Engine swap suggestion for accusim

[AKar]

I could have sworn I saw a post last night right after I left work in this thread from Scott talking about the other engines were actually 3 STC approved engines that could be installed in the aircraft.

This one?

-Esa

[caribpilot]

If it has a turbo normalized, or turbocharged engine that alone will set it apart from the Comanche. As much as I love the Comanche it would be nice to be able to fly higher easier to be able to find favorable winds, or get above the weather.

This is one of the reasons why I suggested the Cessna T210 as a possibility.

[AKar]

I mainly fly near the deck in the sim, but I'd benefit from turbo in performance for those Wyoming trips. In particular if one needs to revert to instruments.

-Esa

[Roadburner426]

Yeah that would be the one. I don't know why I thought he made that post last night. I was just checking on the thread and saw that, so came back today and looked back at page 7 and it was gone. Of course cause as I now know it was never there, but on the first page. Going from graveyard shift to nights has definitely done something to my brain lately. The only issue I can see with the V-tail Bonanza is that the CG is pretty finicky from what I've read. I usually just load up in the Comanche in the sim and go without to much thought to CG since its just me and a bag in the rear usually.

[Dogsbody55]

If the next plane is to have 3 engine options, then assuming it is a GA release, it would be great if A2A offered engine choice which demonstrate the difference between a naturally aspirated engine, a turbonormalised engine, and a turbocharged engine. A2A have extended the bar, so to speak, with each GA release, so this approach would make sense and would in itself justify purchasing both the Comanche and whatever this next release is, assuming it to be a GA single. Simply adding more power would make less sense, other than to demonstrate different flight characteristics. Whatever is released, I hope that a forced induction engine is on the options list.

If it were a twin, then perhaps the engine choice will involve engines with counter rotation as well as engines of normal rotation. That would demonstrate some big flight characteristic changes, but might be a bit much for the first GS twin release.

Lots of assumptions here, but both could help explain some of the long time between releases.

Cheers,
Mike

[AKar]

If the next plane is to have 3 engine options, then assuming it is a GA release, it would be great if A2A offered engine choice which demonstrate the difference between a naturally aspirated engine, a turbonormalised engine, and a turbocharged engine.

It would make a very interesting simulation, and if done properly, perhaps would help to shed some misconceptions about turbocharged engines.

A rather good write on turbonormalized and turbocharged engines over here. Good discussion is brought up on certain design compromises the two big OEMs did with their turbos, vs. how this retrofit manufacturer sees the issue.

-Esa

[Aeschylus]

A rather good write on turbonormalized and turbocharged engines over here. Good discussion is brought up on certain design compromises the two big OEMs did with their turbos, vs. how this retrofit manufacturer sees the issue.

Interesting article Esa, thanks. Makes me think of the interesting engine management considerations that might be implemented in the next accusim'd wonder.

Does anyone know if the turbo whine in GA aircraft, so equipped, is audible from the cockpit? In almost all turbo'd cars and trucks I've driven, the turbo has been audible, whenever it was operating at speed. Exceptions have been those with exhausts that were possibly in violation of decency and regulations. So GA aircraft generally having fairly basic exhaust muffling, if at all, possibly indicates the answer to my question.

Am thoroughly enjoying the rampant speculation here. I'm hoping for a twin, and admit I don't quite understand the rationale behind the Bonanza guesses, but will be pretty pleased if it is a Bonanza.

[Oracle427]

In my experience, you can hear the turbo whine, but only at the low power range as the exhaust noise is too loud when the power comes in.

From the outside you can hear it much better.

[CAPFlyer]

With the Turbo'd airplanes I've flown, the whine is not audible inside, mainly because the turbos are much larger than their car counterparts and typically operate at a somewhat slower RPM, leading to a lower pitched "whine".

It's also important to note that all of the "turbo" engines I'm aware of installed in modern GA aircraft are turbo-normalized units for ease of operation and certification. By using turbonormalization, your flight testing is much more limited since you aren't "adding" any stress to the airplane. As such, your structural limitations stay the same, you just have to do verification of your new performance numbers within those limitations due to having your power available to a much higher altitude and make sure that you still have sufficient rudder at altitude to deal with that power (especially for twins and engine-out situations).

I don't know what the next airplane is yet either, but if they're offering STC'd engines, I'm going to gander that one is a bigger normally aspirated engine, one is a turbo-normalized one, and the last is a turbine (turboprop). The Bonanza fits into this category, as do the Cessna 210, 414, 421, and Beech Baron. There's a couple of Piper offerings that could fit as well.

[AKar]

I don't know what the next airplane is yet either, but if they're offering STC'd engines, I'm going to gander that one is a bigger normally aspirated engine, one is a turbo-normalized one, and the last is a turbine (turboprop). The Bonanza fits into this category, as do the Cessna 210, 414, 421, and Beech Baron. There's a couple of Piper offerings that could fit as well.

Somehow I would be very surprised to see a turboprop (though pleasantly of course). I'd expect the possible entry in the turbine world some day to be a separate product altogether, paying specific attention to that exact area. I'd expect the same from the first twin as well, which is why I'm guessing yet another single for this one.

