Ok, so I bought this plane and I have installed the RXP gauges and GPS. I must say that I love this product! Thanks to Bert and all of you others that has helped me set it up! I followed the Angle of Attack setup, so thanks to them too!
However, I can't get my panel lights to work after I have removed the 3D knobs. The GPS does light up, but not the other gauges. Anyone else with this problem or some thoughts?
Hi,
I am just learning about the V35B and have some difficulties following the checklists. Specifically, it appears that the checklist is close to that of the real plane but not all items are implemented in FSX. For instance, I couldn't find the control lock or the static pressure button. Is there a list of items that are not implemented?
Thanks,
Peter
OK this is a new one to me. I think I need an aircarft mechnic. I have been flying the C208 for years and all of a sudden today it wont fire the engine. I mean the starter sound is there and I have normal indications but the engine wont start. It sounds as if I am out of gas but the tanks are full and I am moving the condition lever to mid way after a few seconds.... This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. no other AC in my hanger has this problem. Also, to make matters more strange if I start a difference AC and then switch to the C208 the engine is running and if I kill the engine and try to restart it it starts right up.
The only thing I did was make a small change to the breaks in the aircraft.cfg file but I dont see how that could have been the issue. Anyone got any ideas.???
regards,
Tom
Hey guys,
Has anyone ever attempted to improve the Archer FDE? I asked Bernt about it and he said he was unable to do it due to his schedule which is very understandable.
The Archer is otherwise a rather enjoyable little plane which could be made even better with some FDE tuning. I really enjoy using it basic IFR navigation practice.
If anyone needs for FDE tuning, I have a Piper Cadet POH. The Cadet is basically a Warrior built for flight schools, The Warrior has 20less HP than the Archer. There are also a few Archer POHs in PDF format found online.
Cheers
TJ
Is Bernt Stolle doing the FDE for this?
I have happy memories of the Mirage from the days of "Fly!", so it could be my first Carenado purchase in a while.
Does anyone know where to find one? Having trouble with the Nav 1/approach. Either something is not visible in the VC or there is some buttons I can't find.
I was wondering if its possible to add a GPS 530 gauge to the VC panel over on the right top corner. Would I have to make a new V. cockpit section in the panel cfg and a blank 1024 x 1024 bmp for it?
The rectangular area is where I want to put the GPS.
As the title states, I'm trying to figure out how to remap (enlarge / increase dimensional area) for textures on specific parts of the aircraft model.
I have started repainting aircraft again to match themes of aircraft I'm around in real life. I'm running into an issue with the legacy aircraft like the carenado 152 and 172 where the texture plate for the mirrored or reversed N number on the opposite side of the aircraft is too small for use with my accurate N number design on the main texture. Please see my attachments for an example of this. I'm trying to find out how to go about remapping the texture image using a larger image that can support a mirror slice from my design. Maybe from another texture file all together? I'm not exactly sure where to start. So far my searching has yielded little results for this specific problem. I did happen to come across ModelConverterX (which is amazing), but I'm not sure what I want to accomplish can be done using this program. If it can, I just don't know how.
Does anybody have any tips or advice? (besides making the N number smaller fit within the little space).
Hi guys,
as per subject and already mentioned in the FDE thread Carenado released the Malibu Mirage
http://www.carenado.com/CarSite/Portal/index.php?accion=product&correl=106
Cheers,
Mark
I noticed that the red and green landing gear indicator lights are not illuminated when the gear are down. (or up)
I'm using EZDOK, REX and RealityXP GPS, but no other mods.
Has anyone seen this before?
Thanks
Just logged about 25 hours recently in this model. During a long flight, with time to mess around, I thought to myself... What if my RXP GNS530 failed. I certainly still have a working NAV2 radio and instrument. But I went over the panel with a fine tooth comb and could not find a way to toggle the autopilot to NAV2. The documentation is paltry. Is there a way to do this that I have missed?
Well, after realising that I'm still flying my JetProp very regularly (which points to liking her a lot), I was wondering what could be done to enhance the current PT6A-21 model. FLIGHTO actually made the point some time ago.
