FWIW I’ve got to the bottom of these audio issues. It appears to be the ‘Headphone Simulation’ option in the audio menu. I’ve always had this ‘on’ and indeed, if it isn’t on in the original Arrow the engine noise is overbearing.
In the Turbo version (both the III & IV) with this option on it sounds like an over zealous hand fan. With ‘Headphone Simulation’ off it sounds awesome, and exactly as I expected it to.
@pampiermole Feel free to copy and paste this to the JF forum if you wish. There’s a big difference between the normal and Turbo Arrows with Headphone Simulation ‘On’.
in real life, turbo engines to be way more silent than normally aspirated ones because the turbine kills a lot of sound. I’m referring to the sound coming out of the exhaust, not about the mechanical sound.
in general though there is quite an imbalance across different mods as long as sound levels go.
every mod has it’s own settings and things get even more tricky with “headphone simulation” activated.
carenado sound levels are sky high, some others are too silent (e.g. default C152, C172, etc)
others have aerodynamic noises overdone…I usually have to tweak for each specific mod, kind of tedious.
I think that’s a good decision. I have the Turbo for X-Plane and the hissing sound drove me nuts, and I eventually regretted not getting the naturally aspirated one.
Then I got the standard MSFS Arrow and liked it much more, both visually and in other respects. The cockpit definitely looks much nicer to me. I’m now listening if the turbo sounds are improved and it seems to be the case (actually the MSFS versions have completely new sounds which I like). But I’m not finished. Perhaps I might get the discounted turbo now, too. It travels a bit faster but both are not rocketships.
If the price for the bundle or the discount upgrade is only slightly higher than one or the other, get them both, fly them a lot, compare them and you might actually find that you like one or both more for subtle reasons that you did not expect.
It is a great addon either way, and it is nice that there are variations imo. It could be educational to have similar planes with different engine philosophy to compare. With the discount it also doesn’t look at all as if they are trying to milk us with those versions, but give extra candy for Arrow fans at a reasonable price.
Just so that I can understand it (and potentially put it in my cheklist), may I please ask what are the rules of thumb for the non-turbo Arrow III as far as mixture leaning is concerned during the various phases of a flight?
Assuming we take off at sea level, we start climbing with full mixture
Start leaning after 3000’ AGL
During climb I assume we care about best power operation, so we should be leaning to remain at 100oF below peak EGT
During cruising it’s up the pilot to decide whether to use best power (100oF below peak EGT) or best economy (peak EGT)
(unsure about descending)
Does this make sense or am I too confused?
Up until now I was simply starting to lean at altitudes above 3000’ and after that I’d always strive to remain at peak EGT (just as @EnoughBard39362 says) no matter if I was climbing, cruising or descending (which would usually be at around mixture 40%, where the mixture lock activates and the lever can’t be pushed farther back). I’d switch back to full mixture only at the final stage of approach, e.g. at around 1000’ AGL or so.
Apparently there are more options? Also does the turbo version differ to the above?
Purchased the non turbo arrow and then the turbo at the discounted rate and with the JF points, it would have been silly not to as like you say it gives me the option further down the line. First impressions are that it’s a very solid product. Thanks for your advice.
Well, the only “major” new feature is engine maintenance since it can break down if you enable it.
Other than that it’s just everything that comes with different engine and different models between III and IV. New sounds, some new instruments, different performance, slightly different models, a few new liveries,…
Thank you very much for your answer,
If in the end it’s going to be practically the same, it doesn’t make sense to have both, doesn’t it? … I always fly with the Arrow III, it’s the one I use the most, I don’t know what to do …
Well, the Turbo climbs easier and higher and has a higher TAS, there’s scenarios where the normal aspirated Arrow III simply can’t fly (high mountains, low clouds,…).
But surely it’s everyone’s decision if the price is worth the extras.
if you regularly visit high/hot altitude airports the turbo will improve takeoff drastically.
if you regularly visit altitudes above 7000ft (approx) the turbo will improve cruise speeds and climb, especially if you need to fly over weather.
you can also search on the internet, there are many discussions between real GA pilots about the turbo vs aspirated arrow and they boil to the points above.
Im loving the turbo arrow however, fuel comsumption is a bit high, around 12-15 gph at 9.000Ft 75% 100ºF RoP, 2500 RPM. Getting around 155 TAS. Faster plane for richest pockets!
Obviously discussing differences, etc. is cool here, but for stuff specific to that model, might be good to post in the Turbo topic to keep folks from getting confused since it’s a separate, distinct package to purchase.
Hi, I mostly follow your guidelines, except I alway tune to peak EGT, and I think it’s supposed to be 100 F rich of peak for best power, according to the performance charts. Also, I always set full rich whenever I’m cleared below 3000’ so I’m not messing around with it close to the ground. Hope that helps. I’ve no idea about the Turbo version.
Oh I now finally get it (more or less). To say “100oF lower than peak EGT” isn’t sufficient because there is such a thing as “Lean Of Peak” and “Rich Of Peak”. I had no idea as I’m no real-life pilot. To quote a discussion from an Xplane forum (to help others like me):
Rich of peak = after peak, you push mixture a bit forward to bring temperature down (100ºF down of peak for best power in this case)
Lean of peak = after peak, you continue to pull mixture back a bit to bring temperature down too, but leaner (engine manufacturers don’t recommend that, it may cause detonation [there is a lot of articles speaking against that, though…])
Which eventually leads to an endless thread of LoP vs RoP discussions over the Internet and aviation bibliography (especially when LoP is not an option for specific aircraft types), which boils down to how much you are hurting the engine over the long run. But in a flight sim such as MSFS I doubt anyone’s modelling engine fatigue over long periods of time, so I’ll just stick to the rules of thumb and the POH:
I’m sorry but I don’t quite understand how rich of peak can yield best power.
Logically speaking, the most energy that can be gained out of a fuel mixture is when a perfect stoichiometric ratio is achieved between oxidizer and fuel. I am a non-pilot, but from what I see peak EGT is attained when the prior ratio is achieved. To me, this seems to be logical, since the point at which the O2 and fuel can combust without trace is the point at which the maximal amount of energy per piston volume has been achieved within the engine. Molecular kinetic energy is in itself thermal energy, so the temp will just rise along with combustion efficiency.
This also indicates that, should the mixture be rich of peak, the excess fuel would simply not react and that most of it would be ejected out of the piston as a vapor upon the next engine cycle. In fact, up until I read your reply, my impression was that RoP mixtures are used to lubricate each engine piston or dampen the impact of the explosion generated in each piston, hence increasing engine life.
Please correct me if I am wrong, I am quite in need of understanding how these engines work.
however, fuel comsumption is a bit high, around 12-15 gph at 9.000Ft 75% 100ºF RoP, 2500 RPM. Getting around 155 TAS. Faster plane for richest pockets!