The Navigraph navdata doesn't indicate whether any approaches are WAAS or not.

Ed,Ok, that sound like a difference.KLAS 1R = RNAVKLAS 19L = RNAV/WAASNavigraph does not know which approach is a WAAS certified approach.But, the approach waypoints and altitudes for both approaches is correct in Navigraph.So, why the need to distinguish between the two?Is it internal to the Citations' FMC/FMS?So, does the data from Navigraph get overwritten/updated by the downloaded data from Citation to make corrections to the RNAV approaches so they include WAAS data?

Because the ARINC data, which all FMS systems utilize distinguish between WAAS and non-WAAS approaches... IF they understand a WAAS approach to begin with. However, the Navigraph data does not designate any approaches as being WAAS. Period.

Ed,Thanks for the additional technical support on this item.The part that confused me was the fact that I seen the RNAV approaches in the Navigraph database.But now I know they are all only RNAV approaches.Some should be WAAS designated approaches for the Mustang.Now if I understand you correctly.Navigraph supplies their Citation customers with all the normal SID/STARs/Airports/Waypoints/Navaids/Fixes and approaches. But does not supply the WAAs approaches.Then Citation owners have to download all the WAAS approaches from another source.

No... Navigraph doesn't provide WAAS to any FS addon databases. Period. Has nothing to do with the aircraft.

Ed,Thanks for the correction.I think I am understanding it better now.Navigraph does not provide WAAS approaches.So, any FS addon that needs WAAS approaches has to get that data form another source. Period.

Ed,Thanks for the correction.I think I am understanding it better now.Navigraph does not provide WAAS approaches.So, any FS addon that needs WAAS approaches has to get that data form another source. Period.

Ed is correct...Navigraph does NOT include WAAS approaches; I raised this issue with them in their forum but without success to date, although they said they would look into the issue. I suspect that Navigraph doesn't include them because WAAS approaches for a long time were available only in the mainland USA, for the most part. That's changing, though, and soon, this GPS-based LPV approach will be available in many other countries.

KLAS 1R = RNAV

Actually you have 3 types of approaches on that chart - LPV, LNAV and CIRCLING. Only LPV requires WAAS equipment.

Ed is correct...Navigraph does NOT include WAAS approaches; I raised this issue with them in their forum but without success to date, although they said they would look into the issue. I suspect that Navigraph doesn't include them because WAAS approaches for a long time were available only in the mainland USA, for the most part. That's changing, though, and soon, this GPS-based LPV approach will be available in many other countries.

Rudi,Thanks for your input here.Originally, F1 Citation had no procedures, no Navigraph.Later I heard they got it.So, not knowing any different, I assumed it fully supported the F1 Citations G1000 system.Including the newest WAAS/LPV/LNAV/VNAV stuff for the many airports that use it today.But, after many questions/answers I now see that no aircraft gets WAAS support from Navigraph.So, my guess was that the lacking item is a software field that needs marking to tell the FMS that this is a WAAS procedure.Meaning ... follow the final approach altitudes down to minimums.Everything else is there, including the WAAS approach waypoint altitudes.So I see in the current Navigraph RNAV (non-WAAS) approach at KLAS 1R is:APPTR,R01R,01R,BOACHIF,BOACH,35.678228,-115.294689, ,0.0,0.0,2,6900,0,1,0,0,0,0TF,CAKNU,35.795000,-115.326600,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,2,6900,0,1,0,0,0,0APPTR,R01R,01R,SKEBRIF,SKEBR,35.757158,-115.575572, ,0.0,0.0,2,6900,0,1,0,0,0,0TF,CAKNU,35.795000,-115.326600,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,2,6900,0,1,0,0,0,0FINAL,R01R,01R,C,5IF,CAKNU,35.795000,-115.326600, ,0.0,0.0,1,6900,0,1,0,0,0,0TF,FEBET,35.871953,-115.282875,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,2,6300,0,1,0,0,0,0TF,KIBSE,35.941947,-115.243022,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,5100,0,1,0,0,2,0TF,GALNE,35.992206,-115.214361,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,2,4000,0,1,0,0,0,0TF,RW01R,36.075467,-115.166786,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,2220,0,1,0,0,3,1CA,0,10.0,2,2581,0,1,0,0,0,0DF,JIBIB,36.134500,-115.132989,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0TF,WAMUD,36.102458,-114.969945,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,6000,0,1,0,0,0,0TF,BLD,35.995784,-114.863567,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,6000,0,1,0,0,0,0HM,BLD,35.995784,-114.863567,2,BLD,0.0,0.0,330.0,05,1,6000,0,1,0,0,0,0,0What would it take to make this a "WAAS approach".

Our understanding is that the F1 WAAS support is their own "recipe" custom built for Mustang owners at no extra cost.Jim is welcome to correct me if this not accurate. I think he mentioned that the "no extra cost" might be subject to change in the future but again Jim is the authority on that so I'm only going by what I read in some past post. As to our product, the real world counterpart does not support WAAS so for us at least, the question is moot. :( Hope this helps.

What would it take to make this a "WAAS approach".

This is purely software/implementation issue within the F1's Citation Mustang. You would have to ask their developers.

In looking back at the aircraft that share the Navigraph database for the above RNAV (non-WAAS) example:F1 Cheyenne, Fokker, Mustang and Super 80 Pro.

Hello there,If you are looking for a light twin, the Aerosoft DHC-6 Twin Otter is the way to go. It comes on skis, floats, and wheels, and is highly detailed and accurate in its flight dynamics and model. The VC is great, and it barely drops FPS. Definitely the way to go. For the BizJet, ©ommercial (L)evel (S)imulations have their own business jet, not sure what kind it is. I don't have it but it is supposedly good and low priced.Best Regards,Jon

Greetings all.I'm in the market for a payware light twin add on for FSX and just wanted opinions on which one's best in terms of realism.I also miss my old classic GMAX 747-200 for FS9 - is there anything similar for FSX?And while I'm asking, I'm also going to be looking for a BizJet add on at some point too!Many thanks for indulging my sudden plethora of questions.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Digital Aviation Cheyenne as a twin selection.As for the Bizjet the Eaglesoft CX 2.0 is very nice.

The SibWings Bird Dog would be nice. :(

Thanks guys, the RealAir Duke does look good!I shall be going shopping :( Just remembered the name - it was the Ready for Pushback 747 I had many years ago. The CLS one does look nice, but I do like detailed systems modeling.

The CLS model isn't much but simply put, it's not one of those POSKY aircraft that take-off so easily! Well, you'll have to wait for any future models for the 742. In the meantime, the CLS 742/743 model is the only option for FSX.