T
tigisfat
Guest
I've seen it before, who made that FSX native piper seminole?
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
http://www.flightsim.com/main/review/seminole.htm by WS Simulations
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
I've logged 9.9 hours in the PA-44 Seminole when I started work on my AMEL Commercial. From what I remember, that looks like a very nice virtual copy of the Seminole. If fact, I wish the one I flew out of North Las Vegas Airport looked that nice! 
I noted two things in the review article labeled as "inconsistencies."
The answer is that the Seminole manual (which I still have a copy of) specifies flaps up for normal takeoff. It specifies two types of short field takeoffs, one with flaps up and a second with flaps set to 25% -- the first flap setting.
The second issue isn't that clear cut, which is why I am curious the writer of the review cited "the official Piper specs say 15,000 feet." In my review of the manual, it doesn't list a specified service ceiling. This makes perfect sense. Because there are dozens of factors involved in service ceiling, including but not limited to aircraft weight, engine performance, density altitude, smooth versus turbulent air, updrafts and downdrafts, and pilot technique and skill. Part of that technique is leaning out the engine and how well that particular engine performs when leaned out.
Instead, the Seminole manual has two climb charts, one for both engines operating and a second for single engine climb performance.
On a standard day for temperature, the two engines operating graph says the plane can achieve a climb rate around 425 feet per minute at 16,000 feet MSL. The reason I cannot extrapolate to 200 feet per minute (the definition of service ceiling) is that the graph frankly cuts off above the 16,000 feet altitude line even though one could use creative interpolation for temperatures colder than standard day.
In addition, in the remainder of the performance section, it specifies 14,000 feet as the highest altitude for the cruise power tables. But that doesn't really mean much.
Further, you can get lucky and get excellent updrafting air currents from mountains and your aircraft can climb to amazing altitudes and maintain it, until of course, you encounter the associated downdrafts and down you go!
However, based upon the performance tables, I am thinking 17,000 feet is achievable under the right conditions. So, ultimately, I think the writer of the review was trying to find something to criticize and frankly went a bit overboard in talking about it. Performance tables and charts are something of a voodoo science because ultimately the atmospheric conditions, engine performance, and pilot skills have a lot more to do with things like service ceilings than the flight test phase.
My vote based on looks is that if you want to fly a Seminole in FSX, this looks like a nice one to pick up.
Cheers,
Ken
I noted two things in the review article labeled as "inconsistencies."
I can answer the first concern easily.Flight Sim.com Review said:
The answer is that the Seminole manual (which I still have a copy of) specifies flaps up for normal takeoff. It specifies two types of short field takeoffs, one with flaps up and a second with flaps set to 25% -- the first flap setting.
The second issue isn't that clear cut, which is why I am curious the writer of the review cited "the official Piper specs say 15,000 feet." In my review of the manual, it doesn't list a specified service ceiling. This makes perfect sense. Because there are dozens of factors involved in service ceiling, including but not limited to aircraft weight, engine performance, density altitude, smooth versus turbulent air, updrafts and downdrafts, and pilot technique and skill. Part of that technique is leaning out the engine and how well that particular engine performs when leaned out.
Instead, the Seminole manual has two climb charts, one for both engines operating and a second for single engine climb performance.
On a standard day for temperature, the two engines operating graph says the plane can achieve a climb rate around 425 feet per minute at 16,000 feet MSL. The reason I cannot extrapolate to 200 feet per minute (the definition of service ceiling) is that the graph frankly cuts off above the 16,000 feet altitude line even though one could use creative interpolation for temperatures colder than standard day.
In addition, in the remainder of the performance section, it specifies 14,000 feet as the highest altitude for the cruise power tables. But that doesn't really mean much.
Further, you can get lucky and get excellent updrafting air currents from mountains and your aircraft can climb to amazing altitudes and maintain it, until of course, you encounter the associated downdrafts and down you go!
However, based upon the performance tables, I am thinking 17,000 feet is achievable under the right conditions. So, ultimately, I think the writer of the review was trying to find something to criticize and frankly went a bit overboard in talking about it. Performance tables and charts are something of a voodoo science because ultimately the atmospheric conditions, engine performance, and pilot skills have a lot more to do with things like service ceilings than the flight test phase.
My vote based on looks is that if you want to fly a Seminole in FSX, this looks like a nice one to pick up.
Cheers,
Ken
T
tigisfat
Guest
This reviewer is nuts:
Surely, no nonpressurized aircraft would ever climb at more than 1,200fpm.
Surely, no nonpressurized aircraft would ever climb at more than 1,200fpm.
T
tigisfat
Guest
wasn't there a better one out there? like Carenado quality?
