Cockspur C510 Mustang OUT NOW!

[Puukka 9]

On 10/5/2022 at 2:02 AM, sbclark said:

.....I did notice that the climb rate seemed excessive, maybe more than I remember when flying the F1 Mustang many years ago. I will check it out tomorrow.

Bill Clark

By the way, you could adjust the engine power at the engines.cfg file.

The first version was 

[JET_ENGINE]

thrust_scalar=1.25

 

The one of the update:

[JET_ENGINE]

thrust_scalar=1.50

[bofhlusr 465]

On 10/5/2022 at 2:35 AM, Ricardo41 said:

I don't understand why developers release half-baked products. It just generates bad press.

What is "half-baked"? MSFS? XP12?

[sd_flyer 6,095]

11 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

What is "half-baked"? MSFS? XP12?

"Reveal" is in topic name LOL

[Ricardo41 5,959]

1 hour ago, bofhlusr said:

What is "half-baked"? MSFS? XP12?

Huh?

[Matchstick 1,905]

5 hours ago, Puukka said:

By the way, you could adjust the engine power at the engines.cfg file.

The first version was 

[JET_ENGINE]

thrust_scalar=1.25

 

The one of the update:

[JET_ENGINE]

thrust_scalar=1.50

Would that increase the problems with performance at high altitude ?

I already can't get there plane much above FL300 even at full throttle.

[Puukka 9]

6 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Would that increase the problems with performance at high altitude ?

I already can't get there plane much above FL300 even at full throttle.

I‘ll today compare the drag values of the Mustang to the WT CJ4 ones, maybe we could figure out better values….

[JBDB-MD80 1,490]

11 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

What is "half-baked"? MSFS? XP11.6?

fixed.

[sbclark 55]

I have been flying the 510 on a number of flights recently, my observations:

1) Takeoff run - I'm quite surprised at the Mustangs acceleration on takeoff....it makes me feel like I am in an F-18.

2) The initial climb rate, if I set the FLC speed to 150  or 200 kts, I see 6,700 feet/min, which is sustained for a period of time, but drops off to 4,400 at 10,000 ft. This is well above the real plane climb specs, I believe?

3)  If you want to efficiently climb to the the high flight levels, take a look at page 7 of this pdf file that can be found in the link below here where it states 150 kts. I tried a higher speed like 200 kts and the rate of climb was unacceptable after about 27,000 ft (150 appears to be the sweet spot)

NOTES ON FLYING THE CITATION MUSTANG

https://aerocitygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Notes-on-Flying-the-Citation-Mustang.pdf

4) If you set a cruise altitude to 10,000ft, the G1000Nxi will not hold this altitude, it will show something like 9,300 feet for example. Not sure if this is an MSFS, 1000Nxi or Mustang issue?

Summary - developer needs to assign Beta tester to aid the team to iron out performance issues over the A/C's flight regime?

Bil Clark

 

[Ricardo41 5,959]

Very few solid reviews of this plane. Available reviews, by solid tubbers, are mostly negative/mixed.

For pretty much the same price you can buy the excellent Hondajet - the developer went out of his way to add functionality to the G3000. 

OTOH, the developer of the Mustang just slapped the default WT Nxi onto his model, and called it a day. 

For example, why isn't the center keyboard functional? Oh, Asobo issue. Well, you could have "hacked" a workaround. 

I was extremely skeptical when the developer of the Hondajet announced vnav capability. I thought it would just turn out to be a vs mode masquerading as vnav. Nope. The plane hits every alt. constraint almost perfectly. 

This is what I call offering value for money. 