So what would a PT6A-35 powered JetProp give you?
First of all, that's 'just' another variant of the engine already running. The rough description would be that the -35 is much better at altitude. And that's the regime the JetProp should be flying the most, right? As to how much better, the comparison charts are available at JetProp, LLC. The rw planes after 2003 or so all came with the -35 to my knowledge.
But lets look at some specs.
FL240, ISA temps (-32.5°C)
-21: max safe torque is 700ft-lb resulting in 230KTAS
-35: can run 800 fine and gives you 242KTAS, or 254KTAS at 900
FL 270, ISA temps (-38.5°C)
-21: max save torque down to 600ft-lb, 222KTAS
-35: can run 800 or even 900ft-lb safely, giving you 250KTAS or even 262KTAS
The fuel burn at altitude also is better with the -35, so, at the same torque level, the -35 uses ~2gal/hr less and produces a better range.
With the following edits to the aircraft.cfg of yours, you will receive proper speed and fuel burn values at altitude. Mind you that the top speeds may need a rather light plane, but the torque vs fuel burn should be ok. I've always tested them with 50% fuel and with the clear weather preset of FSX, resulting in a 'standard day' with zero winds. Perfect conditions. TAS therefore equals GS. If you are testing with rw weather, results may differ slightly.
Only gains, no downsides?
Well, I think that the forum section already offers a glimpse on how mixed up the default FSX/P3D engine model is. For example, the fuel burn rates at altitude (cruise regime) can be fine tuned to match the rw charts. But, when flying lower or e.g. idling at the taxiway, you are really far away from realistic fuel burn rates.
An example? Well, expect everything above FL200 to be fine. Everything below will result in a too low fuel burn. But, at FL180, this error might just be around max 5% (or less). Idle, at the airport, you are more than 50% off (too low) from rw values though. The fun thing is, one could tune the engine model to this regime (idle, low alt) and it would, again, match the rw values. But then the high altitude would be that far off. See the problem? FSX is static when it comes to applying the fuel burn related values, there's no room for allowing 'high altitude' turbines to develop their talent without mixing up the low alt values.
In short, low alt = bad match for our JetProp. Hey, the default model is the same and my guess is that most of the FSX addons with turbine engines suffer from the FSX basis. Maybe some dll can intercept a default FSX or a fully external model but that's beyond my scope.
The actual changes.
We are looking at the aircraft.cfg. Find it at SimObjects\Airplanes\Carenado P46T Malibu JetProp DL and backup the current one.
[GeneralEngineData] fuel_flow_scalar = 1.09 //Scalar for fuel flow efficiency (from 1.4) [propeller] thrust_scalar = 1.15 //Propeller thrust scalar (from 1.0) [TurbineEngineData] static_thrust = 30 //Lbs, max rated static thrust at Sea Level (from 75) [turboprop_engine] power_scalar = 1.37 //Scalar on Turboprop power (from 1.0)
Change those values (they are already there, no adding, please) and save the file under the same name. In case you wanted to ask, the lower static thrust takes care of any too high idle thrust resulting from the now strengthened engine. If I got that right, the taxi behaviour should be the same as well as the idle 'disc' effect, allowing a slowdown of the plane.
That's it, this should enable an increased takeoff performance closer to the real -35 plane and the mentioned higher cruise speeds with accurate fuel burn rates (above FL200). I'm sure you will be able to climb in no time since the average climb rates also increased. Same as in the charts, I've always used 2200(prop)rpm.
Yes, you will actually cruise a lot closer or even right at the barber pole some more. That's by design and you may already have encountered this characteristic with the -21 model, being at low altitude. As for how the JetProp should be flown, here's the official text.
The Malibu was designed to fly high and fast and so we operate these aircraft mostly in this flight regime. Even on a one hour flight, it is common to go up to FL210-220 to obtain the high speed and fuel efficiency specific to these altitudes.
With 172KIAS, you are right at the limit at FL270 to receive those 262KTAS. The G500 will therefore love your way of flying the red line. 
Can we improve some more, since we're on it?
