Leaderboard

Guys - this have to get off my chest: I have been exclusively flying the Challenger 650 for many months now, and I still find enormous pleasure in every flight I make! I really still learn every day about the aircraft and it systems, be it the avionics, but also the aircraft systems itself, the flight envelope etc. The videos I watched in the beginning make much more sense now, as I now can appreciate every little detail in them, detail I can put to use now. The X-Pilot forum is an incredible source of information, with a very high level of knowledge and support. Second to none. It has also given me an edge in understanding the real life problems we encounter with our CL650. The aircraft has taken taken me all around Europe in about 150 flights, almost all of them on VATSIM creating an added dimension of 'surprise' - they never give you what you expect. In short, in my view this aircraft is absolutely worth every penny and I'm looking forward to making many, many more flights with it! The picture - Challenger meets Challenger during a VATSIM on line event in Corfu, Greece

For the most part I myself have too. The lighting even looks pretty good...but there are some areas that need touch-up due to X-Plane's new lighting system...but I'll admit even for stickler like myself, they're minor. My real "todo" before declaring this 'XP12 compatible' is the flight testing, i.e. dynamics, trim and AP behavior. It MAY be that those are all "in line" with the XP11 version and after verifying such, I'll just declare this 'XP12 compatible'. Of course XP12 'compatible' doesn't mean 'optimal'. I still want to get back to 'chasing the numbers' with regards to EGT/ SRL/FF/performance, etc. I encountered this myself just yesterday the first time and put it on my bug list; however, I have not been able to repeat it yet. I've started / shutdown / restarted the engines several times now with no issues, BUT....it did happen ......... I just don't know the circumstances or sequence causing it yet. Can you not start it under any circumstances ever? A fresh load of the aircraft for example? -tkyler

It's undergoing final testing, so very soon hopefully.

Im glad about that response, to be honest I dont want xplane addons in msfs, I dont consider msfs as in depth of a simulator as xplane. When developers are having to port aircraft from one sim to another quality drops significantly. Inibuilds are good developers however the msfs a310 is incomplete/buggy, while im sure they will sort the bugs out eventually the decision by them to run on both platforms have left four incomplete/buggy aircraft one for msfs and three for xplane 11. Updates for one platform have to wait until completion of the other. I would prefer if addon developers would stick to one simulator and put the time and effort into one simulator so there arms are not stretched out beyond belief. If your prefer msfs thats fine but in a discussion about the 733 in xp12 I dont think it has a place but each to their own.

I foresee two 'events' with regards to the 733. Event 1 is "port to XP12 'as is'. Event 2 is 'upgrades beyond the port'. The goal of event 1 is to get it to work in XP12 the way it does in XP11 given XPlane changes. Those who have made 733 purchases since early this year will certainly get the XP12 port version for free as stated on the XA product page. Beyond that XP12 port though, we have not made any determinations about what may or may not constitute a 'paid upgrade' beyond the fact that it shouldn't be egregious or outlandish. Regarding features 'beyond the xp12 port'... we have and hear arugments all the time for/against variants, cargo versions, etc and have not made up our minds yet about what may be next. The obvious things todo are the FMS work and upgrading all the 3D/textures/animations. As far as MSFS, a lot of us developers have kept an eye out on the whole market/dev process and a port is not a trivial thing, regardless of what Fenix / inisim is doing. We're talking multiple 1000s of man hours easily, and at my age and road traveled, that's a tall order.....regardless of the money potential. I rather enjoy my little world in X-Plane and those users who also see the same value in it. Perhaps Fenix, iniSim or someone else can do a 737-300. I can't speak for any other devs in the X-Aviation ecosystem, but for our part, we'll probably stick to X-plane with the 733...best I can tell from today. -TomK