[The Flight Level 2,121]

@Ricardo41 In this hobby, no matter how bad a release is for one individual, it is gold in the hangar of another simmer. There is such a wide diversity of what a person desires in the representation of an aircraft for flight simulation, whether it be looks, flight dynamics, sounds or NAV capabilities. Even among the most experienced reviewers you can find examples of contrasting opinions for different aspects of a given model. MSFS2020 has spurred a whole new generation of developers that have energized flight simulation from so many perspectives, making this hobby rewarding for new enthusiasts to the high level immersive simmer.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Doering

[Fiorentoni 4,417]

9 minutes ago, Doering said:

@Ricardo41 In this hobby, no matter how bad a release is for one individual, it is gold in the hangar of another simmer. There is such a wide diversity of what a person desires in the representation of an aircraft for flight simulation, whether it be looks, flight dynamics, sounds or NAV capabilities. Even among the most experienced reviewers you can examples of contrasting opinions for different aspects of a given model. MSFS2020 has spurred a whole new generation of developers that have energized flight simulation from so many perspectives, making this hobby rewarding for new enthusiasts to the high level immersive simmer.

So really, there are people that prefer mediocre-looking bland and unrealistic defaultish aircraft over high detail high quality aircraft from the same aircraft type and at the same price? Why? 

[The Flight Level 2,121]

@Fiorentoni Oh, I hear you loud and clear. Perhaps the people you are referring to hear about it, want to fly it now and away they go on an impulse. No homework, no research required on what the alternatives may be. Satisfied, as they are immediately in that left seat of a cool airplane behind the controls with a sense of satisfaction. That’s all they want. I relate this to my memories of the pre FSX days where I would see an aircraft equipped with a default panel from a totally unrelated airplane. Bottom line, it was just neat to fly that airplane in the sim. I realize it is a very different beast in 2020, but there are hints of similarity. The vast majority of users on this forum are discerning flight simmers and our requirements and standards are at a different level than the hobby community at large.

To stay on topic, the C510 has incredible potential. In my eyes many changes and fixes could have implemented before release. The impulse and excitement to publish preceded a few extra weeks of work that would have introduced the model to the community at a higher level of fidelity.

[Gazzareth 835]

2 hours ago, Doering said:

@Fiorentoni 

To stay on topic, the C510 has incredible potential. In my eyes many changes and fixes could have implemented before release. The impulse and excitement to publish preceded a few extra weeks of work that would have introduced the model to the community at a higher level of fidelity.

I am sure I read either on the Discord or here that the Dev asked his beta testers if he should release or not. Might be a lesson learned.

He definitely seems determined to fix the issues with it though, already more patches released than your average Carenado aircraft...

 

G

 

[blueshark747 1,848]

5 hours ago, Doering said:

@Ricardo41 In this hobby, no matter how bad a release is for one individual, it is gold in the hangar of another simmer. There is such a wide diversity of what a person desires in the representation of an aircraft for flight simulation, whether it be looks, flight dynamics, sounds or NAV capabilities. Even among the most experienced reviewers you can find examples of contrasting opinions for different aspects of a given model. MSFS2020 has spurred a whole new generation of developers that have energized flight simulation from so many perspectives, making this hobby rewarding for new enthusiasts to the high level immersive simmer.

Bingo!

This plane is particular has a ton of potential, and has already grown on alot of us.

It's the developer's first release, of course there is going to be excitement and impulse of wanting to push it out, as we have been begging for it's release.

No "solid" Youtuber nor "prestige elite"  Avsimmer dictate's what I choose to purchase. Most of these Youtubers fly the planes terribly and babble too much anyway.

This little plane is very fun to fly overall and the developer seems ambitious enough to fix the issues and continue to make it shine.

Folks want new innovation and developers in the addon scene, but can't resist holding them to older established developer standards and tolerance.

Don't like the Cockspur 510? Then go enjoy your ironed out Asobo/WT CJ4.

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by blueshark747

[The Flight Level 2,121]

1 hour ago, blueshark747 said:

No "solid" Youtuber nor "prestige elite"  Avsimmer dictate's what I choose to purchase. Most of these Youtubers fly the planes terribly and babble too much anyway.

Nice! Yes, as previously mentioned several times before, many releases get a bad wrap in the hands of YouTube channels that basically fly the aircraft by the seat of their pants without doing their homework. The PC-12 is another great example of a mixed bag of insults or praises. Just working on another PC-12 video - ILS minimums and it worked to perfection. 

The C510 is a one man operation and that is a tough go handling all the facets of aircraft modelling. New developers have to start somewhere and I trust the developer will get the input and support needed to make the model a success.