Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rocky_53

Help with Q400

Recommended Posts

My previous "regional" airline had more pilots than the "major" airline I fly for now!


Brendan R, KDXR PHNL KJFK

Type rated: SF34 / DH8 (Q400) / DC9 717 MD-88/ B767 (CFI/II/MEI/ATP)

Majestic Software Q400 Beta Team / Pilot Consultant / Twitter @violinvelocity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still fine tuning p3d and q400, but maybe this will help you practise your landings;

 


 Rig Specs; CPU AMD Ryzen 7950X3d, GPU AMD Liquid Red Devil 7900XTX 24GB,  Memory 32GB 2x8 3000 CL30, WD-SN850 Black 500 GB, WD-SN850 Black  2TB, Asus MoBo X670E D Hero, Be Quit Straight power 1200 Watt platinum. 18 Noctua fans , Aquacomputer Octo tempsensores, yes I am a PC freak.

watercooled 2 x360 rads noctua's push pull EKWB blocks for GPU and CPU 

Screen LG 34GN850-B  with freesync premium     

                                                         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a few thousand hours in the real bird, she is a handful to fly ... In FSX, this Q400 is spot on- but it sometimes takes a bit of tweaking to get that "feel" translated into  our sims.

 

Brendan - thanks for your post earlier in the thread. Just wanted to ask you about the one and only aspect of the MJC8 Q400's flight model that seems a bit off: namely the ability to reach implausibly high flight levels.

 

It's been a while since I experimented with this, but from memory I was able to climb to well above FL400, maybe even FL500 which is clearly beyond most commercial jet airliners, let alone the Q400.

 

I seem to recall reading (perhaps on the Majestic forums) that the service ceiling of the Q400 is dictated by the cabin pressurisation system as opposed to its climb performance. I think it was related to the requirement to descend to a safe altitude within a set time limit in the event of depressurisation (there being no passenger oxygen)?

 

What I was wondering therefore, is how the aircraft would perform in term of absolute ceiling if the cabin pressurisation thing wasn't an issue? I seem to recall excess RPM during my (admittedly rather daft*) flight test, so curious as to what would happen to the engines in the event of an 'unrestricted' climb of this sort.

 

This leads to the send part of my rather long-winded question: is there any chance the 'Pro Edition' will see simulation of failures that would prevent climb to these very high altitudes?

 

Apologies if I've got myself muddled with the stuff above, but have been curious about this for a while.

 

Finally, just want to reiterate my comments from a couple of other threads about how wonderful the whole MJC8 Q400 sim experience has been for me - I think the best airliner I have ever flown in MSFS!

 

Thanks,

Nick

 

*Though not this daft - I only do it in FSX...


Nick M - A2A Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, first I just have to say....

 

If you were an adult you would say "Thanks for the clarification"

what an arrogant, petty display, with no useful contribution, you've made in this thread. Just had to "get one up" with your pedantic "correction" huh?

  

Come on lads, don't ruin an interesting thread by being so oversensitive.

This is not fair IMHO (nor Howard's later "kiss and make up" comment). This was ONE person acting like a spoilt brat, and one decent simmer who did nothing wrong. It's not right to tar both people with the same brush.

 

Oky doke, that out the way ........

 

 

 

So it's seems it's not always full power left on for landing the Dash, a slight reduction in power is commonplace. Not much though, with those huge props blowing air directly over the wings, any power changes will directly effect sink rate.

 

Q400 Flaps 15 landing = Always power on until mains have tuched down

 

Q400 Flaps 35 landing = Start rolling off power slowly from 30' AGL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brendan - thanks for your post earlier in the thread. Just wanted to ask you about the one and only aspect of the MJC8 Q400's flight model that seems a bit off: namely the ability to reach implausibly high flight levels.

 

It's been a while since I experimented with this, but from memory I was able to climb to well above FL400, maybe even FL500 which is clearly beyond most commercial jet airliners, let alone the Q400.

 

I'm not Brendan, but I can tell you that the Q400 both real and in the sim cannot reach those altitudes.  She struggles to reach FL250 most of the times and it almost always requires sacrificing speed to maintain a decent climb rate.  

