Any fans of the Cessna big twins here ?

[westjet]

Looks super and can hardly wait to fly the props off this bird. Top notch PAD. You guys have given us so much over the years All ready to bring her home from the factory in Wichita, Just let me know when i can pick her up

[capceo]

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank PAD for their continued support in allowing me to work alongside them for the past 9 months. We have been very supportive of each other in the development of both the MU-2 and C414A.

Thank You Bob, JP, Barry, and the rest of the PAD team.


As I own a 1982 RAM IV Cessna 414AW in real life, I was able to provide PAD with quite a bit of documentation from the charts and POH. I can assure you that you will have a great time flying the 414!

If all goes well, you will see a RAM 414AW in my aircraft's scheme sometime in the future.


Joe

[Wim]

Hi,
take a look at the pad site.!!!
Thanks PAD team.

Wim

[FlyTexas]

Ahh, me thinks a journey over to PAD is in order. Thanks for the tip, Wim.

Brian

[PilatusTurbo]

I absolutely love the 414/421 Types from Cessna, so if you guys are bringing one to me, I'll love the heck out of it.

I used to religiously fly the 421C from Flight1, but it's just too outdated now. A newer version with the modern stuff will be very nice, even if not an actual 421C.

The 414 will be an excellent addition to any hangar. Thanks for bringin' it to us. :ernae:

[aeromed202]

Can't wait to fly this one, looks like a beaut. Bismark Air Med flies them as they are pressurized and can move bari trauma patients. The one I know has winglets. Does this one come with that model?

[harleyman]

Ken,

Fear not...I have no bigotry toward beautiful planes. I crash all planes equally. Pretty ones, ugly ones, radial engined one, turbo-prop ones, jets ones. Single engine, twin, triple, quad. I crash them all.

I have the delightful combination of poor piloting skills and the unquenchable hunger for the perfect Hammer Head Stall. This unique combo has lead to many a Piper, Cessna, Lear, Boeing, Lockheed, Douglas and de Havilland plane falling out of the sky and slamming into the ground. But I must admit, I crash with an aplomb that many would admire.

OBIO

Here Here...Well said............:ernae:

[euroastar350]

The C414 has been released at the PAD site:ernae:

www.premaircraft.com

Thank you for such a great gift to all of us:ernae:

[westjet]

Did a ferry flight from Wichita to my home airport today with the C414.Noticed while landing she gets alittle bouncy if you apply any brakes during the roll out. Went back up and did a few touch and goes and as long as i stayed off the brakes she rolls out smoothly. Seems a contact point for the front gear may be alittle off. Anyone else run into this?.
Another great aircraft PAD. Thanks

[phantomx1]

Very nice good looking twin there PAD.

I get the bounce too westjet.

Note: for who may want to try, and not putting off on the sound that comes with the plane, but an alias to the FS9 DeHavilland_Comet makes a great sound that fits this twin pretty nicely. Just wish there was a spot just a tad under full power that would produce a fully syncronizing of the engines. Sounds really nice on approach and as you come over the fence as you slowly reduce power for touchdown. Worth a try. I just rename the original sound folder soundx , and then make a new sound folder and stick an alias to the DeHavilland_Comet in the new sound folder.

One important additional step: After putting the alias in the new sound folder you *Must* go into the Aircraft cfg note file and backspace out of the word, bigtwin , out of the Sound=bigtwin. Should only show Sound= , or it will try to link to the original aircraft bigtwin sound folder.

Very nice twin! Thanks PAD!

[phantomx1]

The bumpity bump down the runway. Anyone got a fix for it?

[luckydog]

No bumpities for me............just a nice tire squeak and good, solid braking.

[luckydog]

Ran a second check...................hard braking.......everything nice and smooth for me.

[phantomx1]

Thanks luckydog.

On my machine it bounces like riding over rough terrain on both take off and landing. Anything below about 10-15 kts is smooth. Above that it's like taking off or landing across the rows of a corn field even though I'm on the paved runway.