Yes. I mean no. I mean sorta. We are seeing the same strange behaviour with some other FSX values. For example, the ITT is reversed. A real turbine would be torque limited at low altitude and ITT limited at high FL. In FSX, we are looking at the opposite. 
From my testing runs, I was so happy to tune a 'redline' ITT at cruise altitude and the climb. Well, after feeling like a god of engine model tuning, I ran a test at sea level. Guess what. Completely useless tuning. You couldn't even develop half of the takeoff torque without getting a warning on too high ITT. Back to the drawing board. Back to the conclusion, that I can't change the default FSX model and back to the note on a lot of payware addons actually also showing this downside.
Does it spoil the fun? Only if you are flying gauges instead of planes. But honestly, yes, I would love to see better ITT values. I can't.
Extra edits.
Ok, I performed a bit of work on the air file and I think I could sort of enhance the oil temps. They are read in °Fahrenheit in the cockpit (which is interesting since e.g. the ITT reads in °Celsius) and one could enhance them to more normal levels. Now our engine isn't very challenging when it comes to oil temps. It's not running at its max power output and, from reading, I think the JetProp cowling allows for enough airflow. So what you are seeing would be just a bit more, instead of those default 84°F more of 140°F+.
I think P&W are happy up to about 230°F (110°C) which I never reached while testing. So you are still within the limits, which is what I would expect from the real plane. In case you've wondered, no, the switch for the oil cooler doesn't do much in the sim. The real one should. As for the behaviour of the temps. Well, idling on the ground raises them, same for high power climbs and the cruise portion with higher settings.
ITT you ask? Didn't you read the text before? 
Now I've tried to raise the ITT at cruise a bit. A bit. Also means that the takeoff value now is closer to redline but should still allow for the max torque of the engine. Remember, it's stronger now so this new maximum might indeed be a much higher perceived maximum when you are tuned to the -21 model.
That's the last part I wanted to mention, the throttle (actually power lever) behaviour. I took a long look at it and changed it slightly but we are still facing a stronger engine now, so what previously caused 1% more throttle now calls for a larger thrust change. In the static world of FSX, prop and turbine 'power' received a significant upgrade, that's the reason behind it. 1% of the new engine are different than 1% of the old one. But I think she still is very flyable in the pattern. If you had spiking throttles though.. might not be easy.
If there's interest in the air file changes, I can place a link here. I will add a copyright notice or something to make clear that it's from Carenado, plus my edits. Something like that. Just ask. Means if anyone is still around.
Hello, everyone!
Can anyone please clarify a bit of mystery for me?
Here is a texture sheet. You can easily see the REG number painted on the wing.
And here are two shots of this livery in the sim. Where did the REG number gone? I tried different liveries, but all lack reg numbers on the wings in the sim, while they are present when viewed through Imagetool.
Hi all,
Hope someone can help; I bought my Baron 58 a while back, and until now have always flown it straight from the aircraft selection screen with the engines already running. This time I want to do a start from cold and dark, but can't for the life of me figure out how to get the engines started! I've turned on the battery and alternator, as well as the fuel selectors, and the cockpit is completely dead. I know I must be doing something wrong here but I've tried everything and am at a loss! If one of you Baron veterans can lend a hand I'd be really grateful!
Cheers,
Tim
Why our panel lights are too bright to see the darkness of the night? Many developers include on their projects the dimmable panel lights, others will do it on future like
"Carenado", but we can not still flying without looking throug the window.
Take a look to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbwdzZ1cGdU
Here is the Malibu with the panel lights at 5 %.
Please developers add dimmable panel lights option to make our flights more realistic.
Thank you.
Hi All,
Can't believe I've just discovered the C337, came on it by accident after a less-than-impressed experience with the new Carenado 206, and have to agree its a really beautiful bird - great dynamics, immersive cockpit and friendly framerates to boot.
I did see that there's a fix from Bert Pieke for the "Com" mislabel on the panel though, PM'd Bert to get it but perhaps he's not as active on the forums these days. I was wondering if anyone might have the "Nav" texture fix they could eMail to me? My address is joeldelman@mac.com
Thanks in advance, much appreciated!
Best,
Joel
