Lukasz

I'm following the development of your B737 with much interest. I like detailed planes and, for some unknown reasons, I have a great fondness to the classic variants of 737. I see you guys put a lot of heart into the project, which is something I always admire!

Don't worry Simon, I've been grounded by weather around Seattle for 3 weeks. Sure, I could set it to VFR, but what fun would that be, eh?

Custom radial engine startup is something I'd like to make and - as a sim pilot myself - I'd like to see it being reproduced in a sim. The problem is not how to make it, but how to make it both reasonably close to the real stuff and at the same time practical to perform. How a pilot without TrackIR is going to count 9 blades, with propellers behind his shoulders, while manipulating "3-finger chord" switches in the cockpit with one hand and a wobble fuel pump with the second hand? Or oil shutters, X-Plane doesn't have them and they are a custom subsystem, with custom controls, which either have to be operated by a mouse in 3D cockpit or by a key/button shortcut. That's 4 buttons: left open, left close, right open, right close. Making them both being controlled at the same time with a single command would make things easier, but less fun - it's a twin engine plane and adjusting them separately adds much to the experience. Right now I'm wrapping up heart of DC-3: engine simulation and flight performance together, which require adjusting several pieces at the same time. This is the most important part, because the plane has to fly right. Once I'm done with that - and I'm close to this stage - I'll think what else to add

The propellers stop quicker, but there are other characteristics of the propellers, that are correct and give a good feeling of realism. Startup sequence is a completely different story, as these are radial engines and you won't start them up with just a flip of a switch. For now, the most important features to include, are those directly related to flight model and aircraft performance, including some items, that are used for the entire flight - like the need for proper engine management and gauges which really should be monitored. If time permits, I'd like to include some secondary features, to be used only during certain portions of time spent in the cockpit. That includes looking at the propellers, as they slow down, but this one is at the bottom of the "to do" list. I have some ideas how to make it, the real problem is time required to do so and then to test it against standard and non-standard conditions. Right now, I'd worry more about not seeing them slowing down, while in the air

LEFT engine is unhapppy - unless pilot manages it properly. Don't worry, I won't fail them immediately at the slightest redline crossing, but the redlines (and other less obvious limits, not present in X-Plane, but calculated by Gizmo) do matter and have to be respected. The more you abuse the engine, the less time you have before failure occurs. You could get away for minutes with a slight mismanagement, but a big pull on a wrong lever at the wrong time will tear the engine apart in a matter of seconds. The more power - the more strict the limits become, so if manual says "takeoff power limit: 1 minute", then it would be a good idea to respect that remark! Having said that, the plane is a joy to fly, as long as you fly it by the rules, which will be outlined in the manual Oil shutters are separate devices, that regulate the airflow through oil coolers and work independently of cowl flaps. If you see the oil temperature going over or under the limits and cowl flaps already are full close/open, then it's time to adjust the shutters. 0.5 is a temporary setting, suitable for most "normal" temperature conditions, but you will need to close them on cold winter days. Both cylinder head temperatures and oil temperatures are linked to failures system, so you'd better watch them all closely, from startup to shutdown. Both engines are modelled separately, which applies to performance overrides and monitoring, failure triggers, oil shutters and some other cool effects and features, that are still under construction (they do work already, but need some fine tuning). Flight model and engine modelling features, that already work and have been checked, are between 95-99% true to the real plane (the difference is only visible in the numbers on specific test flights, you won't notice it during normal flying).

I'm always torn between a sentiment for old "steam" gauges with their "pro" look (which please an "aviator" in me) and new LCD shiny glass cockpits with all kinds of features and data readily available at a glance (which appeal to "kid" in me), so I end up liking both solutions

Emalice, The temperature rise was caused by too much throttle at too low rpm, but that won't fail the engine in X-Plane as it is. Some plugin is required to do that and I don't know if Bonanza has something like that - probably not. So far only freeware An-2 and payware T-28 monitor engine stress and will fail if exceeded. Dreamfoil Bell 206 also has some failures built in (overtorque for example). Improper fuel failure was most probably caused by X-Plane itself, not related to your flight, as it will trigger random failures after certain amount of time has passed (mean time between fails option). James, Stock Bonanza flies similar to real plane, not bad at all, but there is a room for improvement. Mine already flies as good as it looks

Emalice, Some time ago I have written a guide, which has the answers for your questions: Part 1: Part 2: Short (and insufficient) answer would be: you can't isolate throttle from propeller from mixture, all of them have influence on engine's performance and happiness and must be used in conjunction. When you see a sudden increase in temperature, then something is going very wrong - usually the engine is working too hard. Applying full throttle at low rpm could earn you gliding practice James, Have you tried X-Aviation's C152?