The Q400 is very much a plane that you have to stay ahead of...which is a common problem among simmers.  For some reason, a lot of simmers are under the impression that they can come screaming in at 250kts and the drop the flaps and the gear at 7 miles and have a good landing.  Then they wonder why they float 8,000ft down the runway and ultimately crash.  As flightsim aircraft become more realistic, their FDE's also become more realistic.  Majestic took it one step further and developed the Q400's flight dynamics to operate outside of the simulator thus removing any constraints that might have otherwise been placed on it.

 

Like I said before; if you stay ahead of the aircraft and plan ahead for the next phase of flight, you will find that your workload will decrease significantly.  Get behind the curve, and bad things will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...one and only aspect of the MJC8 Q400's flight model that seems a bit off: namely the ability to reach implausibly high flight levels.

 

It's been a while since I experimented with this, but from memory I was able to climb to well above FL400, maybe even FL500 which is clearly beyond most commercial jet airliners, let alone the Q400.

 

The service ceiling is FL250 without overhead passenger oxygen supplies, otherwise it's FL270. Typical climb profile is 185 KIAS up to FL100 and then 210 KIAS, but by about FL150 if you're heavy you have to go to pitch hold and let the airspeed bleed off in order to maintain a good climb rate. The Q400 has some serious power behind it so most of the time it will reach FL220-240 without issue.


ckyliu, proud supporter of ViaIntercity.com. i5 12400F, 32GB, GTX980, more in "About me" on my profile. 

support1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I experimented with this, but from memory I was able to climb to well above FL400, maybe even FL500 which is clearly beyond most commercial jet airliners, let alone the Q400.

Nope, never seen that. Not tried max altitude, but above 21,000 or so vertical speed tails off a lot. No way would I be able to get to 50,000.

 

 

This is not fair IMHO (nor Howard's later "kiss and make up" comment). This was ONE person acting like a spoilt brat, and one decent simmer who did nothing wrong. It's not right to tar both people with the same brush.

 

Oky doke, that out the way ........

 

 

Craig, all you have done here is resurface a minor altercation. Both parties had moved on. When these minor disagreements occur the right thing to do is forget it and move on, and for other parties to do the same.

 

My comment was deliberately addressed to "both" parties, thus deliberately designed to avoid assigning blame to one individual, because to do so would do the same as your contribution, namely invite a response, thus rekindling the argument.

 

 

Q400 Flaps 15 landing = Always power on until mains have tuched down

 

Q400 Flaps 35 landing = Start rolling off power slowly from 30' AGL.

 

 

 

I have never done that in the Majestic Q400. Flap 35 I have always left power on right down to landing. Perhaps a minor reduction in power. [no float] I feel that "rolling power off at 30 feet would result in a very heavy landing in the Majestic Q400.

 

Of course, in regard to the incident I linked to, namely the one armed pilot, we have no idea what flap setting he was using. However, given that EGBB is a long runway [recently extended] I suspect he was at flap 15, thus the comment in the article that the float was caused by having power on is contrary to your comment.

 

There was an interesting post on the Majestic forum regarding this, but last time I checked I couldn't access it.

 

Edit: I've just tried your flap 35 rolling of power at 30 feet, and as I suspected it results in a heavy landing, and with the pitch right up at 5 degrees, precariously close to a tail strike. If this is real world technique, [which from what I've read it isn't] then Majestic have it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not Brendan, but I can tell you that the Q400 both real and in the sim cannot reach those altitudes.

 

Nope, never seen that. Not tried max altitude, but above 21,000 or so vertical speed tails off a lot. No way would I be able to get to 50,000.

 

Thanks for the comments guys. As stated, it's been a while since I experimented with the 'absolute ceiling' on the MJC8 Q400, so the behaviour I observed may have been fixed in one of the updates.  I definitely managed to get her up to a very lofty altitude on a few occasions when testing this in the past. I also seem to think there was a post or two on the Majestic forum on this issue too (afraid I've never registered to post there).

 

(Don't worry - I'm aware of the service ceiling of the real Q400. Just wondered how high it would climb if only powerplant/wing performance was considered).

 

I've been away from my FSX PC due to work for a few weeks, but will do some testing when I get back home...

 

Cheers,

Nick


Nick M - A2A Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread.  Lots of useful info.


Gregg Seipp

"A good landing is when you can walk away from the airplane.  A great landing is when you can reuse it."
i7-8700 32GB Ram, GTX-1070 8 Gig RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently purchased this as well and also struggling in a good way. Was looking at those airline2sim videos and wondering if they are really worth it.


