Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Can’t wait to try it out.
2 Likes
Nicely done. VS and even FLC operates 300% smoother and more real to life. Superb quality. Just wish Asobo would fix the problem during altitude capture.
Now that our engines don’t burn to a crisp when using TOGA, is there any documentation as to the takeoff settings and V speeds anywhere? I understand a POH is what to look for but, I can’t find any. I’m curious also if the FD pitch for TOGA is correct. It seems rather shallow for something that has the amount of thrust, even for just takeoff. Zoom-zoom, baby.
2 Likes
Over on the main Longitude forum (Cessna Citation Longitude) a forum participant posted a short hand set of Vspeeds for takeoffs and landings. A few posts have also been posted here and there with some basic checklists. I have both the AFM and the complete checklists and performance charts for the a/c but it’s proprietary and was shared to me under condition I not redistribute. Time permitting I may put together a set of operating procedures as well as some basic performance chart information to help with flying this a/c. Since the avionics in the sim are not quite up to study level, any attempt at a detailed checklist and procedures would probably leave our fellow simmers at a loss in a number of scenarios so it would have to reflect the specific limitations of the sim.
Oh yes. I agree. No need in getting into scuba gear when its only a shallow pond. Okay, I’ll look over there. I was just needing the basics to at least do normal takeoffs with the numbers (V-speed, target thrust, etc). Not like weight and balance but just keep things concise with the other speedy jets.
1 Like
Noticed this second part to your comment. Garmin 5000 manual is saying reference takeoff angle is 10 degrees. Go around is 7.5 degress. I don’t believe Asobo have modeled the combination function into the TOGA toggle switch and I think it’s just set to Go Around reference of 7.5 degrees.
1 Like
Oh okay, I see. Even if it’s 10 degrees, two engines you still have to go higher because the speed will keep going, even at flaps 2. I’ve been pitching up to about 12-15 degrees, just to keep the speed from going too high and not exceeding Vfe until acceleration altitude. I guess 10 degrees initially works for single-engine, worst case scenario. At V1. …aaaand now I’m curious. LOL
Curiosity: So I did the best way I could find of a V1 cut. Since there is no enabling of failures yet and since our shutoff switches are on the pedestal and sort of looking down, I just cut the throttle (left) at V1. Even with the lost of 49% (1% is accrued for engine still running at idle) available thrust, our longitude still speeds up quite a lot. I had to go above 10 degrees pitch to still keep speed from excessively going above V2. I cleaned up at 800’ AFE and continued climb at 185kts as it should. Still with pretty good climb rates and control. I even did this with Anti-ice on for engines. Wing later.
Landing was a different situation since I don’t know what the configuration is for that abnormal for this airplane. I assumed it was partial flaps (flaps 2). So I took the rough numbers located on some already posted sources, and increased the V speeds by about 6 knots. It still landed with ease, and well under control. I flew an ILS (IMC) so the FD was having me scud run it in, but other wise it seemed stable and capable.
Note: Once I was able to shutdown Eng 1, I still had to leave the throttle a hair above idle, unless you want to be constantly reminded about landing gear.
Also note: just noticed they do have failures to enable. Why are they not accessible in airplane? That’s dumb.
1 Like
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.
No I understand all and didn’t expect differently. I just shared my findings to all who was curious as I was.
Is it perfect? No. Can it be perfectly done? Probably not, at least now. Most of its limits are set by Asobo’s end.
Anyways, that’s interesting though with that much power. It’s a fighter jet. Zoom-zoom.
I just don’t trust the AT in the sim at the moment for all aircraft. Especially flying single pilot and the knobs silly resolution. It’s better just to fly AP and manually control thrust.
Totally agree re: AT. It’s hard to use it and it’ll literally kill the airplane if not paying close attention - I haven’t seen evidence of any system logic built in to protect the airframe as you may find in real world and in the Longitude the Mach / Speed problem is really annoying.
The Longitude is powerful and I find it a bit of a handful without automation. A fighter jet with a fairly narrow range of operating speeds. My response was as much to your remarks as to perhaps give some insight to others who may be reading along. It’s an interesting and challenging aircraft to fly well.
1 Like
Thank you!!!