Re: documentation. Second defect is that best power should be 50OF ROP (rich of peak) and best cruise is 100OF ROP. Manual has it the other way. 1) 1-6 are engine cylinders, so you can monitor each of them separately, this is needed for lean of peak operations (and works beautifully!), to be sure that all are lean and there is no temperature runaway in any of them, for example. Left scale is EGT, right CHT. Every column has two superimposed vertical bars: the usually higher and more "lively" is EGT (stay below asterisk * mark), the smaller and slower to respond is CHT (stay below 400OF). 2) to isolate tanks in case one is punctured. All answers are correct, a) will give you the best range, just play with uneven fuel balance instead of using aileron trim, which causes drag. Usually I use , just to make things easier. 3) It's how it was modelled, I suppose. 4) If I remember correctly, regulations require using oxygen above 12000-12500, but hypoxia can hit you as low as 8000-9000ft, depending on your health, age etc. Autopilot in this plane has limit at 15000ft, but with a bit of trick, you can cruise higher 5) Don't know, how (if at all) was that modelled. Just watch the fuel press gauge and turn the pump on, if you see that it creeps out of the green range. 6) Tell your wife, that you will paint... the plane livery

I've got a new plane in my hangar today and the mystery was solved It's a calibration for directional gyrocompass element for HSI. As you know, gyrocompass drifts away as the time passes, due to aircraft's movement around the Earth, which is not flat (at least according to the newest scientific achievements ) and you have to update it about every 15-20 minutes. "Slave" ties the gyro to magnetic field sensor and continuously updates it automatically. "Free" disables the sensor and the gyro will drift away, so you have to tune it manually, with the help of the CW/CCW (clockwise/counterclockwise) knob located to the right and backup magnetic compass indications. All this is modelled and works in Bonanza and the HSI will lie to you, if not updated for any reason!

Simon, have you tried Arma or Arma2? There is a difference. While I like no.2 (far from a realistic flight sim of course, but still enjoyable, and that's all I want from it), the first one was very disappointing, basically in every aspect. My Arma2 is also modded to some degree, so that also plays a role. It nicely fills the niche, when I'd like some virtual flying experience, but don't have enough time or I'm too tired to launch XP and think of something more "realistic"

ArmA2 for a comparison, at somewhat reduced visual settings. Not a flight simulation, but also not that bad, as one could expect. It has simplified flight model, but you need to know the basics to fly with success. Even with that in mind, it's actually enjoyable to fly around just for the sake of it, without any actual combat taking place. I have to try "Take on helicopters" yet, I'm just waiting for a more definite version. As for now, I think that merge of semi-simulation with adventure/role playing game can be very interesting, if only done properly.

Darn! How come there is no [smite] button, when one needs it actually

Goodbye, Alaska! Winter is coming and it's time to move south Enroute from Anchorage to Seattle-Tacoma.

Steven, You know, that it prefer talking about the good ones, than bad ones I've made only one exception so far and I'm not very happy with it, but that was a slightly different case. All I can say, is that for the purchases I've made so far, I was mostly very happy or just happy and bad decisions were, fortunately, rare, thanks to a bit of time spent researching the products, before finally getting them. I could put a list of my favourites, if you want Out of the planes you've mentioned, I highly recommend buying the Trojan. It has a great flight model, both in "feel" and numbers, immersive and very "clickable" cockpit and looks really good on screenshots. Oldschool and somehow less pilot-friendly avionics, compared to modern ones, only add to the challenge and plane's warbird-like "personality". When I fly it, it feels like a Trojan, Hellcat and Skyraider in one, depending on the livery Last, but not least, the possibility to burn the engine and break the stuff is something, that I've been looking for since forever! This plane demands respect, like a real thing. If anyone wants to sell a high quality product and puts a lot of work into it, it is reasonable to make a bit of extra effort and provide a professional translation. However, what is more alarming for me, is that there are about two dozens of lines of text about eyecandy and avionics and only two about flight model and flying characteristics. I just would like to know more details about this similarity, as the rest of the description is informative enough. Maybe I purchase it, just to see the current stare of affairs, after first feedback reports Pete, I have the same feeling about the gauges, as you do. The gauges and their moving elements are 3D, but the underlying textures with numbers appear to be flat. AI and HSI look like they are 3D animated.

I don't say, the Bonanza is bad. In fact I wish it's so good, that it would make a worthy purchase. It's just I'm more careful, after purchasing some other cool looking and somehow acclaimed aircraft, that made me really mad, after discovering, that their similarity to the original ones boils down to the looks themselves. Carenado is a capable developer team and I was really excited, when I've learnt that they're also going to make x-aircraft. Also I can see, that they are making a progress - at least in visual quality. But I would like to learn a bit more about their newest product, than "the plane is similar to the real one", before I spend my money. Afterall I'm looking for an addon to a flight simulator, not a virtual plane showcase - I prefer die-cast in that role. Unfortunately, they hadn't convinced me so far.