From EGFF to YSSY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brendan - thanks for your post earlier in the thread. Just wanted to ask you about the one and only aspect of the MJC8 Q400's flight model that seems a bit off: namely the ability to reach implausibly high flight levels.

 

It's been a while since I experimented with this, but from memory I was able to climb to well above FL400, maybe even FL500 which is clearly beyond most commercial jet airliners, let alone the Q400.

 

I seem to recall reading (perhaps on the Majestic forums) that the service ceiling of the Q400 is dictated by the cabin pressurisation system as opposed to its climb performance. I think it was related to the requirement to descend to a safe altitude within a set time limit in the event of depressurisation (there being no passenger oxygen)?

 

What I was wondering therefore, is how the aircraft would perform in term of absolute ceiling if the cabin pressurisation thing wasn't an issue? I seem to recall excess RPM during my (admittedly rather daft*) flight test, so curious as to what would happen to the engines in the event of an 'unrestricted' climb of this sort.

 

This leads to the send part of my rather long-winded question: is there any chance the 'Pro Edition' will see simulation of failures that would prevent climb to these very high altitudes?

 

Apologies if I've got myself muddled with the stuff above, but have been curious about this for a while.

 

Finally, just want to reiterate my comments from a couple of other threads about how wonderful the whole MJC8 Q400 sim experience has been for me - I think the best airliner I have ever flown in MSFS!

 

Thanks,

Nick

 

*Though not this daft - I only do it in FSX...

 

 Forgive me if I'm in error by a few thousand feet, but when we picked up our Qs in Downsview there were aircraft there that I believe were certified to 27,000ft- they had oxygen systems integrated into the passenger service units (one mask drop down for each passenger). Of course if this is worth the extra weight and costs, is up to the company- for an extra few thousand feet. During flight testing I think they took it to about 31,000ft. 

 

During the summer a fully loaded Q400 had no trouble getting to 25,000- it just took a while as well as having to reduce climb speed to around 200kts. Perhaps 500fpm during the last 5000ft was not uncommon.


Brendan R, KDXR PHNL KJFK

Type rated: SF34 / DH8 (Q400) / DC9 717 MD-88/ B767 (CFI/II/MEI/ATP)

Majestic Software Q400 Beta Team / Pilot Consultant / Twitter @violinvelocity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's your opinion in regard to landing technique Brenedon?

 

I'm referring to managing power in the flare. Power on or power reduced? Relative to flap settings of course.

 

I'm finding that a technique that works for me, in the Majestic dash, is a slight reduction in power, regardless of flap setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Forgive me if I'm in error by a few thousand feet, but when we picked up our Qs in Downsview there were aircraft there that I believe were certified to 27,000ft- they had oxygen systems integrated into the passenger service units (one mask drop down for each passenger). Of course if this is worth the extra weight and costs, is up to the company- for an extra few thousand feet. During flight testing I think they took it to about 31,000ft. 
 
During the summer a fully loaded Q400 had no trouble getting to 25,000- it just took a while as well as having to reduce climb speed to around 200kts. Perhaps 500fpm during the last 5000ft was not uncommon.

 

Thanks Brendan for the info. I'm looking forward to doing some absolute ceiling flight tests with the Q400 when I finally make it home. I did eventually track down the post on the Majestic forum which describes the issue I mentioned above. I doesn't seem possible to post a direct link (I'm not registered over there yet) but the thread is entitled 'Flight Dynamic Issue' (in the Flight Dynamics category) by 'xdashdriver'. It's from April 2013 however, so I guess the issue may have been resolved.

 

Will post here if I encounter anything odd...

 

All the best,

Nick


Nick M - A2A Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all - as promised, I did a quick high altitude flight test with the Q400 when I made it back to my FSX computer.

 


During flight testing I think they took it to about 31,000ft.

 

For my test I used an empty aircraft with 4000kg of fuel on board (so tanks around 75% full). Initially I climbed to about FL170 with condition levers set to 900rpm (MCL) at which point I used V/S AFCS mode to command a climb of about 1000fpm. I maintained this V/S until the airspeed dropped to around 200 kts, then reduced climb to 500fpm. (I appreciate that using V/S AFCS mode is unrealistic for airline ops.)

