OK.. I've done a few tests.. I didn't have problems recovering from stalls in either full landing config or regular flying.. I had no problems recovering from a turning or a regular stall within a few hundred feet if I reacted immediately to the stall warning and yea.. if I tried to hold my altitude until the nose went down and I went plumetting like a lawn dart towards the Firth of Forth? Once I throttled up completely, I did need to be at about 140kts before the plane would respond and allow me to pull out of the stall and I'd lost about 1500ft. (I'm not a real world pilot but the way I see it.. it's my own dumb arse fault for not responding sooner to the airplane's warnings). It is a challenging plane to fly and a friend of mine who is a pilot, when I mentioned to him years ago that I've always loved the baron, told me "If I was gonna buy one I'd get a Bonanza.. more stable, easier to fly and safer" and he also mentioned he'd had a friend who'd died because his baron had an engine go out on take off and well.. crash!! I've gotta say.. I love Carenado's planes. I've owned quite a few for FS2K4 and now the 2 that I've bought for FSX I really like (The Baron and the Cessna 182 with retractable gear.. thought I was buying the fixed gear one but oh well.. it was on sale). I want it to be hard.. so yea.. the risk of stalling while flaring for landing and not paying enough attention to your altitude is perfect for me (in my humble opinion). So real pilots, seriously, with all due respect.. cool.. sorry it's not 'as real as it gets'.. but to me.. it's a game.. and the more interesting/challenging the better. Haha! I say thanks Carenado for a beautiful, stable, frame rate friendly plane that yea.. is a little stall prone but you know what? It keeps me on my toes.. kudos.

As someone who flew a Bonanza for 11 years and then a Baron for 7 I'd have to disagree with what your friend said. A Baron because of its greater weight is much more stable than a Bonanza. As for ease of flying-they both fly great-why Beechcraft of any kind are much sought after by pilots because of this. Any light twin can be a handful if an engine is lost-but the Baron of all the light twins has the best single engine performance by far. Pilots can also die when their single engine airplanes had an engine go out too...not sure I'd take that as a litmus test-though training and currency with procedures is much more of a factor with a light twin.A Baron will want to lift off at red line-you actually have to hold it down to keep it from doing so-but the Carenado will stall and mush even at 90 knts which is vx. That is the first incorrect stall problem. The other qualities you mention are also not correct. Hopefully Bstolle's fix will be released as a patch as it improves lots greatly.I still like the bird and all of the Carenado aircraft.

As someone who flew a Bonanza for 11 years and then a Baron for 7 I'd have to disagree with what your friend said. A Baron because of its greater weight is much more stable than a Bonanza. As for ease of flying-they both fly great-why Beechcraft of any kind are much sought after by pilots because of this. Any light twin can be a handful if an engine is lost-but the Baron of all the light twins has the best single engine performance by far. Pilots can also die when their single engine airplanes had an engine go out too...not sure I'd take that as a litmus test-though training and currency with procedures is much more of a factor with a light twin.A Baron will want to lift off at red line-you actually have to hold it down to keep it from doing so-but the Carenado will stall and mush even at 90 knts which is vx. That is the first incorrect stall problem. The other qualities you mention are also not correct. Hopefully Bstolle's fix will be released as a patch as it improves lots greatly.I still like the bird and all of the Carenado aircraft.

Hi Geofa!Good to hear more about the Baron. I've loved this plane since FS2002. Hopefully like you said Carenado will use the fix and make it more true to life. I still like the plane even if it's not 'real'. haha.. but like I said.. not a real world pilot so as a gamer.. the more challenging the more fun for me. :) Thanks again for your insight though!

Hopefully Bstolle's fix will be released as a patch as it improves lots greatly.

talked to them but AFAIK they are not going to release an additional patch

talked to them but AFAIK they are not going to release an additional patch

Hi bstolleCan you share the fix with us here?

Just pm me your e-mail and I'll send it to you ASAP :)As you have most probably noticed, guys like paul_smith seem to know that I don't have the solution.Until Carenado officially approves and uploads the updated file I distribute them only via e-mail.

Just pm me your e-mail and I'll send it to you ASAP :)As you have most probably noticed, guys like paul_smith seem to know that I don't have the solution.Until Carenado officially approves and uploads the updated file I distribute them only via e-mail.

