well, the C408 as modelled by Carenado has (or had before SU1) utterly nonsense short-field capabilities. it could take off almost like a helicopter with flaps full, and land in about the same distance. in fact, people have landed it on helicopter pads. i believe this has been toned down in SU1, but it’s likely still pretty egregious.
cf:
There seems to be a ‘zone’ at the front of the aircraft now that, upon entering it in walk-around mode, causes massive frame drops and stuttering until you leave it again.
It seems to be of asymmetrical shape and have its rotation tied to world-space, rather than the aircraft itself. So depending on the aircraft’s orientiation on the ground, it can appear right by the nose, by one (or both) of the pilot’s doors, or under the wings between the fuselage and the engine nacelle.
Anyone else experiencing this?
Also, starting the engines with inertial separators activated (respectively in ‘main’) is apparently impossible now. No fuel flow and no ignition even at max motoring. No idea whether that’s realistic or not.
Not normal. You can start the engines with the separators open IRL.
Good to know, thanks.
Seemed unlikely that you shouldn’t be able to start with open seps at all, but wasn’t sure if ‘main’ was actually supposed to behave differently from ‘stby’ or something.
Not that it makes much difference in the sim currently, given we still can’t even switch the seps to ‘off’ and debris ingestion isn’t simulated anyway…
Guess it’s time for yet another bug report, for whatever good they do.
But hey… Hope dies last, as they say, right? 
€dit
Posted the bug report. If anyone wants to vote, here’s the report for the faulty open inertial separator startup and also the one for the startup with condition in cutoff.
Voted twice 
My thanks and good luck to all of us that this will make a difference. 
Main and standby positions determine which motor is used to open/close that separator, the main motor or the standby motor. When returning the switch to normal the same motor that was used to open the separator closes it.
One separator, redundant mechanism to for its operation, got it.
And here I was wondering how a ‘standby separator’ was supposed to look and work like 
Any clue why the redundancy is needed in the 408 specifically, if you don’t mind me picking your brain a bit more? From my - admittedly very limited - experience with turboprops, I can’t really recall seeing something like this in other aircraft.
Not that I know of or can find on the fly, no.
Though it’s such an obvious fault, it’s hard to believe the developers aren’t aware of it aready.
No idea why there are two motors other than redundancy. Ironically what we’re seeing on the line is the actuator tubes showing signs of strain so we have been just leaving them open all the time even after shutdown to prevent further damage.
Hah, now if that isn’t a typical engineer’s dilemma. The thing that brakes first is the one you didn’t make redundant…
So you’re flying with the seps permanently open, do I understand that correctly? Would that not lead to its own issues, due to increased temperatures, etc. Or is the difference really not that big, other than a bit of torque loss?
Correct, we just leave them open in main or standby, whichever one of those positions we find the switch in during preflight. For this engine and the airports we operate out of, it’s no big deal.
I’ve been flying for my VA, currently safari work in Africa. And since I don’t know much about real aviation the 408 has been a joy to fly. I was very excited to see it featured. Hopefully some of these niggles can be fixed. I wish we has an airplane icon for the gps.
I really like this aircraft. Again, though the engines simulation is nowhere near accurate. Would like to have this corrected, but seems we have to wait for MSFS DEV’s… - Why not unlock .cfg files so that we can fix. There really can’t be any “Trade Secrets” in the .cfg files… - It just allows the players to correct issues and be able to use the aircraft.
Couple more things to add I have discovered post patch:
Ironically I haven’t even flown the aircraft yet in the sim. I am planning to start checking flight characteristics tonight. There is a lot of potential here though! I have a suggestion for a very peculiar engine start behavior that is very real, can be very startling, every real 408 pilot will appreciate and I doubt that any other module has. Not even the official sims used for the type rating does it. (I checked for it myself 
)
Still here Carenado!
Some G-1000 logic issues-
(TMR REF sub menu)
Approach mins: able to be set in increments of 10 feet which is accurate- and the display symbology is correct. ALTHOUGH when you roll the altitude bug down (this is currently incrementing in 100’s of feet, which is also correct), as your selected altitude passes through your programmed approach minimum altitude the selected altitude should click to the programmed approach minimum before continuing down (regardless if approach mins are programmed to an even 100 or to a lesser multiple of 10). Right now the altitude bug will “hop” past minimums to the next lowest 100 feet, which is not correct.
V-Speeds: The speeds currently programmable in the FMS are: Glide, Vr, Vx, Vy. The speeds (at a minimum) that SHOULD be programmable are:
Pre-Takeoff state: V1, Vr, V2, Venr
En-route state: Vref, possibly Vapp depending on software version.
After powering up the aircraft if V-Speeds are not enabled and set a “V-SPEEDS” cas should be displayed and the NO TAKEOFF logic should engage if takeoff power is applied.
(XPDR sub menu)
VFR OSB press squawks 7000, when it should squawk 1200.
Couple more things:
Single engine performance is inaccurate. Fully feathered and shut down engine, full power on the operating engine, clean and trimmed… probably a good 15 knots slow vs actual real world performance.
Prop RPM levers are mis-calibrated. Putting the prop levers flush with the condition levers in run SHOULD get you ~1500RPM. Right now you have to go almost to the min RPM setting to get 1500. -Reminder that this aircraft you run at the max 1700RPM for start, takeoff, air work, missed approach and abnormal procedures. Everything else is 1500RPM. Once airborne and upon reaching initial climb speed the flaps are brought up and the prop RPM is reduced to 1500. Approaches and landings are also at 1500 RPM. This is odd, yes I know. That’s how the plane is designed to be flown though. Idle RPM on the ground is weird too. Seems like it takes way too much torque to hit the selected RPM.
Reversers aren’t working correctly during landing rollout. It seems like they aren’t going to full reverse pitch. This may have something to do with the way the prop levers are implemented- as the prop levers seem to have an effect on reverser potential. This of course should not matter. Even if the props are back at min, you hit full reverse the blades will move to full reverse pitch and RPM will increase as the engines spool back up. Refer to previous note that normal approaches and landings are flown at 1500RPM- relevant systems should be calibrated and performance should be tuned to accommodate this.
Props should be in full feather for cold and dark. Right now they are in fine pitch.
Are you using the mouse to put them into reverse or your physical quadrant? If physical, you may want to look at your axis, and the “Neutral” point. It denotes where you switch from forward to reverse thrust. Without that it won’t go into full reverse. Or for those that don’t have a physical axis with an idle detent, some opt for a button activation for full reverse. The Logitech TQ has a button for that purpose at the bottom of its axis.
I’ve verified that I am at full reverse on the input side. The behavior is more plausible if the RPM levers are at max, but that shouldn’t matter and is also procedurally incorrect as a workaround. Makes me think there is something wrong with how those prop levers are modeled, and the prop system in general.
IIRC there is a line in the config files that determines the max reverse prop angle. Could that be wrong?