Am thoroughly enjoying the rampant speculation here. I'm hoping for a twin, and admit I don't quite understand the rationale behind the Bonanza guesses, but will be pretty pleased if it is a Bonanza.

It makes to the top of my guess list because it is an extremely common platform for various engine STCs (perhaps the most common candidate for various engine conversions), can be equipped with the tip tanks, and A2A has expressed some interest to perhaps simulate one sometime. It just ticks all the boxes (but again: too obvious?).

-Esa

[plicpriest1]

Hmmmm, my guess.

Ile start off with the idea that it takes an STC to:
1) Add a turbo (normalized, charged, manual waste gate)
2) Carb to Fuel Injection
3) Up the horse power

So where does that leave us? A whole ton of possibilities! So lets list some AC with Tip Tanks (or at least may be added)

1. Bonanza (it seems most varients can have the tip tanks)
2. 310 (Heck I would take it!)
3. Twin commanche (found a image online)
4. Navion (now that would be a suprise!!!)

It was hard to find a GA image of other types with the tip tanks. So if its one of these thats 1/4 closer to the right answer. So which of these has Engine STCs? I imagine all of them.

Personally I would want the twin commanche or Bonanza

[Dogsbody55]

Hmmmm, my guess.

Ile start off with the idea that it takes an STC to:
1) Add a turbo (normalized, charged, manual waste gate)
2) Carb to Fuel Injection
3) Up the horse power

So where does that leave us? A whole ton of possibilities! So lets list some AC with Tip Tanks (or at least may be added)

1. Bonanza (it seems most varients can have the tip tanks)
2. 310 (Heck I would take it!)
3. Twin commanche (found a image online)
4. Navion (now that would be a suprise!!!)

It was hard to find a GA image of other types with the tip tanks. So if its one of these thats 1/4 closer to the right answer. So which of these has Engine STCs? I imagine all of them.

Personally I would want the twin commanche or Bonanza

I like your thinking, but wouldn't it come as no surprise to find A2A have a 6th option??? I say 6th option because Cessna 206's are often fitted with tip tanks which look like an extended wing, and increases the planes's STOL abilities and gross weight. Personally, I like to look down on my wings, not up at them. And here's another reason why I don't want a Cessna 206:

http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2010/ ... tip-tanks/

Like you, I'd be very happy with any one of your 4 choices as the next release, but like many here, I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the next release was a twin, because simulation twin engine aircraft behaviour is in itself very complex, and hasn't yet been done by anyone well in a flight simulator yet. Also, the GA planes release so far have moved our training along in small steps, and forced induction engines have yet to be Accusim'd. So I tend to think that, with the options Scott stated the next release will have, that it will be a GA single.

Scott also stated that he was hoping the next release would have 2 different sizes of tip tanks. I've found nothing that suggests different size tip tanks on either the Twin Comanche or Navion, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that point. So that might narrow down your list above to the Bonanza and Cessna 310. If my reasoning above is correct, then that leaves only the Bonanza, and I hope it's a V tail purely for the visuals and sentimental reasons. The first GA plane I ever took a ride in was a V tail Bonanza, and very smooth and quick it was too.

The good news is that Scott sounded quite definite in that the next release would have a choice of engines, so given A2A's reluctance to give any clues about that next release, we can safely assume that testing is well advanced and we may get our grubby fingers on this beauty before the next 6 months is done. Whatever it is!!


Cheers,
Mike

PS. In the back of my mind, I'm also not ruling out the release of a Marchetti SF260, but I've never seen one without tip tanks and the third engine option would be a turboprop which is basically a jet engine, so that's another reason to suspect it won't be one of these.

[plicpriest1]

Hmmmm, my guess.

Ile start off with the idea that it takes an STC to:
1) Add a turbo (normalized, charged, manual waste gate)
2) Carb to Fuel Injection
3) Up the horse power

So where does that leave us? A whole ton of possibilities! So lets list some AC with Tip Tanks (or at least may be added)

1. Bonanza (it seems most varients can have the tip tanks)
2. 310 (Heck I would take it!)
3. Twin commanche (found a image online)
4. Navion (now that would be a suprise!!!)

It was hard to find a GA image of other types with the tip tanks. So if its one of these thats 1/4 closer to the right answer. So which of these has Engine STCs? I imagine all of them.

Personally I would want the twin commanche or Bonanza

I like your thinking, but wouldn't it come as no surprise to find A2A have a 6th option??? I say 6th option because Cessna 206's are often fitted with tip tanks which look like an extended wing, and increases the planes's STOL abilities and gross weight. Personally, I like to look down on my wings, not up at them. And here's another reason why I don't want a Cessna 206:

http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2010/ ... tip-tanks/

Like you, I'd be very happy with any one of your 4 choices as the next release, but like many here, I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the next release was a twin, because simulation twin engine aircraft behaviour is in itself very complex, and hasn't yet been done by anyone well in a flight simulator yet. Also, the GA planes release so far have moved our training along in small steps, and forced induction engines have yet to be Accusim'd. So I tend to think that, with the options Scott stated the next release will have, that it will be a GA single.

