Some interesting tidbits I’ve picked up from IRL pilots and reading pilot reports and Cessna’s spec sheets as well - in lower altitudes this a/c is a something of a hot rod. At MTOW, the thrust to weight ratio is close to 40%. At lighter loads it’s like 50% or higher. At lower weights it will easily climb at over 8000 feet per minute from sea level. The spec sheets show climbs to 21000 feet in 4 minutes flat when at half a fuel load, 3 when lighter. It’s a lot like the Citation X in many respects, virtually same size, similar engine thrust to weight and so on - I guess Cessna’s customer input was they’d rather have a little more range, efficiency, handling, and cabin comfort than the extra speed (which in practice only serves to reduce range), but fundamentally it’s a citation x with a citation latitude cross section and a about 9 degrees less wing sweep. So your engine out results don’t surprise. I’m sure there’s a bit of variation from the sim to the real world - there’s only so much I can do with the limits of the turbine and drag modeling in the sim.
I’ve been told by an IRL pilot, and read pilot reports (and the G5000 manual for the a/c appears to confirm) that this a/c IRL is designed to be flown almost if not entirely on auto-throttle, at least in the planned final autothrottle certification, and that system is highly integrated and is designed to operate in a variety of failure situations, as you can imagine. Is our Asobo version up to spec in this regard? - not at all. I was also a little surprised at the TOGA reference angles as well - the a/c just wants to keep getting faster than it should be going, but I’m sure that IRL there are reasons. To your point, it does seem conservative, and probably designed around engine failure and maybe some real world aerodynamic consequences of getting too steep when slow that aren’t faithfully modeled in the sim aerodynamics model and / or in my mod (I frankly think the modded version has too much lift at higher aoa than it should, but when I tested backing that off, the thing didn’t fly right elsewhere in the envelope).
In the mod, I have had to make some considerable compromises, as I’m sure you’re aware, to get reasonable performance and a fair amount of guesswork and trial and error to get things close to spec. For example, not having an actual thrust gauge for testing purposes means there’s a bit of guess work in getting performance to get within range of spec. It’s possible that it’s a little overpowered in some areas of the envelope (and possibly a little underpowered in others), but based on the data sheets I’ve used, it’s probably not by much. Hopefully someone with some programming ingenuity will come up with a thrust gauge that can be overlaid on the sim to track more detailed engine output and performance.
Anti-ice in the sim doesn’t do a thing wrt performance. Turn it on/turn it off - no difference in performance that I’ve seen. That’s an Asobo oversight - among many.
Lastly, I’m sure you’ve found the flimsy list of failure options in the aircraft selection menu. Not nearly comprehensive enough to simulate engine failure at specific speeds and phases of flights or any failures outside of engine failure. Too bad too. It could be a much more useful simulation tool if these were more comprehensive.