Report Cessna 414AW Chancellor issues

[yowman 0]

On 3/25/2022 at 4:46 PM, Flysimware said:

First you must be within 2nm of the course to capture it in gps mode. This way you can use HDG mode to intercept at the direction you choose.

The ADF i see in your image is selected for the nav 2 radio. Was that the correct nav? I see no info displayed on the nav 2 radio.

same for me...the autopilot not following the gps...even when the plane is right on the track...nav mode and gps is active on the gns503

[CaptainNick 575]

After 15-20 hours flying mine on FSEconomy some thoughts/bugs. I wont rehash all the ones already spoken before

1.) Hoskins computer: I have tried tried tried my damndest to get this to work right. Ive read the manual several times but I cannot get the fuel totalizer to work in Gal Rem function. I have set the fuel correctly following the manual on the initial startup but never using any fuel on the Hoskins. A second issue is I cannot get it to reset to the initial mode after completing a flight. I land, fully shutoff the plane but when powered back up the Hoskins reverts into Gal Rem mode instead of the Verify/initialization mode.

2.) Slip/Turn indicator ball almost never moves even with lots of rudder deflection.

3.) We found earlier tonight that the left engine will not pull from the right tank initially. Another customer on our FSE discord had taken off in his and the left tank was super low and his right tank was almost full. He swapped the left engine to pull from the Right tank but it would not pull. It kept pulling from the left tank until dry and the engine cut off even with the selector on right tank. He ended up clicking the tank to left then to right and got the engine to refire then and start pulling from the right engine. Bit of a weird one that.

4.) Fuel flow is very high.

5.) Don't really notice a difference in CHT with cowl flaps open/close but I have been flying in cooler climates. Also no speed difference from what I can tell with them open/closed.

6.) Oil pressure is always 80...

All the other little bugs I think have been brought up before. Nothing that prevents us from flying the plane. I am happy with it and I know every product I purchased from P3D until now from FSW has had extensive support and patches. Probably the best in the business in all honesty. Keep up the good work!

Edited March 28, 2022 by CaptainNick

[jfwharton 50]

Just one question regarding the fuel not feeding from the opposite engine tank.  Was the crossfeed open?  I believe the default is for the crossfeed to be closed.

[CaptainNick 575]

8 minutes ago, jfwharton said:

Just one question regarding the fuel not feeding from the opposite engine tank.  Was the crossfeed open?  I believe the default is for the crossfeed to be closed.

I could be wrong but the crossfeed, according to the manual would be lifted to close it. It Defaults to the lowered position which I would assume is open as its an emergency shutoff valve.

Edit: Can confirm, lifting it shuts off. Defaults to lowered which is what his was. I was watching him on discord stream.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by CaptainNick

[jfwharton 50]

I just tried an experiment.  Started a flight and set the left tank to zero and the right tank to 25%.  Made sure the crossfeed shutoff lever was down.  Set the left tank fuel select to the right tank and the right tank fuel select to the right tank.  Primed each engine and each engine started.  Then I pulled the crossfeed shutoff valve lever to up and the left engine quit.  I reversed the process with the right tank empty and the left at 25% and again was able to start both engines.  So at least on my installation if the crossfeed shutoff lever is down then the engines can feed from the opposite tank.

[CaptainNick 575]

Yeah it may have just been a fluke on his end....I cant seem to replicate it now that I am trying to.

[geoffda 5]

15 minutes ago, CaptainNick said:

After 15-20 hours flying mine on FSEconomy some thoughts/bugs. I wont rehash all the ones already spoken before

1.) Hoskins computer: I have tried tried tried my damndest to get this to work right. Ive read the manual several times but I cannot get the fuel totalizer to work in Gal Rem function. I have set the fuel correctly following the manual on the initial startup but never using any fuel on the Hoskins. A second issue is I cannot get it to reset to the initial mode after completing a flight. I land, fully shutoff the plane but when powered back up the Hoskins reverts into Gal Rem mode instead of the Verify/initialization mode.

4.) Fuel flow is very high.

I can confirm the fuel bugs. The fuel computer is somewhat broken and I experienced the inability to reset it after landing, shutting down and refueling. Fuel burn seems excessive. I had to stop and refuel to complete an ~800nm flight from KRNT to KSBP today at 65% power at FL220. According to the POH I should have had over 1100nm range and nearly 7 hours of endurance. Even with the headwinds I was fighting, the flight should have been an easy nonstop. Instead, I was going through fuel like I had a leak somewhere and ended up needing to refuel in KUKI which was ~600nm. Something seems to be not right...

[C525B 86]

14 minutes ago, geoffda said:

I can confirm the fuel bugs. The fuel computer is somewhat broken and I experienced the inability to reset it after landing, shutting down and refueling. Fuel burn seems excessive. I had to stop and refuel to complete an ~800nm flight from KRNT to KSBP today at 65% power at FL220. According to the POH I should have had over 1100nm range and nearly 7 hours of endurance. Even with the headwinds I was fighting, the flight should have been an easy nonstop. Instead, I was going through fuel like I had a leak somewhere and ended up needing to refuel in KUKI which was ~600nm. Something seems to be not right...

I guess that checks out with the statements made elsewhere that fuel flow is reading 30-40% higher than the book.

[Seven7Tango 2]

Fuel burn is nearly 60 gals an hour in cruise; s/b 35 gph or thereabouts. Cruise conditions:

16,500' @ 30" MP and 2400 rpm

Had the Low Fuel annunciator blinking at me the last 40 minutes of my flight. 

[z06z33 777]

When flying in snow occasionally some makes it inside the cockpit/cabin

[Torsen 495]

Soooo... as the fuel usage seems to be doubled I assume its just a small error not dividing total fuel use by engine numbers and just putting the full fuel use on both engines. Just changed the fuel flow scalar from intial 1.5 to 0.75 and its spot on on FL200 cruise. Do we have more performance charts already somewhere for other flight levels than FL200?