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Tigisfat,
I just deleted my last post because frankly I misunderstood what you were writing. On first read, I thought you were saying an unpressurized aircraft could not sustain 1,200 fpm in climb. In fact, my second read I realized you were poking fun at the reviewer's claim.
Yes, as you say, the reviewer writing the article is "crazy" because clearly unpressurized aircraft can climb much better than 1,200 fpm and frankly being pressurized or unpressurized has absolutely nothing to do with climb rate -- as I know you also would agree with.
Unfortunately, it would appear the person who wrote the review lacks sufficient knowledge of aviation to make such assertions.
Cheers,
Ken
I just deleted my last post because frankly I misunderstood what you were writing. On first read, I thought you were saying an unpressurized aircraft could not sustain 1,200 fpm in climb. In fact, my second read I realized you were poking fun at the reviewer's claim.
Yes, as you say, the reviewer writing the article is "crazy" because clearly unpressurized aircraft can climb much better than 1,200 fpm and frankly being pressurized or unpressurized has absolutely nothing to do with climb rate -- as I know you also would agree with.
Unfortunately, it would appear the person who wrote the review lacks sufficient knowledge of aviation to make such assertions.
Cheers,
Ken
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
This reviewer is nuts:
Surely, no nonpressurized aircraft would ever climb at more than 1,200fpm.
Yes, the reviewer is nuts!
I guess I should be dead now given all the times my 180hp Skyhawk zoomed up at 65 KIAS Vy at 1,500 fpm and even -- gasp -- 2,000 fpm on takeoff!
I guess I should permanently ground my Cessna 310R because I have actually been able to climb out at Vy at 3,000 fpm -- oh the humanity!
On a more serious note, the writer of the review lacks a basic understanding of aviation human physiology. When you climb, air pressure goes down and the human ear equalizes pressure quite easily and effortlessly. It is on the descent, when the air pressure is increasing, where the human ear may need some assistance, or if you have a head cold, you can blow out an ear drum. However, such techniques as chewing gum, moving around your lower jaw, and ultimately the Valsalva technique, allows a person to equalize pressure in the ear even during a high speed descent.
The FAA requires a pilot to demonstrate an emergency descent maneuver as part of his commercial checkride. Often, you can achieve a 3,000 fpm descent rate from 10,000 feet to 1,000 feet AGL while performing this maneuver. In fact, in my 310R, I went up to 12,000 feet MSL, dropped first notch of flaps, powered down slowly, and achieved a peg out on my VVI during the descent and still wasn't even close to my flap limiting speed! To be honest, I ran out of altitude before I could get too fast! I mean the ground was filling up the windscreen man! I got one humdinger of a ground rush!
Point is, my ears didn't even hurt, much less blow themselves out. A simple move of the jaw was all that was needed.
Ken
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
I don't mean anything personal, but I noticed that Mr. Stack has written several books advising sim pilot how to fly in IMC conditions and other situations, and also highly complex aircraft, and even states on his website that folks "can't fly" without his books! He charges around $15 for these books! Frankly, one can log on at Sporty's website and purchase books written by actual master CFI's about actual flying or actual aircraft and cost less than that! Moreover, I don't believe I've ever seen an actual CFI claim that without his book, a pilot simply "cannot fly!" Generally, real world pilot instructors walk around with a lot more humility than that, and for good reason.
None of us are gods upon earth, and the birds constantly remind me they understand more about fine degrees of flight control than I've ever demonstrated in my whole life! I see birds weighing a mere few ounces mastering 30 knots winds and landing upon branches -- a spot landing I couldn't pull off in my wildest dreams! Last I checked, these birds haven't needed a single book written by human hand to master these techniques!
I suppose if someone wishes to make such statements that his books are required reading before simulated flight in FSX, it would mean more if the person convinced me he understands principles of flight! As tigisfat and I have both unfortunately observed, this gentleman appears to suffer a degraded understanding of principles that actual pilots have to understand to earn even a private pilot's certificate.
Regarding the review folks, look at the pictures and if you like what you see, buy the airplane and figure out how well it flies, because that review doesn't convey that the author has an idea what he is talking about when it comes to the performance of a Piper Seminole, and perhaps not any other aircraft!
Ken
None of us are gods upon earth, and the birds constantly remind me they understand more about fine degrees of flight control than I've ever demonstrated in my whole life! I see birds weighing a mere few ounces mastering 30 knots winds and landing upon branches -- a spot landing I couldn't pull off in my wildest dreams! Last I checked, these birds haven't needed a single book written by human hand to master these techniques!
I suppose if someone wishes to make such statements that his books are required reading before simulated flight in FSX, it would mean more if the person convinced me he understands principles of flight! As tigisfat and I have both unfortunately observed, this gentleman appears to suffer a degraded understanding of principles that actual pilots have to understand to earn even a private pilot's certificate.
