Introduction In December 1945 the Beechcraft Bonanza V35 took off on its first test flight, with Beechcraft’s test pilot Vern Carstens at the controls. The Bonanza was unusual in that it had a “V” tail, with differential rudder/elevators, instead of the conventional fin/tail plane assembly. Structural failure caused the first prototype to crash in 1946, as the tail section separated from the aircraft during high-speed diving tests, unfortunately the pilot was killed, but the flight engineer on board survived the crash. After this accident, Walter Beech ordered structural modifications and extensive tests, and after completing 1500hrs of testing, the V35 Bonanza went into production in 1947. But the structural problems dogged the aircraft throughout its lifespan; the V35 Bonanza had a structural failure rate of 24 times more than its conventionally-tailed brother, the Debonair. The V35 Bonanza was very popular among doctors, and the legend has it that more doctors were killed by Bonanza crashes than heart attacks, but I’m not sure if it’s true. Due to the boom in private aviation after WW2 it was a good seller from the start, Beech had 1400 pre-orders before it even went into production, despite being relatively expensive in comparison to other aircraft available at the time. In 1947 it cost nearly $8000, which was a tidy sum in those days. But the comfort and performance were far better than anything that Cessna and Piper were producing at the time, and it sold like hot cakes. Another development of the Bonanza was the Mentor military trainer, with a conventional tail assembly, and a two-man tandem cockpit instead of the conventional cabin, as well as a strengthened landing gear and a host of other strengthening modifications. In September 1959, Beech brought out a conventionally-tailed cabin version, which they named Debonair. Until 1968 both the V-tailed and conventionally-tailed versions were produced side-by-side, in a bewildering number of different versions, with extended fuselages, more powerful engines etc. During the research for this review, I found at least 12 different versions, including the Turbo model, but not counting all of the sub-versions! In 1968 Beechcraft stopped production of the V-tailed version, and re-named the Debonair to A36 Bonanza, which is in fact basically the same aircraft you can still order today, and indeed very similar to the real A36 simulated by Dreamfleet. Beechcraft aircraft were never cheap, and these days a fully IFR-equipped A36 will set you back the thick end of $650,000 at today’s prices, and a 2 to 3 year old low-hour example will still cost you between $450,000 and $500,000. The cheapest one I could find for sale was a 1979 model for $155,000, still a lot of money, and that despite having over 3300hrs TT, a somewhat “used” interior, and no Garmin equipment. If you can’t quite stretch to that kind of money this month, I’ve got some good news for you: You can buy the Dreamfleet version tested here for a mere $24.95, which is a steal considering it’s fitted with RXP’s Garmin 430 GPS and WX500 weather radar, as well as Eaglesoft’s Sandel 3308 EHSI, which altogether would add over $70 extra to the cost if you had to buy them separately. The versions of these that come with the DF A36 are locked to this aircraft btw, if you want to use them in other FS aircraft, you’ll have to buy the stand-alone versions. Installation and Documentation The installation uses the Flight1 purchase wrapper, which, as long as you have a valid credit card and an internet connection, is a no-brainer. One small caveat though: During the install process, don’t be too impatient, the install process is in four stages. First the A36 itself, then the RXP avionics, then the Garmin trainer, and finally the latest version of Text-O-Matic. If you just keep on clicking on “next” till it’s all finished, it all works just fine though. After the install is complete, you’ll find a link to the manual on your desktop, and two folders in your FS\Aircraft folder: The standard version and the version fitted with tip-tanks. They are otherwise identical, even down to the flying characteristics. I always flew the tip-tank version during the test due to the extra range possibilities, 30 gallons extra is not to be sniffed at. And should you ever want to uninstall it, it’s a snap using the uninstaller in the system software folder. The documentation can only be described as excellent. The manual is in PDF format, and has everything you need to know about the aircraft. As well as notes on system performance, there are sections on the 2D and VC panels, the click spots and keyboard commands, extra sections for the Garmin GPS, weather radar and the Sandel EHSI etc. Also included are checklists, weight and performance charts, and a section on the configuration control panel. It even has an excellent tutorial for the AP (from a real and very experienced pilot, Peter McLeland, highly recommended), and all in all is an example of how manuals ought to be. This aircraft has some seriously cool features, and I recommend you read the manual from cover to cover. You can get away with the traditional FS method of “CTRL+E and then firewall the throttles”, but as this is a relatively complex and realistic simulation, it almost demands that you read the manual thoroughly to get the full use out of all the features.
