Max RPM, and other things

[demuss 2]

At the risk of being considered a nitpicker here is my list of things that don't seem to work as expected (from left side of cockpit to right).1) ICE DOOR switch INOP2) GROUND CLEAR switch INOP3) L/R FUEL QTY gauges, pointer does not match digital readout (digital readout does seem correct)4) LANDG LIGHT / TAXI LIGHT function not correct (at least according to a JetProp DLX manual): LANDG LIGHT should control the single lamp on the nose gear, not the wingtip lights. The wonderful world of Piper considers the wingtip lights the TAXI LIGHTS, so the TAXI LIGHTS switch should control them. Also, if the PULSE function were implemented on the TAXI LIGHTS switch they could be used during climb and descent as recognition lights, as I believe they are in the real airplane.Having said that I am having a ball with this airplane! I do hope Carenado will consider fixing these minor issues that detract just a little from what is very close to (and in fact could be with a couple of fixes) a perfect add-on aircraft.

Duh - strike 3) off the list (I think). It would appear that the digital readout is showwing gallons remaining while the pointer is showing percent of fuel remaining. Right now my left tank shows 43 gallons remaining and the pointer is at about 58 (%). (43/74)x100=58%.

[NoahBryant 26]

Issac - Great vid thanks so much.

It would appear that the digital readout is showwing gallons remaining while the pointer is showing percent of fuel remaining.

Well that answers another one of my questions. Can you tell me what Ground Clear is/what it's supposed to do?

[dmbusmc 46]

Well that answers another one of my questions. Can you tell me what Ground Clear is/what it's supposed to do?

A ground clear switch just allows you to power comm 1 without having to turn on the battery and radio master/avionics. Something simple, but does not work in the Carenado PA46, you still have to turn on the battery and radio master.

[NoahBryant 26]

Excellent, thanks for the explanation.

[dmbusmc 46]

Anytime. It just saves you from wasting too much battery power or waiting until your engine or APU is powered to get ATIS, clearance, etc.

[rossdh 0]

On the carenado model the standby alternator doesn't work. The light comes on but it doesn't function.

[Robk182 0]

A question, the olders carenado planes they are certificates and tested by real pilots, the PA46T is tested by active pilots of this model? i know, that Ben its a real pilots and the FDE that his do its closer to the reality but.. that its my question.. the PA46T is tested by actv pilots?

[P47D 5]

I wonder why it was not possible to model the ground clear switch?

[bliksimpie 1]

A question, the olders carenado planes they are certificates and tested by real pilots, the PA46T is tested by active pilots of this model? i know, that Ben its a real pilots and the FDE that his do its closer to the reality but.. that its my question.. the PA46T is tested by actv pilots?

Personally I dont believe any plane by carenado was ever tested by real pilots.. just a sales gimmick... Like the 208 that was apparently "certified" by 5 real live pilots as tested, authentic and correct..just to see how many corrections afterwards ?? and I am talking here about elementary errors like RPM TEMP etc that was wayyyyyy wrong.. not to even talk about the FDE..http://forum.avsim.n...ed-temp-issues/and this after being certified by 5 real live pilots.. You nuts to believe that..! Edited January 28, 2012 by bliksimpie

[Guest bstolle]

Personally I dont believe any plane by carenado was ever tested by real pilots.. just a sales gimmick... Like the 208 that was apparently "certified" by 5 real live pilots as tested, authentic and correct..and this after being certified by 5 real live pilots.. You nuts to believe that..!

You are wrong. I'm for instance in contact with one of the 208 pilots who tested the 208 initially.The problem is that it's one thing to mention as a RW type rated pilot how it 'should' be and and another thing to translate all that into FSX.This is most of the time very difficult as FSX doesn't always uses RW values correctly so you need to find a work around for that problem as well.Good example is the high drag of the PT6 at idle. The 208 pilots mentioned that fact but who ever did the FDE didn't know how to design the PT6/prop to achieve the high drag, so they came up with the invisible speedbrake which was at least an attempt to solve the problem.The RW 208 pilots did test the 208 but if the FDE is limited you can't do anything other than mention how it should be.AFAIK the first patch for the 208 did solve a lot of problems. Edited January 28, 2012 by bstolle

[Robk182 0]

So, my question its still on the table, its de pa46T tested and certificate by real pilots of the jetprop DL ????? bstolle??

[Guest bstolle]

I don't know as I didn't ask Carenado who's on the beta team. But as Carenados boss owns a 210 I don't think that they brag with that statement and I don't see any reason why they should.For me as an FDE designer it doesn't make much difference if I get the necessary data from pilot reports and videos on the net or from pilots in the beta team. It's a bit different if I can send them my specific flight test report and they perform actual tests with the real plane like it was the case with the KCFS SportStar and the C185 update.It's also not easy for RW pilot to know what exactly to expect from a simulation without any motion, very restricted vision and a joystick, how to translate the 'feel' and the personality and quirks of the aircraft into FSX.During the FDE development for a Bf109 I read 9 different reports all about exactly the same type and reading these reports you would never think that they were talking about the same plane.

Edited January 28, 2012 by bstolle

[bliksimpie 1]

So bottom line is that "certification" by real world pilots means less then the paper it is written on.The only thing they can certify is that yes the plane look like the real one and guages reflect somewhat what the real one look like.Bottom line is dont matter how many "certificates" you got, it mean nothing because "t's also not easy for RW pilot to know what exactly to expect from a simulation without any motion, very restricted vision and a joystick, how to translate the 'feel' and the personality and quirks of the aircraft into FSX."So in a fact it means nothing..! We will still have to get people to correc t things even after it has been certified.. so I will never read anything into any "certificate" issued by RW pilots.. It means NOTHING..!!on your question:So, my question its still on the table, its de pa46T tested and certificate by real pilots of the jetprop DL ????? bstolle??I doubt it very much as previously they made a big noice about "certification" and this time I cant seem to find any "release statements" saying they have had it tested by by a PA46T Pilot never mind any real pilot for that matter then the fact. Mr Stolle have some extensive time on turboprops but I dont know how many hours he do have on a PA46T.

Edited January 28, 2012 by bliksimpie

[theteeboy 0]

If I can just add to the 'realistic' debate - I work on level D full-flight simulators for airlines. Level D is the highest certification of training device in the JAA (Europe) area - the FAA have a similar level. The data package provided by the aircraft manufacturers costs in excess of $1million dollars for a commercial aircraft like a 737. It covers any number of performance areas from taxi, take-off, cruise, landing, engine failures and so on. You would be amazed at the number of pilots who get out of these things and say 'it doesnt feel like the real thing' but are unable to say why.Small aircraft have much less data available, even if it is for sale, so criticising Carenado for not matching the real aircraft performance is a bit harsh. FSX is hardly a cutting edge aerodynamic simulation. It started as a game and has been continually added to over how many years? Some people seem to be asking far too much of it.Just my 10 pence (or cents) worth...

[capitan_cg 0]

+++1 the the last post.I am old retired RW pilot. I can tell you that i use fs after a very long time (comodore64).The FS is useful only to practice and to be familiar with the radionavegation , sid- star procedures, gps uses, etc, etc ,The latest planes like ng... or caren... etc have a very good panels that are usefull to knowledge where are same or that gauge or key and to be familiar with that. ( hacer cabina- make cockpit)Sorry folks but dont search any other things because you don't found it.Cg. :( sorry for my english.