Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 10:26:07 GMT -5
So I got the Alabeo Cessna 207. As I know a couple of people are thinking about it, I thought I'd throw up a few screenshots and thoughts.
The flight and engine dynamics are pretty good. It feels a bit "light" for an airplane of this size, but most FSX planes do on my system. I'll up the stabilities or decrease the control effectiveness scalars a bit to compensate for that, but as I say, this is somewhat system specific. The view over the nose when full sucks, but I believe that to be true of the real aircraft. Now, I have not flown the 207 IRL, but I have got a lot of time in the bigger Cessnas, so I believe I can interpolate to a reasonable degree. Compared with the 206TC Carenado did not too far back, this one is much better "out of the box" in terms of FDE's. One thing that does bother me is that as you reduce power, you need nose down trim. That's incorrect. Without that engine developing thrust for you, and especially if you come back to idle where the prop is actually generating drag, you need to trim nose up IRL. This is a bit of a glaring error IMO. Coming down final is a challenge if you're on a gentle slope such as that of the Glide Slope on an ILS. You can lose the runway over the nose quite easily. I recommend once within 1 to 2 miles of the runway, add a fair bit of power and full flap. Use 90 indicated for the speed. That should get the nose down enough that you can see ahead of you for when you break out. On a VFR approach, keep your circuits reasonably tight and use minimal power and full flaps on final. I haven't done one of these yet but be prepared to give a short burst of power when you flare to keep from touching down hard. Use 85 for an approach speed. This airplane is not a STOL airplane so make sure you have at least 2500 feet of runway, especially if gravel. It will handle rougher strips if you have the length. I use 10 degrees of flap on takeoff and full on landing for these. On climb, look out the left side window for reference to the ground, but if you use a cruise climb of around 110 indicated (0 flap), you will have a reasonable body angle. Don't expect a lot of performance. The 206 was a dog. The 207 was a pig. Treat each accordingly.
In terms of repainting this aircraft, I have one word of advice. Don't even think about it. Took me 2 hours just to change the registration. Alanado are designing their aircraft in ways to completely prevent repainting, and doing an excellent job of it. If you have your own VA and paint scheme, this airplane isn't for you.
Sounds are decent, but there is no pitch change between full power and climb. That's a major deal for me as you get quite a massive change in engine sounds in the bigger Cessnas as that initial power reduction is quite signficant (going from 29" MP roughly to 25" and going from 2850 rpm to 2500 rpm is quite a large change in these machines). I used to set my climb power by engine sounds IRL and in the sim for the earlier planes. Can't do that with this, just like the C206TC. That's a shame. I believe these sounds are "borrowed" from another airplane that used different power settings, which may be why we are not getting proper sound differences between full power and climb. Even from climb to cruise (23"/2300rpm) there is barely any noticeable difference. In fact, it's fine to re-use sounds if they are appropriate (and in this case it is), but at least tweak them to the specific airplane.
All the other "usual" bugs, electrical and otherwise make a reappearance in this airplane (incorrect ammeter readings, TC that is constantly indicating it's not getting any vacuum, hard to find click spots, etc.), not unexpectedly. Sad, considering Alabeo prices are now well beyond what they should be IMO. However, not surprising (people here know all too well my thoughts on Carabeo, so I won't elaborate).
Lightly loaded
In cruise near Prince Rupert. Near gross, these numbers are fairly accurate, although I think the gph is a little on the light side for this airplane. It should be closer to 17 gph. I am not leaned out. Note the ammeter showing a constant charge. A carry over from many, many previous generations of Cessna aircraft sadly.
In cruise at near gross weight. However, don't read too much into the body angle. I suspect I entered a shallow climb while I "stepped out" for a coffee. It is reasonable for this airplane at near gross.
On the ILS. Flaps 10 and 100 MPH IAS seems like a good setup until you're about 1 mile final.
Taxiing at full gross is a challenge due to the body angle. This isn't necessarily incorrect for this aircraft type. At lighter loads, it's much better. Use your left-front side for a reference, not unlike flying a tail dragger.
Note the panel textures. They did a decent job of making this panel look "used".
Body angle on the ground indicates the aircraft is loaded well aft. In fact, it wasn't, so this isn't quite correct, but it's not totally unrealistic either.
With all the doors open. It's too bad there's no option to remove the seats. That would help with immersion greatly.
Overall, I like the airplane for what it does. If you're heavy on systems being correct and accurate, and gauges all working, this isn't a good airplane for you. IRL, I flew lots of machines in the bush where gauges were "less than accurate" so for this type of airplane I can overlook some things. If you fly from the outside and are mainly interested in screenies, this isn't too bad an airplane. Is it worth $30 for screenies? Only you can answer that. I like the FDE's so far. I don't like the sounds at this point, although I wouldn't say they are inaccurate insofar as what this airplane really sounds like. It's just where the sound pitch changes are (or more accurately, are not) that really bother me. I think he short cutted this one, sadly (but Carabeo does that with most of their airplanes, so no surprise). The airplane hauls a big load out of reasonable strips for short distances. The 208 was born from this one, so you can see its pedigree. It's not a performer otherwise for sure. If that meets your needs, it might be worth a look.