Visual Model and Textures First of all, a quick zoom around the outside of the aircraft: Nice textures, very nice textures in fact, some of the best I’ve ever seen, with an amazing level of detail all over the place. Even the GPS antenna on the top of the fuselage has “Garmin” written on it, things like the cooling gills on the engine cowling are nicely detailed, the signs on the prop-blades are so good you can almost read them etc. All the exterior lights look real, with excellent strobe and beacon light effects, very realistic landing and taxi lights, and there are any amount of other details that are all as good as it’s possible to make them. Another
nice touch: The propeller animations are some of the best I’ve
ever seen up until now, really nice work. All this
is not really surprising when you know that it’s Mikko Maliniemi’s
work here, the well-known Gmax wizard. Mikko is top of my list of the “best
things to come out of Finland”, along with Sibelius, Nokia mobile
phones and the Leningrad Cowboys.
Panels and VC This is where the fun really starts for the hard-core flyers among us, in the “office” at the front left of the aircraft. This aircraft is actually modeled on a real A36, owned and flown by a lucky lady called Julie, and she has said that sitting in the sim version is just like sitting in the real one. After flying this version for 40 hrs or so, I’ve no reason to disbelieve her, the immersion factor is pretty amazing. I have any amount of GA singles for comparison in my FS hangar, but this one has taken it a step further up the line. With the A36, the only limiting factor is the lack of peripheral vision due to the monitor, and your own imagination.
This particular Bonanza is very well equipped, with a Garmin430 GPS, colour weather radar, a Sandel 3308 EHSI, a Bendix-King stack with twin Nav, twin Com, DME, Transponder, and a slightly simplified version of the Bendix-King KFC225 AP. (The only reason it’s been simplified a bit is to enable it to work properly with the standard FS AP variables, which don’t allow 100% functionality of the real life unit.)
About the only thing I missed on the equipment list was an espresso machine, and a Bose sound-system, but you can’t have everything I guess. But getting serious again, one of the very few things that differ from the real version is the fuel tank selector switch: A real A36 doesn’t have a position for selecting both tanks at once; you can only select left or right, but not both. Dreamfleet did this deliberately, as a work-around for the unrealistic way that FS simulates fuel imbalance, in real life caused by not swapping the tanks at regular intervals. This leads to lateral asymmetry (wing low in normal English), a condition which is greatly over-exaggerated in FS. I can certainly live with it, I’d even consider having the real one modded to work like this, if I could ever afford to buy one. The primary instruments and extra panels can all be popped-up with click spots, and if the tool-tips are enabled, you can lay the mouse pointer over the individual gauges to get a digital read-out of the gauge information. All very well thought out, and a joy to use.
The cockpit lighting is as good as I’ve ever seen it in FS, not too dark, not too bright, just the way it should be. I don’t think it’s possible to make the lighting any better than this until the FS engine is improved in the next version. It also has some other seriously cool equipment like the EDM700 EGT measurement gauge, which is a great tool for achieving optimum fuel burn at altitude, and as well as that it has a carbon monoxide detector, which is simulated as well as it can be in FS. No, it doesn’t simulate carbon monoxide fumes, and no, you’re not going to die if the engine exhaust heat-exchanger develops a crack. But it’s a lot of fun checking the test warning button, which is really loud, and scares my cat to death, as well as annoying my wife if she’s within hearing range, you can’t win ’em all. The 2D panel is crisp and very readable. I’d personally have preferred a darker cockpit panel colour, but this is a simulation of the real one, and that is beige too. Sorry guys, I’m just not a beige man at heart, I’d have ordered black, but that’s just me.