After a very brief search: "I’m not sure if the two problems are linked, but there would seem to be two fairly interesting issues with the flight model that need to be tackled in the first update!" Source (page 7): http://xplane10.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/carenado-mooney-m-20-j-review.pdf

Bonanza is one of the aircraft, that are very high on my "most wanted" list. The screenshots look very good, but I'm a little worried about this: "Features: [...] Similar behavior compared to the real airplane" I wonder, how much is "similar"? As I understand the meaning of this word - not much, as in "a cat is similar to a dog". I remember some issues with previous Carenado x-products' flight models, so I'd be glad to hear from you, how does it fly.

No need to take onto Atlantic Ocean in a jet for a few hours of fun YSSY - NZKT, 1093nm, Corvalis TT, 6h8 flight (6h30 total time - sim time, in fact that took a bit more real time). On GPS and autopilot, but the real trick was engine and fuel management for maximum efficiency. Real weather was used, with 20kts or so side wind. Landed with 4 gallons of fuel in one tank. PMDY - PADK, 1421nm, An-24, 5h36 flight (6h total time). Felis has modified the plane for me, to an extended range version (as also were done in real life - slightly bigger wing tanks). This time no GPS at all, no radionavigation, just pure ded reckon. I've only used radar drift indicator, as real weather was loaded, with side winds aloft. I've made it, but run out of fuel while taxiing to the ramp I did a little mistake and used standard cruise power setting, instead of maximum range one. One thing worth noting for this flight, is that An-24 has modelled real gyrocompass drift, as a function of time passing by and changing latitude. Since I was flying northbound, I had to manually adjust the gyro at predetermined positions. Add to that visible changes in magnetic declination, since the North Pole was close enough. It was the most precalculated and planned flight, I've ever performed. I do my "logbook flights" on free saturdays, so I have all the time necessary. Honestly, setting up an autopilot to fly along INS or GPS line is a bit boring (have you ever literally fallen asleep over a joystick? I did!), so I try to complicate things on long flights by either not using modern navigation or autopilot, to have something to occupy me all the time. Doing absolute maximum range flights without any room for error serves the same purpose

I have Saitek and I have to move it to the extremes before flight, so the software registers maximum deflections and "knows" where the stick is at the moment and what percentage of full travel it is. When I won't do that, it behaves exactly as you've described: over-sensitive and moving flight controls all over the place with a slightest touch. The same was the case with previous, cheaper models. Sometimes I also see no noise in stick response in calibration window, but feel it inside a sim. I don't know how or why but it just happens from time to time. Some aircraft are designed with non-linear steering input in mind and are hard to fly any other way. You can play with joystick settings or with the aircraft's control surfaces. I don't know what else could help. Maybe use another USB port? Or connect directly to a computer, instead of an USB hub, if that is the case? I remember reading, that hubs often mess with joysticks.

Good flying Simon! Just one observation, don't pull on the stick in turns, as you would do in a fixed wing By the way, did you know, that both birds can be broken by illiterate use of torque?

What joystick? Some are broken by design, others develop erratic potentiometer behaviour with time. Check hardware (custom joystick software if any, OS generic controller setup, inside the sim). What aircraft? Does it happen on a single one or all of them suffer from the same unwelcome behaviour? What flight conditions? Does it happen all the time or only during certain phases of flight? Set nullzone to zero and non-linearity to max and again check against above points. Did it help? Did it change anything? Some sticks need to be "self-calibrated" before flight, just move it in full circles to all of its extremes a couple of times, while on the ground, and then try to fly. Launch another sim or game and see if the stick works all right there.

You got me interested! For me, helicopter = turbine and my love for piston engines turning big propellers, or similar, ends with Bearcat and Lockheed Constellation. But that sounds very tempting I have a similar feeling, backed up with some real life data, even with all my enthusiasm for DF B206. However, that's what makes it challenging and interesting to fly, so I've elected to leave it that way, despite that tuning would take about one minute - never tried it though, so can't say, if it won't break anything else. Probably not. Huey with its stabiliser bar would be interesting to fly, compared to B206 and modern SAS-equipped birds.

Actually, I've never used any special training scenery, nor additional helicopter dedicated HUD addons. All I needed was a runway, as a reference frame, for basic handling and hovering, as well as traffic pattern (takeoff-climb, straight-and-level and approach-landing training in one exercise). Such parkour courses are for qualified pilots, who are bored and need some additional challenge, newbies will only get frustrated with them. As for me, when I wanted something extra, I've used natural sim features, like aircraft carriers, oilrigs, skyscrapers, mountain peaks (Mt. Hood for example ), bridges, canyons, roads (especially ones going through forests) and so on. It's fun to cruise in tight formation with road traffic! Yes, now I have rudder pedals, but I've learned to "fly" helicopters without them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3MBqbdEZ-w