Thanx for the fix bstolle :smile:It stalls like an real airplane now, very good work with the fix!Thanx again!

Just pm me your e-mail and I'll send it to you ASAP :)As you have most probably noticed, guys like paul_smith seem to know that I don't have the solution.Until Carenado officially approves and uploads the updated file I distribute them only via e-mail.

Thanks bstolle, the Baron flies much better with your air file. You seem to have the golden touch!regards,ottor

Thanx for the kind feedback.... :) BTW, I'm doing the flight dynamics for the 337 so you can expect highest quality flight dynamics with the initial release already ;).

Thanks Bernt, when I fly my Baron, my wife doesn't worry so much now. :(

Hey Ron, that is funny stuff!

Oh, I do love a good discussion :Whistle:Now for my pennyworth: I took my new Carenado Baron for its first flight. I had full tanks of fuel but was otherwise default loaded. I used no flap as I had a long runway and anyway thought that no flap take-offs were standard.Just like most other aircraft I have flown, at a certain speed the aircraft becomes light on the controls and 'alive' - some would say "it wants to fly". This occurred at about 80 - 83 knots. I gently eased back on the control column and at about 90 knots the nose started to come up. With continuing acceleration I eased the nose up to about 10 degs nose up. The Baron came cleanly off the ground.At an altitude of about 10 - 20 feet the nose pitched down quickly to about 5 degrees nose down and despite pulling back on the control column the Baron made contact with the runway. The nose then came up to 10 degrees nose up and the whole procedure repeated another 2 or 3 times. The airspeed at this point was about 100 knots. Eventually I managed to slow the pitch rate down and limit the pitch angle to about 5 degrees nose up and the take-off proceeded without further fuss. I'll be honest - it gave me quite a shock :blink:This procedure repeated itself each time I went 'flying' in the Carenado Baron, that is until I saw the forum postings and added the stall fix. Incidentally, during all the above there was no aural stall warning.Having followed the above thread, this evening I flew the Baron to 3,000 feet altitude and practised stalling and stall recovery. At flight school, and much later from Mr Boeing, I learned that stalling should be approached initially in straight and level flight at a speed decay rate of 1 knot per second (De Havilland Chipmunk to Boeing 747-400, since you asked!). To do this in the Carenado Baron I needed about 12" boost pressure. Maintaining altitude the speed slowly decayed. At about 115 kts the undercarriage warning came on. At about 85 - 87 knots the stall warning horn sounded. At about 80 knots it was impossible to hold either attitude or altitude, the nose dropping to a maximum of 12 degrees nose down (despite me pulling back gently on the column) and the speed rose up through 110 knots. As soon as the nose fell away I had applied full throttle on both engines.Continuing to increase the pull on the column the nose reached a maximum of 12 degrees nose down, as I said above. The gear warning horn had stopped just after I applied full power. The stall warning remained on until about 110 - 115 knots. With the airspeed at about 120 knots the nose of the aircraft slowly came up and the descent was arrested. When the speed reached 130 knots I climbed back up to 3,000 ft altitude. Altitude loss overall was 1,000 feet.I repeated this manoeuvre several times - all with very similar results. My feeling is that this represents a fairly heavy stall for such a light aircraft. I have not flown the RW Beech Baron B58 so I can't make a comparison, but I would have thought this kind of standard stall and recovery would produce less of an altitude loss. Certainly aircraft like Cessna 150/152, Cessna 172, Piper Cherokee, PA28 and PA31 (non turbo-prop) produced less altitude loss when stalled in this 'standard' way (as I remember!).It would be instructive to hear from some current RW pilots on these types.Someone once told me a story, which I attach for your amusement:[A game we used to play at college was to get about 6 aircraft flying in a circle. Gradually the circle would shrink and the bank angle increase. G forces increased, too. One by one an aircraft would fall out of the circle as the inner wing stalled, flicking the aircraft into an inverted dive. If your plane was more heavily loaded, you would fall out earlier. The trick was to be the last one left in the circle. You had to be very gentle and accurate on the controls as any sudden movement could increase the G (increasing the stalling speed) and suddenly you would be looking at Mother Earth from some very strange angles and attitudes.]

Oh, I do love a good discussion :(...Continuing to increase the pull on the column ...

If you knew you were stalling, why were you pulling on the stick? Neither flight school nor Mr. Boeing taught you to do that.