My personal preferences apart, the cockpit is a joy to the eye, and very easy to use. All the extra panels can be called up using the RXP drop-stack, or with keyboard commands, or indeed with mouse click spots, and you can even lock the drop-stack in the down position if necessary. It’s when you want to look around the 2D cockpit that you discover a seriously neat feature: With a series of click-spots you can do a 360° round the cockpit, in either direction. And the view you’ve selected stays put without having to hold the hat-switch in position, which is great for looking out left and right on final approach for instance. I loved it, as I’ve always hated having to use the hat-switch. But it’s when you change to the VC the fun really starts: Just about everything you can think of can be operated using the mouse to actuate click-spots. And I mean everything: Apart from all the switches, engine levers, instrument and avionics pop-ups etc, as you’d expect, there are a host of other things that you can operate with the mouse. Both yokes can be made to disappear with a click on the column, which is nice if you use a yoke and pedals like I do. The pilots storm window, both sun-visors, middle arm-rest, map compartment, rear seats(including the folding table between them), as well as that, both exits can be mouse-clicked open and closed, and you can also turn the reading lights on and off. For absolute perfection, I’d recommend buying Active Camera, if you don’t already have it.
The VC is very clear and with very good gauge refresh rates, it’s so good that it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between 2D and VC. I thought a few times I was in the 2D cockpit, and switched to what I thought would be the VC, only to find myself outside the aircraft looking at the fly-by mode, as in actual fact I’d been in the VC all the time. Those who know me will probably say: yeah, well, he’s over 50, and slowly losing his marbles, but I swear it’s hard to tell the difference between the two sometimes, which is really saying something about the quality of the VC. Avionics As already mentioned, this version is fitted with a Garmin430 GPS, and a Sandel 3308 EHSI, seriously nice equipment, which in real life will cost you an arm and a leg. The default FS9 GPS 500 is available too, although compared to the RXP Garmin it looks like a badly designed toy. It’s possible to change out the default FS GPS for a second Garmin unit if you have the stand-alone versions from RXP btw, and if you have the Pro expansion pack as well, you can actually use them together, with all the advantages that has: Increased redundancy for safety, cross-fill capabilities, and if you install the 530 as a second unit, you get a bigger screen to see what’s going on. The standard installation “as bought” is more than adequate however, and harmonizes perfectly with the AP. Flying ILS approaches with this aircraft is fun, and it all works so well it’s possible to auto-land if you want. Ok, the vertical speed of 500-600fpm results in some very..er…firm landings, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. Of course nobody would be crazy enough to do that in real life, (I hope), but it’s an illustration of how well the GPS and AP work together, and confirmation that the air file is spot on too. The radio stack is fitted with the Bendix-King equipment familiar to pilots the world over, enough to say that it all works as it should, and can be relied on at all times, like their real-world counterparts. Last, but not least, the A36 is of course equipped to be able to navigate with conventional VOR/DME navigation, for the traditionalists among us, or if the GPS is unavailable for any reason. Flight Model Well, here’s the part that makes or breaks an FS aircraft for me, and, to cut a long story short: The Dreamfleet A36 delivers the goods. The flight model is so well done you fly it without even thinking about whether it’s good or not, if you know what I mean. Like the real aircraft, when it’s fully-loaded it needs a fair amount of real estate to get off the ground: at MTOW at MSL, Beechcraft give a TO run of 1913ft, increasing to 4145ft at 5000ft elevation and 25°C, so you can see it’s not the ideal bush or hot and high operations aircraft by any means, although you can reduce the takeoff roll some by using the approach flap setting on takeoff, the normal TO procedure is without flaps. While we’re on the subject of weight: The A36, in common with almost all 4 - 6 place aircraft has a relatively small payload. This means that you can either load 4 (at a pinch 5) passengers plus pilot, or fill the tanks up to the brim, but not both at once. So the range varies considerably, depending on how you’ve allocated the payload. At one end of the scale Beechcraft gives a figure of 361NM with the pilot and 4 passengers, at the other end of the scale, 939NM with only a ferry pilot on board, up to a maximum of 1400NM with tip-tanks. This means that you have to think about fuel and passenger weight, stage-length and all that kind of stuff. In real life, if you get it wrong, you’re going to have problems, in FS it is just satisfying to do it right.
