also, the vertical gear positions are incorrect as you'll notice the plane's tires are floating above the ground 🙂 Just use these default values:

point.0 = 1, 2.508041, 0.000000, -5.61925, 820, 0, 1.83, 55, 0.165, 1.7, 0.9, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1.1
point.1 = 1, -8.512286, -5.857396, -5.336427, 1800, 1, 2.42, 0, 0.164, 3, 0.1, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 1.1
point.2 = 1, -8.512286, 5.857396, -5.336427, 1800, 2, 2.42, 0, 0.164, 3, 0.1, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 1.1

Also keep in mind that the stations need changing too, should you wish to use the mode with the non cargo pod version...in this case just remove all stations beyond station #10 and reset the value for max stations to 11. Now you wont have the extra cargo space showing up in the weight and balance area when you're using the non cargo pod version of the plane.

Edited January 23, 2022 by hangar