Regarding the review folks, look at the pictures and if you like what you see, buy the airplane and figure out how well it flies, because that review doesn't convey that the author has an idea what he is talking about when it comes to the performance of a Piper Seminole, and perhaps not any other aircraft!
Ken
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
To my knowledge, Carenado has not yet released a native FSX or FSX capable Piper Seminole. They did, however, make a very nice P-34 Seneca for FSX. I have it and like it very much.
After much debate, I might go ahead and grab a copy of this particular Seminole. If for nothing else, it might bring back some fond memories of a time several years ago when I first stepped into a multiengine aircraft with the intent to pilot it myself. Such fond memories deserve to be relived from time to time, don't you think?
Ken
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Well, folks, I think the last laugh is on me!
The flight model isn't that good. Among the things I observed on the first flight is:
1. During takeoff, the RPM never went above 2400. That's far too low. Should have got 2700, which is the rated RPM limit for the Lycoming engines. Unless you have a runaway prop governor, you should realize 2700 RPM during takeoff run with the prop condition lever full forward. In fact, you check on that and abort if you get RPM higher because that means your governor isn't doing its job.
2. Same problem when landing. Despite having the MAP at 20 inches, when I pushed the prop levers full forward on downwind I should have had the RPM increase from its previous setting of 2400 to 2700. It barely moved at all increasing only minutely to 2500 RPM.
3. The sounds are a bit strange in the sense that they do not appear to increase with speed or advancement of engine power, nor decrease realistically as you reduce power. When I do a feather check on the ground, I do not hear any of the characteristic sound as the blades go flatter. In fact, a few times the engine noise increased spontaneously despite remaining at idle setting on the ground.
4. No tire squeak on touchdown. I know that's a small point in the bigger scheme, but as a pilot you really like to hear that squeek to let you know you've touched down.
5. When I rotated I had full MAP at full power and retarded MAP to 25 inches as you are supposed to do on climb out. Retracted the landing gear, and then noticed that despite not getting more than 1,000 feet AGL, the MAP spooled down to 23 inches on its own. That's bizzare behavior! It should take a significantly greater increase in altitude for the MAP to reduce two inches like that.
6. On takeoff run, the plane practically lifts itself off the runway vice needing the pilot to move the yoke aft to setup takeoff angle of attack. This is something I distinctly remember in the Seminole I flew. You needed to rotate the aircraft for takeoff and then it lept off the ground and you needed to push a bit forward to set climb speed. This aircraft in virtual form seems to just float off.
7. Again on takeoff run, the aircraft veers to the left and this isn't correct in the Seminole due to the counter-rotating props which cancel out the p-effect normal in most aircraft.
The most disappointing aspect however, is in the panel. There is supposed to be a pilot's side switch box where the magnetos, starter rocker switch, lights, fuel pump, alternators, and master switches are all located. Instead, the designer chose to complete omit this side panel and instead throw the switches on the co-pilot's side of the panel. In my view, this is totally unsatisfactory. It was nothing less than a lazy out by a designer who wants to charge $25 for his craft but fail to want even the most basic facts right!
I do know that Piper redid the panel for is glass cockpit layout, but these aircraft look like the PA-44-180 from the 1980's and early 1990's and those featured that side panel I'm talking about. When I first booted up the plane and "sat" in the cockpit I looked to the left and found nothing and thought, "We're the heck are the switches!"
Save your money, folks! In my view, this one isn't worth the money. Hopefully, Carenado has one in their stable. I know Carenado won't release an airplane unless they get basic cockpit design correct.
Cheers,
Ken
The flight model isn't that good. Among the things I observed on the first flight is:
1. During takeoff, the RPM never went above 2400. That's far too low. Should have got 2700, which is the rated RPM limit for the Lycoming engines. Unless you have a runaway prop governor, you should realize 2700 RPM during takeoff run with the prop condition lever full forward. In fact, you check on that and abort if you get RPM higher because that means your governor isn't doing its job.
2. Same problem when landing. Despite having the MAP at 20 inches, when I pushed the prop levers full forward on downwind I should have had the RPM increase from its previous setting of 2400 to 2700. It barely moved at all increasing only minutely to 2500 RPM.
3. The sounds are a bit strange in the sense that they do not appear to increase with speed or advancement of engine power, nor decrease realistically as you reduce power. When I do a feather check on the ground, I do not hear any of the characteristic sound as the blades go flatter. In fact, a few times the engine noise increased spontaneously despite remaining at idle setting on the ground.
4. No tire squeak on touchdown. I know that's a small point in the bigger scheme, but as a pilot you really like to hear that squeek to let you know you've touched down.