Really fun smooth twin in the air. And good looking too.

[_ben]

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank PAD for their continued support in allowing me to work alongside them for the past 9 months. We have been very supportive of each other in the development of both the MU-2 and C414A.

Thank You Bob, JP, Barry, and the rest of the PAD team.


As I own a 1982 RAM IV Cessna 414AW in real life, I was able to provide PAD with quite a bit of documentation from the charts and POH. I can assure you that you will have a great time flying the 414!

If all goes well, you will see a RAM 414AW in my aircraft's scheme sometime in the future.


Joe

Joe
I've dl fs9 and fsx versions - the fsx version is much tougher to turn
than the fs9 version.
I've only been behind a c172 yoke so I was mondering which is closer to
reality in your experience?
ps thanks PAD for your efforts
ben

[phantomx1]

There is a new repaint for the 441A, in the *repaint corner* section at PAD

www.premaircraft.com

[bobmay]

On my machine it bounces like riding over rough terrain on both take off and landing. Anything below about 10-15 kts is smooth. Above that it's like taking off or landing across the rows of a corn field even though I'm on the paved runway.

A few people have reported this "bouncing" on the takoff run and the landing roll out but I don't see it and our beta testers didn't see it (and from comments here others don't either)
It's almost impossible to fix a problem you can't see, so if anyone who gets this bouncing effect finds a cause and/or a cure please let me know, either through this forum or direct to support @premaircraft.com.

Bob
PAD

[racartron]

I'm getting the same type of bouncing as well. But since I'm running FS2002 I didn't bother to pass it on as the old system often causes odd things to FS2004 FDE's.

The good thing is PAD obviously installed a strong landing gear as I've yet to nose her into the runway.

[capceo]

Joe
I've dl fs9 and fsx versions - the fsx version is much tougher to turn
than the fs9 version.
I've only been behind a c172 yoke so I was mondering which is closer to
reality in your experience?
ps thanks PAD for your efforts
ben

I havent had the chance to fly the FSX version of the 414, but ill try to compare it to the 172 for ya:

Well, if you are talking about taxiing the airplane, (and I regularly in real life fly both my 414 and a C172) the 414 is MUCH heavier on the rudder pedals. You have to start applying pressure on the pedals a bit before you actually want to make the turn, and you often have to use opposite rudder pedal to help round the turn out and get the airplane moving in a straight line again. One interesting characteristic about the 414 that we weren't able to simulate was the differential braking tendencies with extremely tight turning. When you maneuver the 414 in a very tight area that require full rudder in one direction AND differential braking, as soon as the rudder pedals are pushed entirely in one direction, the opposite brake pedal becomes inoperative. This means that the only way to round out a tight turn is to use opposite rudder to round it out, then use opposite brake if necessary when it regains effectiveness. The lesson learned here is that when you are making on-the-dime turns around a wheel in the 414, dont get the turn going too fast, or you wont be able to stop it where you want to.

If you were talking about flying wise, the 414 is tremendously heavier in both pitch and roll than the 172, which one could gather just by looking at it. Its low speed handling characteristics, particularly at speeds between 85-100 knots, are phenomenal, better than any twin ive ever flown, and are only made better with performance upgrades such as Vortex Generators and Winglets.

Joe

[OBIO]

A few people have reported this "bouncing" on the takoff run and the landing roll out but I don't see it and our beta testers didn't see it (and from comments here others don't either)
It's almost impossible to fix a problem you can't see, so if anyone who gets this bouncing effect finds a cause and/or a cure please let me know, either through this forum or direct to support @premaircraft.com.

Bob
PAD

I also had the bounce during take off and landing. To correct the issue I went into the contact points and took a look at the settings. The Static Compression ratio on the front gear was very low at .099. I changed this to .3 and the bounce went away. While in the contact points I also moved the scrape points around a bit to better match up with the fuselage. Here is a copy of my new contact points. I tried very hard to get the plane to bounce by punishing the landing gear with hard landings, pulling the nose gear up and letting it slam back into the runway...I could not get the plane to bounce. Just nice normal landing gear operations.

