Climb performance table for B58TC + P, and Cabin alt issue with B58P
-
Hello Nick!
First of all, these two are wonderful aircraft and I've been loving flying them. Thank you for your time and effort - it is appreciated.
I have two small concerns that I have. Perhaps they are issues, or perhaps I need some education regarding one or both of them!
-
The cruise climb performance table for the B58TC and B58P seems suspiciously similar to the table for the Duke, referencing 2750RPM as the ideal climb RPM, and 35.5MP, which is identical to the Duke. As I understand it, the Baron cannot reach 2750RPM. Could you shed some light on this? If this is incorrect, would the ideal cruise climb settings be what the checklist recommends (36MP/2500RPM)?
-
It seems that the cabin alt always exceeds the differential pressure limit for me when set to the correct pressure alt setting. Today, I made a flight at 16,000ft, and setting the pressurization controller to 16,000 on the bottom scale resulted in a "cabin diff" warning. I set it to 17,000, as I know it's common to set these to 1,000ft above the cruise alt, but I couldn't get the warning to go away until just shy of 18,000 on the pressurization controller. I'm unsure if I'm doing something wrong, this is a quirk of this particular system, or if this needs adjusting.
Thanks in advance for reading this and I look forward to hearing from members of the community and you. Have a good one!
-
-
Glad to hear you're enjoying them!
-
Indeed, a simple typo. All fixed.
-
Yup. That's really too bad that scale was wrong, because it's the hardest instrument to calibrate. I'm not going to try to understand why it was wrong before, but I can confirm that it's now correct by the POH numbers, and performing well in the aircraft. Thanks for letting me know, and it will be in the next update, which we're planning for next week.
-
-
Glad to hear you're enjoying them!
-
Indeed, a simple typo. All fixed.
-
Yup. That's really too bad that scale was wrong, because it's the hardest instrument to calibrate. I'm not going to try to understand why it was wrong before, but I can confirm that it's now correct by the POH numbers, and performing well in the aircraft. Thanks for letting me know, and it will be in the next update, which we're planning for next week.
@Black-Square Thanks for your responses! The one variable I didn't consider when I had the issue was density altitude, and it turns out that the density altitude at 16,000 was actually more like 17,300. So now I'm actually unsure if there was an issue at all, or if it was just a quirk of being particularly warm at 16,000... Regardless though, if you see that there's an issue with it, the fix is appreciated!
-
-
@Black-Square Thanks for your responses! The one variable I didn't consider when I had the issue was density altitude, and it turns out that the density altitude at 16,000 was actually more like 17,300. So now I'm actually unsure if there was an issue at all, or if it was just a quirk of being particularly warm at 16,000... Regardless though, if you see that there's an issue with it, the fix is appreciated!
@DangerZoneDmo Oh, there definitely was an issue. I'm just trying to ignore the urge to figure out why and how, and just be happy with the fact that it's all calibrated now and working correctly
