capceo

To those of you that are enjoying the product, thank you. For those of you who have provided constructive criticism, thank you. Just because you can't feather the props now, doesn't mean you won't be able to in a future revision. We will keep you posted, as we always do! Thread locked.

Very, very odd. We will keep working on it.

It's different. And we like different.

It isn't dangerous, although I can see where it might seem so if you aren't familiar with it. The difference between heading and course that you see while in cruise is due to your wind correction angle. When you fly a constant heading, the nose of the airplane stays pointed in the same direction, but the actual track of the airplane across the ground can be altered by wind. So if you want to travel along a straight line (radial) on a heading of 270, and the wind is from 340, you will actually end up flying a HEADING of greater than 270 (probably close to 277 if my mental math is somewhat accurate). This heading will compensate for the wind that is blowing you "off course" so to speak. The nose of the airplane will be to the right of course, but the airplane will be tracking on course of 270. Make sense?

One of those companies that you just listed did a twin turboprop commuter airplane powered by Garrett engines. They had to make compromises left right and sideways. Our simulation is actually closer to the real thing. And I'm fairly certain that product was almost double the price of ours. Don't believe me, go compare the propeller startup animations on each aircraft. Those companies don't compromise? We all compromise.

Congratulations to Les Parson, the first student to complete the Cessna 441 initial pilot training program at Flysimware. It was a pleasure flying with you Les!

Well the first student has graduated! Congrats to Les Parson, the first student to complete the official Flysimware initial pilot training program. It was a pleasure flying with you Les!

Hey Zoran. A few questions: Have you tried to modify any of the texture files that come with the aircraft? What simulator are you using? Does it happen at night AND during the day?

An MX20 hooked up to a KLN90 or a GX60 totally transformed those GPS units, and undoubtedly prolonged their popularity. The Piper Comanche I fly for fun has a GX60 with an MX20, and with foreflight on my iPad, that's all more than enough!

Hey Craig! We decided to get rid of it, simply because we thought it sounded more realistic without it. Wind noise is so difficult to hear over the engines in the 441 anyways. It isn't like a jet, where most of the cockpit noise is wind noise. Feel free to experiment with it. If you find something you like and you think is accurate, let us know!

I know we have one, I'm not sure why it isn't on the website. That's odd! Let me check with the team and get back to you.

I will leave everything at this: I can appreciate that the reason people use flight simulators is to practice procedures that are too dangerous to perform in the aircraft. If a Level-D simulator is what you are looking for, you can buy an hour in one for about the price of ten copies of FSX. It is absolutely correct that we made a conscious compromise. A fact which I have repeatedly stated on this thread, many have supported, and one has opposed. I'm sorry that our rendition hasn't satisfied you. Your attitude speaks volumes however. Another individual was quick to suggest a way to integrate prop feathering that we may not have thought of. That's where his brain went. Yours immediately went into bash mode, and that is your right if that is how you choose to do business. It is not, however, how we choose to do business. I can tell you that from my real world experience in the 441, the Garrett simulation is 98% faithful to the real thing. I don't know if the dissatisfied individual has ever flown a 441, but our simulation more than satisfies my realism bug. We even added a feature on the control panel in Rev 1.4 to turn the propeller by hand with the engine shut down. Just so you can follow the after shutdown checklist (10 revolutions) to a tee. But according to some, none of this matters if you can't feather the props, a feature which has a statistical chance of being necessary in real life of 1:1,000,000,000, and a statistical chance of ZERO of being necessary in FSX. So with that said, I would like to thank everyone for being so supportive of this product. We believe it is a tremendous step forward for both Flight Simulator, and our company. We look forward to revealing more about our next project soon! A few of you may already know, but for those who don't, just know that it's got Garrett's!

That's what I like to hear! Let me know if I can help out in any other way.