[contact_points]
static_pitch = 0
static_cg_height = 3.21
tailwheel_lock = 0
gear_system_type = 0
max_number_of_points = 9

point.0 = 1, 9.533, 0, -3.3, 1181.1, 0, 0.546, 45, 0.3, 2.5, 0.8216, 2.5, 3.5, 0, 0, 0
point.1 = 1, -0.908, -8.906, -3.778, 1574.8, 1, 0.546, 0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.88, 4.7, 4.7, 2, 0, 0
point.2 = 1, -0.908, 8.906, -3.778, 1574.8, 2, 0.546, 0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.88, 5.2, 5.2, 3, 0, 0
point.3 = 2, 0, -22.5, 0.5, 1574.8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0
point.4 = 2, 0, 22.5, 0.5, 1574.8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0
point.5 = 2,-16.33, 0.0, 0.833, 1574.80, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,9.00,0.0,0.0
point.6 = 2, 2.416, 0, -1.5, 1574.8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0
point.7 = 2,-16.33, 0.0, 6.833, 1574.80, 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.0,0.0,0.0
point.8 = 5.000,-16.600,-0.000,-0.500,1574.803150,0.000,0.000,0.000,0.000,0.000,0. 000,0.000,0.000,4.000,0.000,0.000

OBIO

[Milton Shupe]

There are two issues regarding the nose bounce problem as I relayed to Bob May this morning.

One is the very stiff nose suspension, the other is the CoG is too far forward which places a lot of weight on the nose.

OBIO is on the nose contact point although you may need to adjust the vertical distance to ground to around -3.6~ to compensate for more static compression.

point.0=1, 9.533, 0.0, -3.600, 1181.10, 0.0, 0.546, 45.0, 0.300, 2.5, 0.8216, 2.5, 3.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0

For the CoG correction, in the Airplane Geometry section, replace the current statement with this one:

wing_pos_apex_lon=1.88

[bobmay]

Thanks for the useful responses guys.

I have now posted a "fix" on our website and from the response so far from users the dreaded bounce seems to have been tamed.

Bob.
PAD

[phantomx1]

Thank you Bob, OBIO, and Milton, for your efforts for a fix for this very nice twin.

[_ben]

I havent had the chance to fly the FSX version of the 414, but ill try to compare it to the 172 for ya:

Well, if you are talking about taxiing the airplane, (and I regularly in real life fly both my 414 and a C172) the 414 is MUCH heavier on the rudder pedals. You have to start applying pressure on the pedals a bit before you actually want to make the turn, and you often have to use opposite rudder pedal to help round the turn out and get the airplane moving in a straight line again. One interesting characteristic about the 414 that we weren't able to simulate was the differential braking tendencies with extremely tight turning. When you maneuver the 414 in a very tight area that require full rudder in one direction AND differential braking, as soon as the rudder pedals are pushed entirely in one direction, the opposite brake pedal becomes inoperative. This means that the only way to round out a tight turn is to use opposite rudder to round it out, then use opposite brake if necessary when it regains effectiveness. The lesson learned here is that when you are making on-the-dime turns around a wheel in the 414, dont get the turn going too fast, or you wont be able to stop it where you want to.

If you were talking about flying wise, the 414 is tremendously heavier in both pitch and roll than the 172, which one could gather just by looking at it. Its low speed handling characteristics, particularly at speeds between 85-100 knots, are phenomenal, better than any twin ive ever flown, and are only made better with performance upgrades such as Vortex Generators and Winglets.

Joe

Great stuff.
Thanks for that.
Ben

[Sunny9850]

We did run into the bouncy Nose Gear issue with our Connies as well and had the same problem that not everyone on the team encountered it....even when using the same FS airport and load conditions.

Using Miltons excellent tutorial on the gear calculation vs visual model we arrived at a fix which included a new MDL with a bit more suspension travel and revised contact points.

Thanks for another great airplane in the hangar to the great folks at PAD.

Stefan