FlySimWare Cessna 414AW Little Navmap Aircraft Performance v1.4
First, thanks to all of you for downloading my performance data files. Your interest was motivating to keep me updating the project. With the release of the version 2.6.1 (last beta version) of this great addon aircraft I think we are now at the final stage of these performance data files as well. Noticable differences between v2.5.0 and v2.6.1 in terms of speed and fuel flow have been the reason for this v1.4. If major changes to the C414 arise I will try my best to keep the data updated. If you have any question, suggestion or correction please leave a comment or message.
The performance data are composed of 11 files with different configurations of speed and altitude in order to calculate a more accurate flight plan.
- FL080 @26, 31 and 35 MP inHG
- FL150 @26, 31 and 35 MP inHG
- FL200 @26, 31 and 35 MP inHG
- FL250 @26 and 31 MP inHG
Check "Remarks" tab in "Edit Aircraft Performance" (Alt+Shift+E) in Little Navmap for informations about power settings for climb and descent.
V1.4 changelog
Complete overhaul to match the FlySimWare Cessna 414AW v2.6.1 characteristics and other Little Navmap performance data for the following parameters:
- climb speed set to 125KTS IAS
- adjusted climb RPM to 35 MP inHG @2500RPM (RAM IV)
- climb speed and fuel flow for each flight level
- cruise speed and fuel flow for each manifold pressure at each flight level
- descent speed and fuel flow for each flight level
- new alternate speed and fuel flow
- adjusted reserve fuel
- adjusted taxi fuel
- corrected ICAO/Aircraft type
All data is calculated based on MTOW, peak EGT, clear sky, no wind and 59F/15C.
PS: thanks to nbrich1 for the ICAO/Aircraft type correction.
Taipan303
Thanks, very comprehensive profiles for the different FLs!
fStopper author
You’re welcome. Thanks for your comment and rating.
2 years ago
Dready1906
I'm curious about the data you found. I spent hours flying at different altitudes, with different MPs and RPMs, and found that the difference between flying at high and low altitudes is disappointingly low. For instance, at MP 26 and 2500 RPM, 50% fuel (set to unlimited) and 680 lb payload, at FL300 I get a True Airspeed of 223 and fuel consumption of 232 lb/hour, which translates to a theoretical range of 1188 nm. The same settings at FL120 give a TAS of 182 and consumption of 204, giving a theoretical range of 1103 nm. Considering the higher fuel burn to get to high altitude, this would indicate there is no sense in climbing to any altitude higher than needed to avoid bumping into things. This makes no sense to me - higher altitudes should be much more efficient, shouldn't it? I've noticed the same issue on some other piston aircraft as well.
BTW, I found the most efficient possible flight regime for the 414 is at FL120 (the lowest altitude I tested), at 17 MP and 2300 RPM, TAS 133 and consumption of 102, giving a theoretical range of 1612 nm. Again, I'm sure it should be better at higher altitudes, but it isn't.
fStopper author
Are you flying with live weather? With high altitude comes strong winds. If they are tail it's all good. If they are head... I've noticed significant drops in TAS with head winds above 30kts. It seems the sweet spot for the C414 is FL200/220.
2 years ago
ltjackson
Thanks for going through the process to be able to provide us this!
fStopper author
My pleasure, I'm glad it is of use. Thank you for the comment and rating.
2 years ago