5. When I rotated I had full MAP at full power and retarded MAP to 25 inches as you are supposed to do on climb out. Retracted the landing gear, and then noticed that despite not getting more than 1,000 feet AGL, the MAP spooled down to 23 inches on its own. That's bizzare behavior! It should take a significantly greater increase in altitude for the MAP to reduce two inches like that.
6. On takeoff run, the plane practically lifts itself off the runway vice needing the pilot to move the yoke aft to setup takeoff angle of attack. This is something I distinctly remember in the Seminole I flew. You needed to rotate the aircraft for takeoff and then it lept off the ground and you needed to push a bit forward to set climb speed. This aircraft in virtual form seems to just float off.
7. Again on takeoff run, the aircraft veers to the left and this isn't correct in the Seminole due to the counter-rotating props which cancel out the p-effect normal in most aircraft.
The most disappointing aspect however, is in the panel. There is supposed to be a pilot's side switch box where the magnetos, starter rocker switch, lights, fuel pump, alternators, and master switches are all located. Instead, the designer chose to complete omit this side panel and instead throw the switches on the co-pilot's side of the panel. In my view, this is totally unsatisfactory. It was nothing less than a lazy out by a designer who wants to charge $25 for his craft but fail to want even the most basic facts right!
I do know that Piper redid the panel for is glass cockpit layout, but these aircraft look like the PA-44-180 from the 1980's and early 1990's and those featured that side panel I'm talking about. When I first booted up the plane and "sat" in the cockpit I looked to the left and found nothing and thought, "We're the heck are the switches!"
Save your money, folks! In my view, this one isn't worth the money. Hopefully, Carenado has one in their stable. I know Carenado won't release an airplane unless they get basic cockpit design correct.
Cheers,
Ken
Yeah you're welcome.. dude
I agree about the reviewer having no idea how a Seminole (or apparently any actual aircraft) flies, but the panel looks decent to me.
Looking at the screenshots in the review, the cockpit looks pretty accurate for the last generation of "six pack" Seminoles (before the Avidyne system became standard), but the quality wasn't good enough for me to be certain.
Those aircraft have the battery master, alternator, magneto, starter and boost pump switches scattered around the pilots yoke in various locations, with the primer buttons being down there as well. In a brilliant display of ergonomics (or lack thereof) all of the lighting switches (as well as the radio master switch) are located slightly above and to the right of the throttle quadrant, and the pitot heat and cabin fan switches are actually located to the right of the co-pilot yoke, which makes them difficult to use for the pilot in the actual aircraft.
I don't know if the external model is correct for a newer Seminole, but the cockpit shots in the review certainly look like the Seminoles I flew for my multi engine training, which were some of the last six pack models Piper ever built.
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Just to make sure I understand ... you are saying Piper got rid of the side panel on the pilot's side a few years before they adopted the glass panel with Avidyne? If so, do you know what year they did this?
I agree with you about the lack of good ergonomics with the way the rocker switches are thrown around the panel. That side panel I remember was really well laid out and very ergonomic.
I wonder why Piper did that?
Ken
Yep, the late six pack and glass Seminoles have an almost identical switch layout, with neither having the side panel present.
The aircraft I flew were built after 2000, and none of them had the side panel, but I don't know exactly when Piper dropped it. I'd guess that the side panel was probably deleted when Piper redesigned most of their piston interiors upon restarting production in 1995, since that seems a pretty logical point to make that kind of change.
Piper is generally terrible for ergonomics in their training fleet, so it's not just the Seminole that has stupid switch locations.
I flight instruct in glass Warriors (which are thankfully being replaced with new 172's), and that design is aging really badly in many respects.
The interior is set up so that the student can't see the transponder (it's hidden to the right of the throttle quadrant on the bottom of the panel), the instructor can't see or reach the fuel selector (on the far left footwell wall), and the vents only in blowing air at ankle level, which is pretty useless. Newer Warriors add overhead vents which move almost no air at all, and turning them on or off requires someone in the front to turn around 180 degrees in their seat to reach the control.
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Clearly then he modeled an accurate panel and my comments about the absence of the side panel are inaccurate.
Unfortunately, there doesn't appear such an easy answer to the flight dynamics and sounds issue.
Cheers,
Ken
Unfortunately, there doesn't appear such an easy answer to the flight dynamics and sounds issue.
Cheers,
Ken
Brian_Gladden
SOH-CM-2025
[SIZE=-1]Rien Cornelissen made a decent FSX native (I think) PA-44-180 a while ago that is free. I had it on my old FSX install and I probably should reinstall it. He also made a T-tail Arrow too.
All the birds need are some new paint jobs.
Brian
[/SIZE]
All the birds need are some new paint jobs.
Brian
[/SIZE]