Aviation Consumer - Cessna 340

[Les Parson 99]

The following is must reading for the seriously motivated. According to the document, the previously reported fuel quantity "bug" between the MAIN and AUX tanks isn't a bug at all. Astonishingly, the tip fuel tanks are actually considered to be the "MAINS"!. It's unfortunate FSX limitations don't permit the fuel complexities as described in the document. However, I don't believe the Carenado model includes fuel tank selection other than to observe quantities. On a separate topic, I assume the Carenado C340 is modeled from the Cessna 340A rather than the basic 340. While the airfile makes reference to the 285 HP engines per the basic 340, other numbers point towards the model being the 340A. In any case, I have not located any reference to a "340 II" in the real world as described by Carenado. http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/34_2/usedaircraftguide/5317-1.html

[Lmaire 38]

I had the same question, which version are we flying. I could find nothing about C340 II. There is 340 (285HP), 340A (310HP) 340IV (325HP) and 340VI (335HP). Could somebody tell me which one we are flying exactly?Thanks and regards

[Ty53650 1]

I had the same question, which version are we flying. I could find nothing about C340 II. There is 340 (285HP), 340A (310HP) 340IV (325HP) and 340VI (335HP). Could somebody tell me which one we are flying exactly?Thanks and regards

Basically the 340 II and III were marketing schemes by Cessna. They are identical airframes but offered different avionics packages. Most people these days would not refer to a 340 as a II or III, as you'd be hard pressed to find a II or III which contained all it's original avionics. As far as the RAM IV, VI, VII, those are aftermarket engine performance upgrades. I believe the Carenado model is based on a 340A. Hope this helps!

[Lmaire 38]

Basically the 340 II and III were marketing schemes by Cessna. They are identical airframes but offered different avionics packages. Most people these days would not refer to a 340 as a II or III, as you'd be hard pressed to find a II or III which contained all it's original avionics. As far as the RAM IV, VI, VII, those are aftermarket engine performance upgrades. I believe the Carenado model is based on a 340A. Hope this helps!

Could Carenado confirm this information..Thanks

[Ty53650 1]

Could Carenado confirm this information..Thanks

If I remember correctly, they only marketed the 340A as either a II or III.

[n4gix 4,947]

The following is must reading for the seriously motivated. According to the document, the previously reported fuel quantity "bug" between the MAIN and AUX tanks isn't a bug at all. Astonishingly, the tip fuel tanks are actually considered to be the "MAINS"!.

That document can't be read without a "subscription," but essentially that is correct. The wingtip tanks for Cessna twins have always been the "main tanks," with the (optional) wing locker bladder-tanks being used as auxillary tanks.In the MilViz C310R the tip tanks are set up as per the real aircraft.

[Les Parson 99]

That document can't be read without a "subscription," but essentially that is correct. The wingtip tanks for Cessna twins have always been the "main tanks," with the (optional) wing locker bladder-tanks being used as auxillary tanks.In the MilViz C310R the tip tanks are set up as per the real aircraft.

[Triggrman 0]

Yea, but the Milviz 310 has the worst lighting bugs I've ever seen in FSX. At least with Carenado they can fix their issues, unlike Milviz, who say they know about the bug, but won't fix it because it's cost to repair is not financially viable......

[n4gix 4,947]

Yea, but the Milviz 310 has the worst lighting bugs I've ever seen in FSX. At least with Carenado they can fix their issues, unlike Milviz, who say they know about the bug, but won't fix it because it's cost to repair is not financially viable......

But me no buts. The C310R has the same exact "lighting bugs" (your words) as the the oh so well-received Lotusim L-39 Albatross......yet not one single person has ever complained about that release! :( In simple fact, every aircraft using the 3d lighting technique has the same "lighting bugs!" The proximate cause is FSX's inability to properly z-bias the fog layer however, not the aircraft models.Incidentally, I invested many hours engineering a FIX for the "lighting bugs" and a FREE UPDATE for registered owners will be made available within the next week. :( Edited January 17, 2011 by n4gix

[n4gix 4,947]

Thanks for the link to the PDF. That was a very informative article!

[Ty53650 1]

According to the document, the previously reported fuel quantity "bug" between the MAIN and AUX tanks isn't a bug at all. Astonishingly, the tip fuel tanks are actually considered to be the "MAINS"!

With the mains topped (50 gal/side) and the fuel quantity selector switch set to Aux, the gauge will show 50 gal/side. Where as the Aux tanks can only hold 31.5 gal/side. The switch is simply reversed. Certainly not THAT big of deal, but also seems like something that wouldn't be too much trouble to fix.

[JPH1786 0]

One thing I found interesting about that article is that it says power-off the 340 drops like a rock. Carenado's certainly does NOT drop like a rock when you pull the power!

[Triggrman 0]

But me no buts? So in your words, if there are no complaints, then what's to fix. LOL................................

[n4gix 4,947]

But me no buts? So in your words, if there are no complaints, then what's to fix. LOL................................

Not at all, it's simply my way of pointing out the fundamental unfairness of damning this particular product......while completely ignoring the pioneer product's exact same "lighting bug..." Aside from which, the information you posted is outdated. I've never been one to rush out an instant "fix" for every reported problem. Within the first two weeks of release I did find and fix a half-dozen very minor issues that slipped through testing, and compiled two updates.As it happens though it took me several hundred hours to identify the cause of this final issue and engineer a fix......a fix I've since freely shared with all other developers, since everyone using this technique has the same problem!

[Ty53650 1]

Thanks you for spending your valuable time coming up with a fix! Much appreciated. Certainly above and beyond the call of duty on your part.