Well sometimes you have to make compromises when you develop an aircraft. We are trying to bring to you systems and simulation components which have never been seen before in flight simulator, and we have. Many, many satisfied customers have praised our engine simulation. Most aircraft simulations on the market today are NOT designed to simulate emergency situations. There is one particular aircraft that comes to mind which offers no emergency or failure simulation at all, and is one of the best selling products of all time...with a price tag of $70.00. This is a flight simulator. There are going to be certain factors that you simply cannot recreate, or a compromise will have to be made. I suspect had we chosen to have feathering propellers, but no NTS system, that you would've had the same complaint. Not having an operating NTS system on a Garrett engine is hardly a significant detail as well. I suspect had we chosen to have feathering propellers, but no NTS system, that you would've had the same complaint. Please provide me with your name and order number.

Glad you got it worked out! Sounds like you're enjoying the airplane

Aren't we all

We had to make a choice about this during development: We could either have the props feather, or we could accurately implement the NTS system. We couldn't do both due to FS limitations. So we chose the NTS system, which is unique to the Garretts. In the event of an engine failure in flight, the NTS system will automatically pitch the blades to maintain zero torque. Although you are correct that in the real aircraft, pulling the condition lever to emergency stop will, in fact, fully feather the propeller. Hope this answers your question!

Maximum torque in this airplane is basically with the needles on the yellow line, just below redline. Yes. It is very important that you do not exceed maximum torque. In the real airplane, you advance power until the needles are below red line, and stop. You never rely on the torque limiters to do their job. (And they aren't modeled due to limitations in FS, so you really have to keep an eye on them!)

Hi Zoran, Thats very odd! You're the only customer to report this issue. Myself and Mark will look into it and keep you posted.

That cockpit doesn't have any GNS units. Just two GTN's, an MX20, and two GTX transponders.

Generally speaking, we flight plan for 305KTAS, at 600pph. I'll remind everyone that when flight planning, it is important to think of fuel consumption in terms of endurance. NOT range. How many hours of fuel you will have at a given power setting is what's important. Takeoff is maximum torque with rotation at 100kts indicated. The airplane has PLENTY of reserve power, even at MTOW. Although the airplane is capable of doing better, most pilots personal minimum runway length is 2500ft. 2500ft is comfortable for both takeoff and landing at higher weights, but you'll need an aggressive acceleration on takeoff, and a good amount of reverse to stop in a comfortable distance. While FSX doesn't allow reverse to be simulated as accurately as we would've liked, the real 441 has a tremendous amount of reverse thrust. In fact, full reverse is virtually never used. The stopping power is so great that it can be very uncomfortable for passengers. Brakes are never needed to stop the airplane even on the shortest of runways. Most pilots choose to use them on taxi only for precise maneuvering. Climb is 180-200kts indicated at maximum torque. At average weights, this will yield 2000fpm. At higher weights, 1500fpm. You can absolutely climb at a lower torque value and accept a lower climb rate if you want to save the engines. Cruise power is usually slightly below maximum torque. If you climb up into the FL250-350 range, you'll fly with the power levers all the way forward and take however much torque the engines will give. Up there, you can't exceed maximum torque, as the engines typically torque out around FL220. To really take advantage of the maximum range of the aircraft, you'll have to climb up towards the aircrafts service ceiling of 35,000 feet. Up in the 30's, you'll see a slightly slower TAS, usually around 295, but you'll only be burning around 400-500pph. Of course, going this high only makes sense if you aren't fighting a nasty headwind. The airplane typically delivers its best performance (again, unless headwinds are a factor) in the low to mid 20's. Up there you'll see 600pph and over 300 true. Descent is usually as necessary in terms of speed and power. Initial approach speed is usually around 170kts indicated. Over the fence at 110, over the numbers at 100. You should have the wheels on the pavement at around 90kts. If you are flying an instrument approach in IMC, no lower than blue line (130kts) until you have the runway environment in sight. This ensures that should you need to execute a missed approach, you'll have plenty of reserve airspeed and won't end up doing a go-around while you're very slow at only 200ft AGL in IMC.

Thats a good idea! Consider it done. And it entirely depends on conditions and weight. If you're very light, carrying any power in the flare will result in a flyby On the other hand, it does help to cushion heavy aircraft. Generally speaking, you come off the power almost 90% of the time right as you're rolling out into the flare. This works great...as long as you aren't too slow.

That's a Garmin MX20. An obsolete MFD. I personally hate panel setups like that. How many moving map displays does one guy need in an instrument panel?!?