• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

CARENADO RELEASES F33A BONANZA FOR FSX!!

Kiwikat said:
Yes, of a 225 HP Bonanza... This one has like 25% more power.

The F33 will not take 2500 feet to take off. What one pilot says doesn't matter. Everyone else and other sources (manuals, guides, forum posts) all point that he is wrong along with Carenado's flight model. HIS Bonanza might take 2500 feet, but the F33 does not. :salute:

I am really awaiting some movement by Carenado.
Click to expand...

Undeniable points made there!

However, consider one possible partial explanation. Sometimes, manufacturers flat out lie and they lie most often when publishing the performance tables. They do say in the manuals that the takeoff distance is considered a best case outcome with a test pilot intimately familiar with the optimal procedures. However, your earlier point is that we are talking about over twice the runway distance and no manual is that much in a lie!

I could understand the FDS requiring 1,500 feet takeoff run vice 1,000, but not 2,500 vice the 1,000 out of the manual. And furthermore, while I have not flown a Bonanza, I have to agree that 2,500 feet takeoff roll is very long.

I'm also confident based upon the facts you understand that you tested this out on a runway near sea level and a density altitude near normal. Because it would take a wide deviation from either to account for such a gross inflation.

Ken


Ken
 
Ken Stallings said:
Undeniable points made there!

However, consider one possible partial explanation. Sometimes, manufacturers flat out lie and they lie most often when publishing the performance tables. They do say in the manuals that the takeoff distance is considered a best case outcome with a test pilot intimately familiar with the optimal procedures. However, your earlier point is that we are talking about over twice the runway distance and no manual is that much in a lie!
Click to expand...
Is your 310 that far off? I've found in GA that if I plan to the T and account for everything I'm supposed to, it's usually pretty close. Mind you I don't have a jillion hours in barons and 310s like you, but I usually rely on published performance data. That's what it's there for. If I think there's some age related mechanical issue, I just won't fly. Those days are over for me.

Ken Stallings said:
I'm also confident based upon the facts you understand that you tested this out on a runway near sea level and a density altitude near normal. Because it would take a wide deviation from either to account for such a gross inflation.
Click to expand...
I don't think it'd be too far off to assume that simmers aren't acounting for density altitude.
 
Ken Stallings said:
I'm also confident based upon the facts you understand that you tested this out on a runway near sea level and a density altitude near normal. Because it would take a wide deviation from either to account for such a gross inflation.
Click to expand...

KATW (and the surrounding area) is less than 1000 feet ASL. I was testing with usually clear and sometimes fair weather defaults.
 
Hi

I have both and I am happy with both (FSD V and the F33)

If I have to go for one only then the Carenado.And they made many nice things

To name one -->the Non 3d Knobs Interior which I tweaked to Sandel and Avidine already,as was the last G36 I have flown some time ago

Also I imported the 2D panel of there original F33(easier to dial in the AP etc) which works perfect too

FDE most of you are right FSD is better ,but with the tweaks here it is OK.I also think that the CG is a bit too much forward.

Roland

By the way Carenado also will launch a V tail version(have an Email)

Roland
 
Looks nice! Anybody making a USAF sensor relay QU-22 Pave Eagle paint? The usaf machine did not look exactly the same due to its reworked engine/prop speed-reduction gear system, lots of antennas, wing tanks etc, but I believe this model still can be used for making a nice Pave Eagle representation to be flown from NKP together with the skyraiders :)

Regards
Jens-Ole
 
By chance does this one come with a paint kit or just a set of blank textures?

Russ
 
PRB said:
This simmer does. And I'm not very smart, so that means most others probably are too.
Click to expand...

You're pulling my leg. You keep an air density altitude chart AND aircraft specific takeoff performance charts with you and use them for every takeoff in FSX?

skepticalhippo.jpg
 
Based on my understanding of aerodynamics, Im thinking even in this sim this would be a big issue to tackle......but anyone have a clue how to adjust the stall characteristics? Hopefully theres something simple...?
 
piperarcherpilot said:
Based on my understanding of aerodynamics, Im thinking even in this sim this would be a big issue to tackle......but anyone have a clue how to adjust the stall characteristics? Hopefully theres something simple...?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything simple about adjusting AIR files. That's why truly talented devs who can do it are in short supply, and always in demand. Ask Pam (warchild) about it... ;)
 
Last Tweaks (I think)

Here are my last tweaks...

First off, for those who have them:
bonanzalights.jpg


[lights]
light.0 = 3, -1.4, -15.4, 1.7, Fx_shockwave_navred,
light.1 = 3, -1.4, 15.4, 1.7, Fx_shockwave_navgre,
light.2 = 5, 5.2, 0.0, 0.39, Fx_shockwave_landing_light_small_xenon,
light.3 = 2, -1.0, -15.2, 1.6, Fx_shockwave_strobe,
light.4 = 2, -1.0, 15.2, 1.6, Fx_shockwave_strobe,
light.5 = 1, -9.6, 0.4, 3.325, Fx_shockwave_beaconh,
light.6 = 10, -2.0, 0, 2.50, fx_vclightefetres

And the rest:

[weight_and_balance]
empty_weight = 2125 //Don't remember original
empty_weight_pitch_MOI = 3500 //4100
empty_weight_yaw_MOI = 4000 //4500

[flight_tuning]
pitch_stability =1.05 //1.0
roll_stability =1.05 //1.0
parasite_drag_scalar =0.95 //0.8
elevator_effectiveness =0.85 //1.25

[propeller]
thrust_scalar=1.0 //0.8

[Flaps.0]
drag_scalar = 1.8 //2.4

Enjoy! :wavey:
 
Can you use the shockwave lights that come with the B-17 or do you have to buy the light package to use them on other planes?
 
Anybody else notice water droplets on the prop when it's raining? :applause:

Below are some shots with Maui X and REX2.0
 
Kiwikat said:
I still don't know what you mean, even after you posted 10 screenshots. :toilet:
Click to expand...

I'm going way out on a limb here, but I bet he's refering to ... water droplets on the prop when it's raining...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top