Scott also stated that he was hoping the next release would have 2 different sizes of tip tanks. I've found nothing that suggests different size tip tanks on either the Twin Comanche or Navion, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that point. So that might narrow down your list above to the Bonanza and Cessna 310. If my reasoning above is correct, then that leaves only the Bonanza, and I hope it's a V tail purely for the visuals and sentimental reasons. The first GA plane I ever took a ride in was a V tail Bonanza, and very smooth and quick it was too.

The good news is that Scott sounded quite definite in that the next release would have a choice of engines, so given A2A's reluctance to give any clues about that next release, we can safely assume that testing is well advanced and we may get our grubby fingers on this beauty before the next 6 months is done. Whatever it is!!


Cheers,
Mike

PS. In the back of my mind, I'm also not ruling out the release of a Marchetti SF260, but I've never seen one without tip tanks and the third engine option would be a turboprop which is basically a jet engine, so that's another reason to suspect it won't be one of these.

Not much arguing I can do there. Im just super excited to have a new a2a in my hangar.

I read the article you posted. This screams legal isn't always safe! I think that its most important for pilots to know where the envelope lies for their particular aircraft. That is found through the POH or other certified manual. Once that knowledge is in hand, add a buffer. Can we legally take off at max gross on our day at our runway? The book says YES! Lets go right? Not so fast. Always always always add a fudge factor! So many variables, and don't forget the book was written with a new aircraft with a top performer engine. All these years later, the engine may be tired, fuslage dirty, a hundred pounds of sand in the floor, etc.

Im not preaching to anyone in particular. I do want pilots to think safety though. Before we do anything with an aircraft we need to think 2 things first. 1) Is what im about to do gonna maybe bend metal? Nope, good, check. 2) Could this get me in trouble with the feds? Stated another way: How comfortable am I explaining my intentions to a fed? Feeling good? Cool, go forth and commit aviation!

[addman]

It has to be the Bonanza. Judging from the "Cherokee the low-wing wonder" video where you can see the top of a, most likely, full 3D-model. I doubt they would create a Bonanza mock-up just for comparisons sake. The 3D-model has probably been finished for some time, Scott mentioned they where just about to wrap up flight testing. I'd bet they'd just waited for an opportunity to get their hands on a Bonanza for test-flying. Still, a twin would be awesome, whatever they're making we'll buy it any way though.

[AKar]

And here's another reason why I don't want a Cessna 206:

http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2010/ ... tip-tanks/

That's a fine article, thanks for linking! Though takes some pretty careful reading because the way it is written, it is not particularly pointed against a specific 206 mod, but uses it as an example.

Let me put it this way: say, it is an other reason you don't want to see this engine swap business at all!

My account on the maintenance hangar modifications has been rather critical from the beginning. Having gap seals, removable wheel pants, tip tanks even, is great, I like it. These are rather common modifications and probably innocent enough to be a simple extra feature. But when we get into the area of swapping props, and thinking we simply make an R to a S model, we are getting at around my comfort line, and the original way of swapping engines as was suggested for the Cherokee early on would have clearly crossed it.

Why, one asks. Well to me, A2A is a developer that works in the emerging area that brings real world aviation and home simulation together. Not only should the fun part be simulated but bad and ugly as well, where necessary. You know, all this 'actions have consequences' business. While many can see highly modified, extra-hp, turbocharged, tip-tanked airplanes with extra cross weight and retrofit glass cockpits rather cool (and I do as well), I think it must not be missed from the educational point of view that these 'bigger' mods should not be taken too lightheartedly. Of course, not the small ones either, but I think one gets the point. Swapping an engine is not like that I found a later year model using a bigger, meaner power plant, and shall bolt that on to my frame during next overhaul. Even in my tiny network in light aviation, the list of issues caused by various modifications (STCs mainly) gets long: chafing parts, wrong installations, incomplete implementations, lack of attention to ICAs, contradictory performance data when several installations affect the same values, and while it wasn't an STC but an innocent modification to the wing tips of an experimental airplane, a possible contribution to a wing failure in a crash that killed eight. List goes on.

The article notes perfectly that being an STC doesn't guarantee too much. While I admit that I don't know how the system works under the FAA precisely, I think it should be underlined more in the article that the FAA is not really responsible of testing much anything in practice. In certification process, it is the applicant that has the responsibility to satisfy the competent authority that a design or a modification of one, is satisfactory both physically and in documentation and support. How thorough calculations and testing the applicant needs to perform, apparently varies. To be honest, I believe that sometimes if the applicant notes something like degraded stall characteristics in their testing, at least in some cases they have purposely left that note out of the data to avoid further testing and/or re-design.

It is imperative to me that these engines, which can be changed over, are based on real-life examples, and should be accessible enough to the developer to get some good data of them, operating for real. Therefore it is good news at this stage, that the engine options are based on actual STCs, it often makes them at least somewhat common (albeit there are lots of one-offs), and accessible. At least the actual numbers and user experiences of them. And if this really turns out to be the case, that the simulation actually studies real-life STCs, Bonanza would be rather likely candidate for the next airplane, because it is a very common platform for various modifications, such as those hinted by Scott.

-Esa