 

The result is pictured below: climbing through FL582 at 500fpm by which time my airspeed had decayed to 150 kts.

Q400_FL580.jpg?dl=0

After this screenshot was taken, I reduced V/S further still to 200fpm and was able to accelerate by about 7-8 kts, continuing the climb (I admit I got impatient and used time compression at this point) until FL685 when the stick-shaker activated at around 121 kts. As I mentioned in a previous post, prop RPM did begin overspeeding (at some point around FL450 I think.)

 

I just wondered if anyone else is able to reproduce this behaviour? For what it's worth, I don't use any weather add-ons or anything else that would be likely to affect the flight dynamics of the Q400. (And yes - it's the latest version 1.011.)

 

I realise my test was a bit rough-and-ready and I plan to repeat it with a fully-loaded aircraft and different AFCS climb modes. However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this ability of the MJC8 Q400 to climb to altitudes beyond a Tu-95 or even a Grob G520* seems like the only aspect of the flight dynamics which is inaccurate.

 

Thanks,

Nick

 

*This being the turboprop with the highest service ceiling - 50,000ft - I could find!


Nick M - A2A Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's your opinion in regard to landing technique Brenedon?

 

I'm referring to managing power in the flare. Power on or power reduced? Relative to flap settings of course.

 

I'm finding that a technique that works for me, in the Majestic dash, is a slight reduction in power, regardless of flap setting.

 

Technique is something that is best described as "whatever works" for a dynamically changing situation- I'll give you my best description, and then let you read my blurb from the manual. 

 

On flaps 15º landings, normal pitch on final will be above 1º in order to maintain glideslope- power will be somewhere- (somewhere!) around 15%, depending on your weight, wind correction to Vref, REF SPEEDS SWITCH position, etc. Of course, thats a ballpark number and you do what it takes to maintain glide and speed. Approaching flare, as pitch is increased slightly by 2º, you decrease power only slightly- this may be barely moving your power quadrant levers. This was enough to reduce speed slightly to just above Vref, as I found that touching down at Vref gave a firmer landing- although was sometimes necessary due to contaminated runway, etc.

 

Remember, in the real aircraft- movement distances were greater since we're dealing with real controls. Upon touchdown, power was moved to DISC and normal braking applied, or on length limited runways reverse applied. Maybe slight reverse applied under all conditions!

 

On flaps 35º landings, the pitch was more downward- like a cessna! It took roughly twice the amount of power to maintain speed and glide as on a flaps 15º approach- look for 25%-28% TQ, but again, it all can vary. As one approaches the flare, power is reduced much the same- but not chopped- a few %s of TQ should do it. The flare is more pronounced, and don't worry about tail strike- If you are above or at Vref, the plane will climb if you approach that critical pitch angle instead of hitting the tail. Once touchdown occurs, fly the nosewheel onto the ground and power levers to DISC. 

 

 

 

 

Here's from my old manual...

 

While on approach a smooth transition from approach speed (Vref (ice)+10Kts not to exceed 20Kts) to Vref crossing the threshold is required. After crossing the threshold, the power and pitch attitude should remain stable until just prior to touchdown. Normally the pitch should be raised approximately 2° and the power reduced 2%. This will ensure sufficient deceleration to touchdown within the touchdown zone slightly below Vref (Flaps 35°) or at Vref (Flaps 15°), eliminate floating. Should floating occur in the flare, power should be gradually reduced to effect touchdown. 

 

Once the main wheels have touch the runway promptly but smoothly lower the nose to the runway, move the PL to DISC, and begin braking, and apply thrust reverse if required. During First Officer landings, the transfer of aircraft control to the Captain will be at the Captains discretion. The Captain will announce “My controls” when ready and the First Officer will respond “Your controls” and “Release controls”.

 

NOTE:

DO NOT CHOP THE POWER OR PITCH ABOVE 6°.

NOTE:

At airport altitude greater than 5000’, power may be required in the landing flare to decrease the landing descent rate. 


Brendan R, KDXR PHNL KJFK

Type rated: SF34 / DH8 (Q400) / DC9 717 MD-88/ B767 (CFI/II/MEI/ATP)

Majestic Software Q400 Beta Team / Pilot Consultant / Twitter @violinvelocity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...