Cheers

T.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Torsen

[the_simpilot 81]

12 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

I paid 5 bucks less for the Carenado Seneca.  It's got worse textures, worse sounds, the panel is far less equipped, and it doesn't have native TDS and PMS GTN integration.  Frankly it doesn't fly very well either...stalls about 10 kts above end of the white arc in dirty config.  The C414 stalls correctly when loaded at gross weight.  

40 bucks isn't even close to study level price.  We don't have a study level GA nor does this C414 claim to be.  Does it need work?  Yes, absolutely!  

 

Maybe you did when it's first released. I paid $24.99 to Seneca V $15 less and it is on par with the other GA aircraft that mostly uses Asobo code. It has the GTN750 integration but not the NXI. Also I think it's fair to say there is more competition. Milviz Cessna 310 for example will have failures simulated, passenger comfort simulated, engine wear and tear simulated expected to have same price range which I'm pretty sure you already know. I really want this aircraft to succeed and that's why I purchased even I have read the issues and knew it will not work as expected until it's out of beta. This was a decision to support the developer, but that doesn't mean I don't have expectations and will not compare with other products within the same price range.

I also have the Just Flight Piper Arrow III/IV and Turbo Arrow bundle which I paid $50 for 2 aircraft during a sale on simmarket. $25 each with same math. I don't agree that $40 is not close to high fidelity level price. (I hate the word study level 🙂 ) Maybe it was not before MSFS but it is changing due to huge user base. For GA aircraft I think it's within that range TBH. Maybe not %100 high fidelity but a price that will make buyers question what I'm getting in return.

Edited March 28, 2022 by the_simpilot

[ryanbatc 12,934]

I'm glad Carenado dropped their prices - they were asking far too much.  Yeah I spent 35 for the Mooney and Seneca.  I also paid 45 or 50 for the Turbo Arrow.  This plane easily beats all of those in terms of feature set - and it's still in beta.  

I don't know what time zone you're in the the dev is furiously fixing stuff - the tend to stream around zulu + 1

[Torsen 495]

1 minute ago, ryanbatc said:

I'm glad Carenado dropped their prices - they were asking far too much.  Yeah I spent 35 for the Mooney and Seneca.  I also paid 45 or 50 for the Turbo Arrow.  This plane easily beats all of those in terms of feature set - and it's still in beta.  

I don't know what time zone you're in the the dev is furiously fixing stuff - the tend to stream around zulu + 1

I'm a long time customer and fan of fsw but I have to agree in parts with @the_simpilot . The Arrows for example have indeed a richer feature set and including at least a given set on wear and tear.  The mentioned 310 will be indeed far superior on the current set of specs we have and I'm part of another beta that will have a full wear and tear plus much more spec set and will be less expensive. I'm happy with the current Beta but if the feature set stays on that level me think its on the more expensive side. Still ok but you should expect questions at that level. A bit of communication on what to expect in the future would really be helpful in this case here, too. And regarding its beta state, an error like the simple copy and paste error on the doubled fuel flow should have been noticed before public beta. 😉  

Cheers

T.

[the_simpilot 81]

46 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

I'm glad Carenado dropped their prices - they were asking far too much.  Yeah I spent 35 for the Mooney and Seneca.  I also paid 45 or 50 for the Turbo Arrow.  This plane easily beats all of those in terms of feature set - and it's still in beta.  

I don't know what time zone you're in the the dev is furiously fixing stuff - the tend to stream around zulu + 1

I am at Zulu -7 Eastern Standard Time Indiana US. I'm pretty sure the developer is aware of the issues and will be fixing as the aircraft progresses. Hoping to fly the 414 with a big smile on my face when it's released.

Which platform the stream will be on do you know?

 

37 minutes ago, Torsen said:

I'm a long time customer and fan of fsw but I have to agree in parts with @the_simpilot . The Arrows for example have indeed a richer feature set and including at least a given set on wear and tear.  The mentioned 310 will be indeed far superior on the current set of specs we have and I'm part of another beta that will have a full wear and tear plus much more spec set and will be less expensive. I'm happy with the current Beta but if the feature set stays on that level me think its on the more expensive side. Still ok but you should expect questions at that level. A bit of communication on what to expect in the future would really be helpful in this case here, too. And regarding its beta state, an error like the simple copy and paste error on the doubled fuel flow should have been noticed before public beta. 😉  

Cheers

T.

This is exactly what my thoughts are, MSFS brought a lot more competition and forced developers to rethink their pricing practices. Ability to sell more copies and the increasing expectations due to the new platform will have it's part in the equation. TBH it requires the developers to change their strategy if they want some market share from MSFS addons. It is no longer same as P3D and XP11 days where we saw addon prices as high as $150. Also to mention MSFS has different levels of users that does things differently. A new flight simmer could be happy with any Carenado until they build their knowledge. Seasoned flight simmers like us wants to see systems simulated correctly that's why we're paying attention to all instruments in the cockpit and want to see those instruments to simulate what the real aircraft does as much as the platform allows.

I agree MSFS is not mature but sometimes it's easy to put it on SDK and the platform developer. In my personal opinion not everything is limited by the SDK and there are workarounds that might get addon developers to the intended result. We have seen examples of this with FBW A320, WT CJ4 and G1000NXI.

I hope this becomes a popular aircraft that seasoned flight simmers will appreciate, I'm afraid $40 introductory and $50 release pricing will be too steep for new flight simmers that could be very happy with Caenado or Blackbox simulations type aircraft that uses default Asobo code for the most part.

Edited March 28, 2022 by the_simpilot