The flight and engine dynamics are pretty good. It feels a bit "light" for an airplane of this size, but most FSX planes do on my system. I'll up the stabilities or decrease the control effectiveness scalars a bit to compensate for that, but as I say, this is somewhat system specific. The view over the nose when full sucks, but I believe that to be true of the real aircraft. Now, I have not flown the 207 IRL, but I have got a lot of time in the bigger Cessnas, so I believe I can interpolate to a reasonable degree. Compared with the 206TC Carenado did not too far back, this one is much better "out of the box" in terms of FDE's. One thing that does bother me is that as you reduce power, you need nose down trim. That's incorrect. Without that engine developing thrust for you, and especially if you come back to idle where the prop is actually generating drag, you need to trim nose up IRL. This is a bit of a glaring error IMO. Coming down final is a challenge if you're on a gentle slope such as that of the Glide Slope on an ILS. You can lose the runway over the nose quite easily. I recommend once within 1 to 2 miles of the runway, add a fair bit of power and full flap. Use 90 indicated for the speed. That should get the nose down enough that you can see ahead of you for when you break out. On a VFR approach, keep your circuits reasonably tight and use minimal power and full flaps on final. I haven't done one of these yet but be prepared to give a short burst of power when you flare to keep from touching down hard. Use 85 for an approach speed. This airplane is not a STOL airplane so make sure you have at least 2500 feet of runway, especially if gravel. It will handle rougher strips if you have the length. I use 10 degrees of flap on takeoff and full on landing for these. On climb, look out the left side window for reference to the ground, but if you use a cruise climb of around 110 indicated (0 flap), you will have a reasonable body angle. Don't expect a lot of performance. The 206 was a dog. The 207 was a pig. Treat each accordingly.
In terms of repainting this aircraft, I have one word of advice. Don't even think about it. Took me 2 hours just to change the registration. Alanado are designing their aircraft in ways to completely prevent repainting, and doing an excellent job of it. If you have your own VA and paint scheme, this airplane isn't for you.
Sounds are decent, but there is no pitch change between full power and climb. That's a major deal for me as you get quite a massive change in engine sounds in the bigger Cessnas as that initial power reduction is quite signficant (going from 29" MP roughly to 25" and going from 2850 rpm to 2500 rpm is quite a large change in these machines). I used to set my climb power by engine sounds IRL and in the sim for the earlier planes. Can't do that with this, just like the C206TC. That's a shame. I believe these sounds are "borrowed" from another airplane that used different power settings, which may be why we are not getting proper sound differences between full power and climb. Even from climb to cruise (23"/2300rpm) there is barely any noticeable difference. In fact, it's fine to re-use sounds if they are appropriate (and in this case it is), but at least tweak them to the specific airplane.
All the other "usual" bugs, electrical and otherwise make a reappearance in this airplane (incorrect ammeter readings, TC that is constantly indicating it's not getting any vacuum, hard to find click spots, etc.), not unexpectedly. Sad, considering Alabeo prices are now well beyond what they should be IMO. However, not surprising (people here know all too well my thoughts on Carabeo, so I won't elaborate).
Lightly loaded
In cruise near Prince Rupert. Near gross, these numbers are fairly accurate, although I think the gph is a little on the light side for this airplane. It should be closer to 17 gph. I am not leaned out. Note the ammeter showing a constant charge. A carry over from many, many previous generations of Cessna aircraft sadly.
In cruise at near gross weight. However, don't read too much into the body angle. I suspect I entered a shallow climb while I "stepped out" for a coffee. It is reasonable for this airplane at near gross.
On the ILS. Flaps 10 and 100 MPH IAS seems like a good setup until you're about 1 mile final.
Taxiing at full gross is a challenge due to the body angle. This isn't necessarily incorrect for this aircraft type. At lighter loads, it's much better. Use your left-front side for a reference, not unlike flying a tail dragger.
Note the panel textures. They did a decent job of making this panel look "used".
Body angle on the ground indicates the aircraft is loaded well aft. In fact, it wasn't, so this isn't quite correct, but it's not totally unrealistic either.
With all the doors open. It's too bad there's no option to remove the seats. That would help with immersion greatly.
Overall, I like the airplane for what it does. If you're heavy on systems being correct and accurate, and gauges all working, this isn't a good airplane for you. IRL, I flew lots of machines in the bush where gauges were "less than accurate" so for this type of airplane I can overlook some things. If you fly from the outside and are mainly interested in screenies, this isn't too bad an airplane. Is it worth $30 for screenies? Only you can answer that. I like the FDE's so far. I don't like the sounds at this point, although I wouldn't say they are inaccurate insofar as what this airplane really sounds like. It's just where the sound pitch changes are (or more accurately, are not) that really bother me. I think he short cutted this one, sadly (but Carabeo does that with most of their airplanes, so no surprise). The airplane hauls a big load out of reasonable strips for short distances. The 208 was born from this one, so you can see its pedigree. It's not a performer otherwise for sure. If that meets your needs, it might be worth a look.
? 