I'm going to put in my two cents worth, and my procedure will differ somewhat from what the "schoolhouse" teaches. Let's talk about the easiest scenario, which is an RNAV (GPS) or RNP approach to LPV or LNAV/VNAV line of minima. The minima for these approaches are specified as a decision altitude or DA. They provide the same TERPS or PANS-OPS protection for a momentary descent below the DA as does an ILS approach. From the initial approach fix (IAF) inbound, you should have VNAV selected. You may use VVS, VFLC, or VPTH to descend the aircraft through the initial and intermediate segment step down fix altitudes, and VNAV will honor all of them. However, the easiest is to fly VPTH and let the VNAV track the vertical path through each of the stepdown fix altitudes to the final approach fix crossing altitude. You may select the APP button at any time after the final approach fix. Once selected, the Vertical Glidepath (VGP) mode will be armed (shown as a white VGP in the FMA) and will become the active mode during the in the intermediate segment sometime past the (IF) fix. There are two important things about the VGP mode: 1. It will not honor the altitude preselector set altitude. If you're not cleared for the approach, if VGP has captured, it will descend on the final past the FAF. Once VGP is annunciated in Green, you can set the missed approach altitude just like on an ILS 2. On very hot days, e.g., 40C plus, VGP may not honor intermediate segment stepdown altitudes. The reason for this is that VGP mode from the IF fix inbound uses SBAS to compute the vertical path, which is not affected by non-standard temperatures, and like an ILS glideslope will take you below the intermediate segment stepdown altitudes on a very hot day. So, on a very hot day, you might want to stay in VPTH mode until passing the last stepdown fix in the intermediate segment, then press the APP mode. You might have to use VS to vertical speed down to capture the VGP path from above. I do not know if X-Plane or Hotstart models this behavior, but this is something to watch out for in the real Collins SBAS equipped airplanes. Past the FAF, you would descend to DA in VGP mode and at DA, if the runway is not in sight, press the go-around mode and then climb out and execute the missed approach. On an approach with the LNAV/VNAV line of minima, the procedure is the same; however, VGP vertical guidance is based on Baro-VNAV. You must honor the low and high temperature limits published on the approach, but you don't have to worry about the VGP path going below the published intermediate segment stepdown altitudes. An RNAV (RNP) AR or RNP AR approach is pretty much the same thing. However, I am not sure if the Collins system uses SBAS guidance for the vertical in the final approach or if it is using just LNAV/VNAV. RNP AR approaches are a strange breed because use a "Vertical Error Budget" or VEB for vertical obstacle clearance, which was originally based on Baro-VNAV use. I actually believe it does use SBAS guidance inside the FAF/FAP, but I need to check on that. The next scenario is if you are flying an RNAV (GPS), RNP approach, or a conventional approach (VOR or NDB) using the FMS. The minimums are all based on a minimum descent altitude or MDA, which is a hard altitude that you cannot go below during the approach without the runway environment in sight. For an RNAV (GPS) or RNP approach (not RNP AR...easy to get confused since ICAO has muddled the terminology), you would fly the approach to the final approach fix (FAF) described as above except that you would remain in NAV (LNV) and VNAV (VPTH) mode. Approaching the final approach fix, you would set the altitude preselector to the MDA. In the CL300/350 PL21, when you dial the altitude preselector down by 1000' increments, it will have an increment that matches the BARO setting on the PFD. I don't know if the CL650 has the same feature, but suspect that it does. In VPTH mode, the aircraft will level at MDA that is set in the altitude preselector. However, there's a problem... If you are descending on the VNAV path in VPTH from the FAF to the runway threshold crossing height, if you level even for a moment at the MDA, you are now above path. if you suddenly see the runway, there is an urge to "go for it", and that's how runway excursions and landing overrun accidents occur. With the constant descent final approach (CDFA) concept, you never level off at MDA. Further, you add a height adjustment to the published MDA to account for the transition from CDFA or VPTH descent to the missed approach climb. In some European States, that height additive is specified by type in the AIP (e.g., France). In other States, it's left to the operator. If you have to determine one, a good rule of thumb is the USAF's 10% of the vertical speed anticipated on final, which is shown on the Jepp charts for the goundspeed expected in the final segment. For 3.0 path, that will be about 60 feet for most CAT C aircraft. A descent path more than 3 degrees may require a larger additive. If you don't apply CDFA in Europe, the approach minimums are increase by a meter equivalent of approximately 1/4 SM for CAT C and CAT D aircraft so that you will see the runway before you get to the nominal 3.0 descent path to the runway. That way, they ensure that you see the runway before the nominal 3.0 degree descent point. No such rule in the US where CDA is encouraged, but it is voluntary. Most schoolhouses teach setting the altitude preselector to MDA (with or with additive) when either on VPTH or level in ALT with VPTH armed when approaching the FAF, then using NAV (LNV) and VNAV (VPTH) to descend and level at MDA. My preference is to fly it like an RNAV (GPS) approach with LPV or LNAV/VNAV minima or an ILS approach. I set the BARO to the MDA plus the additive and then use VGP mode since I'm never going to level at the MDA+additive. When the voice says "minimums, minimums", if the runway is not in sight, it's a missed approach just like LPV, LNAV/VNAV, or ILS approach. This falls into "technique", but it does drive some instructors nuts because they want to show me the system. I want to show them how I'm going to fly the airplane! A VOR or NDB approach is similar; however, the FMS will warn you that it is a REF APPR only, meaning that from the FAF to the missed approach point (MAP), you must have a VOR needle or CDI or at the NDB/ADF needle displayed and that it must also be used for primary course guidance in the final segment. Otherwise, the procedures described above are the same. I don't know if this answered your question, but I hope it helps. Rich Boll