Anyone tried this? 
 

https://flightsim.to/file/60697/asobo-cessna-citation-cj4-realism-mod

No and this is the 1 plane would be reticent to touch... It was developed and refined by pilot(s) who fly it. Wonder what needed 'refining' since the goal was making book #'s from the outset?

Edited November 13, 20232 yr by Flyfaster_MTN002

2 minutes ago, Flyfaster_MTN002 said:

No and this is the 1 plane would be reticent to touch. It was refined over a long time by pilot(s) who fly it. Wonder what needed 'refining' ?

I’ve read the changelog and it looks like quite a bit differed from what is actually happening in the real world as opposed to the sim…. 👀🤷🏻‍♂️ like the turn radius during taxi. Sim default is 68, this mod makes it 25, as apparently in real life that’s what it is? 

Sounds like they have made improvements to the crosswind ground handling as well. I might have to give this one a go. My biggest complaint about the CJ4 was a complete inability to keep it on the runway in a heavy crosswind landing. 

29 minutes ago, vrdubin6 said:

Sounds like they have made improvements to the crosswind ground handling as well. I might have to give this one a go. My biggest complaint about the CJ4 was a complete inability to keep it on the runway in a heavy crosswind landing. 

This was addressed when the plane was overhauled in AAU1. The flight model is completely different than the mod was, and crosswind landings of very high values was tested. I see the nosewheel steering friction scalar was bumped to 50, but it was already 10, which is already super off scale in the realm of "this wheel can never skid", so I'm not sure the 50 has an effect.

In general, we do not recommend any flight model mods as the existing flight model is extremely, extremely close to the book, and was tested in feel with type rated CJ4 pilots. But folks can of course come to their own opinions if they prefer something other than that.

19 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

This was addressed when the plane was overhauled in AAU1. The flight model is completely different than the mod was, and crosswind landings of very high values was tested.

Oh, good to know. I know I've flown the CJ4 a handful of times since AAU1, I must've just not given it a go in a crosswind scenario. This is the push I need to spend some more time back in this bird. 

2 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I’ve read the changelog and it looks like quite a bit differed from what is actually happening in the real world as opposed to the sim…. 👀🤷🏻‍♂️ like the turn radius during taxi. Sim default is 68, this mod makes it 25, as apparently in real life that’s what it is? 

Let us know how you like it?

I can't keep real planes on runways in heavy crosswinds...that's what taxiways are for 🙂

Be sure you are lining up on the upwind side of the runway to allow for drift. Turn into the wind, and use opposite rudder to keep you lined up to touch down before 'kicking out'. That crab angle or slipping to the runway, should put you right where you want to be, as long as you make constant corrections for gusts etc with the ailerons.

Edited November 13, 20232 yr by Flyfaster_MTN002

4 hours ago, MattNischan said:

In general, we do not recommend any flight model mods as the existing flight model is extremely, extremely close to the book, and was tested in feel with type rated CJ4 pilots. But folks can of course come to their own opinions if they prefer something other than that.

Matt, first I would say I very much appreciate the excellent work that WT has done with all of the aircraft and nav systems.  However, I must state that the TBM is now almost uncontrollable in crosswinds for both takeoff and landing (almost as if there are a couple inches of molasses on the runway).

I have found the CJ4 to be the opposite - very controllable under crosswind situations.

58 minutes ago, RandallR said:

However, I must state that the TBM is now almost uncontrollable in crosswinds for both takeoff and landing (almost as if there are a couple inches of molasses on the runway).

We did not alter the TBM flight model in any way during any of the Aircraft and Avionics Updates; it remains in the same form it has for quite some time. The TBM was mostly just an avionics refresh.

Understood, and this makes sense.  The problem is that I had to remove the mod which was giving me a good flight model with the aircraft in order to be compatible with your great avionics work.

Now I have an aircraft with some great avionics that no longer performs properly.  I'll have to explore and see if there have been any updates or new mods that are compatible with both.

So, the CJ4 was tested by type rated CJ4 pilots. What was the outcome? I remember advertisement for e.g. toothpaste "clinically tested". But they don't tell us the outcome.

Although not a type rated CJ4 pilot I tested it myself. As demonstrated before the crosswind behavior of several default planes is simply wrong. So I tested the CJ4 and while standing, it isn't glued to the ground like other planes, but tosses around at ca. 90 kts into the right direction. I don't know whether that's correct at that speed, but so be it. Apart from that, it is said that while rolling forward during the start, it should behave better. Additionally I have tested it with headwind. Outcome:

 

19 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

But they don't tell us the outcome.

You neither. Your video does not count. You would better describe the condition you feel is an issue with clear reproduceable one-liner. State windspeed, direction relative to the aircraft and the allegedly wrong outcome or behaviour. With that we can discuss. Your videos on the other hand are so useless that nobody is able to tell what exactly you see as an issue. E.g. do you think it is an issue, when at two times of the max windspeed of the Beaufort scale (which stands for Hurricane, so again, two times the windspeed of a Hurricane) the CJ4 lifts its nose? Who do you think you are fooling with such nonsense?

Alright folks it is time.....

9 minutes ago, adino said:

Alright folks it is time.....

For?...

8 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

What was the outcome?

The pilots felt that the aircraft was represented extremely faithfully within the limitations of the sim.

I don't know that any of the type rated pilots tested crosswind runway performance well beyond Vr or a headwind that was miles beyond Vr (neither would be scenarios they would find themselves in IRL). If they do, I can certainly share the feedback.

Edited November 14, 20232 yr by MattNischan