Normal 0° flap TO speed is given as 73knots at MTOW. It takes a firm pull on the yoke to get it to unstick, but once you’re out of the ground effect you will be initially be able to obtain a climb-rate of around 1200fpm at MTOW, which can be maintained up to about 4,000ft above SL, after which you’ll have to start reducing it progressively to keep the speed, but for a MTOW of over 3600lbs and only 300bhp, a respectable performance. For those who want to do it by the book, all the relevant performance charts are available in the manual. I wasn’t quite able to reach the claimed maximum height of 18500ft fully loaded, but I’d bet a real one can’t get up there at anywhere near max weight either. It’s a moot point really, as I would think the normal operating height is between 8 - 10,000ft, especially taking into account that the A36 isn’t pressurized. I’d guess the normal maximum height that they’re operated at is around 12,000ft, certainly from a fuel consumption point of view there isn’t any point in going any higher anyway. Anybody who wants to fly regularly over high mountains would buy a turbo-piston version or a turbine-engined aircraft instead; this kind of flight profile is not what the A36 is meant to be used for. In a typical flight profile, lets say with 4 people, and as much fuel as you can put in, up to the MTOW, and at a height of 10,000ft at 75% power, the A36 cruises at a moderately fast 135-140KIAS, and burning about 12,5-13,0 gal/h, which is a respectable performance for a GA non-turbo piston six-seater. After burning some fuel off you’ll perhaps get 5 -10k more, but that’s about it. If you want to travel significantly faster in a single engined 4 - 6 place GA aircraft, then you’re looking at turboprops like a Socata TB700 or Piper Meridian, which are of course in a different league, alone due to the operating and maintenance costs which turboprops bring with them, not to mention the purchase price. The A36 has a nice solid feel when hand-flying, and is easy to trim out to fly hands-off. The roll and pitch rates are responsive without being twitchy, the A36 has a lot of natural stability, which reduces the workload considerably when flying by hand in turbulent air, and also makes the AP’s job easier. The engine management is relatively simple, with the “lean find” on the EGT measurement gauge it’s a snap to set up the cruise mixture. Some attention is required when descending to avoid over-cooling the engine and over speeding at higher rates of descent, but the workload in the cockpit is never really high. The approach and landing in an A36 is not difficult if you get the numbers right, it’s a very stable and forgiving aircraft, and you always have a lot of “feed-back” to let you know what’s going on. The ground effect seems to be modeled at least to some extent, as far as is possible in FS, and it’s certainly possible to achieve “greaser” landings with a bit of practice, kudos for the cool “chirp” effect as the wheels touch btw, nicely done. I couldn’t really find any fault with any area of the flight envelope, it flies the way Beechcraft say it should, and has that indefinable “feel” that a good flight model has. Like I said at the beginning, it’s so good that you don’t think about it, you just fly and have fun. In conclusion, I think that the flight model is about as good as it’s possible to make it with the current version of FS; it’s just a buzz to fly.
Configuration Control This is a utility that allows you to do all kinds of things, including reducing the level of detail in the VC, should you be having performance problems, changing the interior sound level, and all kinds of eye candy to turn on and off when you want to do the walk-round, including removing the pilot, and opening the engine cowlings etc. Contrary to some other utilities of this type, all the changes can be done “on the fly”, and take immediate effect from within FS, which is much more comfortable than having to shut down FS, and then re-start it again after making the changes. I didn’t actually notice any performance difference after turning off all the eye candy to be honest, although I’d say anyway that this aircraft is so nice, if you have to start turning off all the eye candy to get acceptable frame rates, you should maybe consider buying a more powerful computer instead! Performance With my system, which at best could be described as upper middle range, I could run it with all the eye candy enabled and still get smooth performance. Although the fps sometimes went down as low as 16-18fps at busy airports with lots of AI and detailed scenery, or with heavy clouds etc, most of the time I was getting 25-30fps (locked at 30fps), with 70% AI and all the sliders in FS nearly full right. And despite the frames sometimes under 20fps, it was always smooth, without any stuttering at all. The difference in performance between 2D and VC was hardly noticeable, and due to this, and the “click ability” of the VC, it’s possible to fly from the VC all the time, to achieve the maximum immersion effect. Summary As you can probably guess by now, I loved this one. It has raised the bar, and at the moment has set the standard by which other GA singles will be judged, until somebody raises the bar again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
