Tweak to mod is one thing... Tweak to repair something that should be working is another.. This is a great plane though.. and its bugs are gnats compared to other planes I bought with great expectations; AKA Abacus P180 II. What a POS.

Tweak to mod is one thing... Tweak to repair something that should be working is another.

I think you have a point there.

I've just read a bit on the T Duke, which offers the same sort of engine choices as on the JetProp. Speaking about that -21 to -34/-35 PT6 difference and the article sums it up like this.

Both PT6As are flat-rated for 550 shp, but the -35 will maintain that power to 21,000 feet while the -21s begin to lose thrust at 16,000 feet. The difference with the -35s installed will be better climb at high altitude and about 25 knots more cruise in the middle flight levels.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/general-pilot-reports/301-knots.html?start=3Though being written for the Duke, the fact of the same SHP value but different performance at altitudes does look valid for the JetProp. Now it seems that the first days of the JetProp conversion lead to many installed -21 engines on that type. So Carenado isn't wrong when modelling that common engine choice. Although I've read that some folks replaced the former -21 with the -34 later.If you read on in the article, the conversion costs go up about 100.000 USD for choosing the -34 instead of the -21. That's on some 700.000+ total cost of the turbine modification. So, with those planes, you not only smile because of the performance, but also because your bank account shows increased performance too. :(

You know, slowly but surely all of the folks here fixing one thing after another like panels, cfg's, airfiles, etc., Carenado will have made one fine product. :(

I would like to retract this comment. Apparently, I offended someone who works wih Carenado. They sent me a PM about it. I meant no offense to the person involved. It was simply a personal opinion badly stated. I apologize and I hope they continue to work for Carenado in the future.

Edited February 24, 201214 yr by Lifeguard911

I would like to retract this comment. Apparently, I offended someone who works wih Carenado. They sent me a PM about it. I meant no offense to the person involved. It was simply a personal opinion badly stated. I apologize and I hope they continue to work for Carenado in the future.

Are you serious? They did not.... Its true though...

I didn't read anything offensive into it. Was more of a :( statement for me due to the true core. There is some tweaking necessary to get rid of errors. It's not only about rendering it more realistic, but also about making gauges work, or clickspots, or both. :(However, if somebody eventually got offended, your apology indeed shows some class. And the dedication of us folks shows in the way we are handling the issues. With a sense of humour and an open wallet on almost every new release. Am I correct?

I also didn't think that was offensive, and i got a good chuckle from it as well. They should be a little thicker skinned I think. I thank Carenado for releasing the plane, and all the others from the past and future. Hell, they are the only ones doing anything these days that is on a high level.At any rate... my Dad used to tell me not to get mad at someone for something I did.

Thanks for your comments. I want to make it clear that it was not Carenado, the company, that contacted me but an individual that has worked with Carenado. As I told him, the majority of my pay ware aircraft are Carenado's. They make an excellent product, but in my opinion, the PA46T had a few areas that needed improvement.

What's your favourite cruise altitude, guys? I've found that FL230 and FL240 are fine, while the higher stuff only enhances fuel burn a bit. Cruise speeds are 230 KTAS. The shorter trips still go up to around FL200 here.

I use FS Kneeboard a lot and I check on the winds aloft before my flights to get the best tail wind I can. Generally, that means flying at the higher altitudes on East to West flights and lower altitudes on the West to East flights where I am bucking a bad headwind.

That sounds clever. I should watch those winds more closely in the planning stage of mine.

I see your tweaking of the FF via the fuel scalar. I came to a similar result but used the 18000ft and 600 TQ values, which is more what I fly on my distances. Now the thing that screws up everything is that the TQ AND the FF go up when you reduce RPM. I know that the Turboprop modell in FSX is not correct to keep TQ constant and reduce FF when you reduce RPM but in real life the FF stays the same and TQ just increases about by the same factor that you reduce RPM as with the power lever unchanged the gas turbine delivers the same power and so the power=TQ x RPM should be about constant (mind some efficiency changes).So in the Carenado you need to change prop and power lever to get to your desired cruise settings with a lower noise level from the prop.I guess they tried a tweak here but didn't get it right. Further I'm not sure about the significan speed increase you get by flying with 2000 RPM versus 2200 RPM with the same FF. This would only come from prop efficiency and a better coupling gas to prop shaft, but the gain is about 20 kts from 190 to 210 KTAS. WOW!

True, the FF change on the rpm change is noticeably different. How could one alter that behaviour, Alexander?Me knows I'm talking to the guy who did the FDE for e. g. the Lancair, the Katana(s) any me beloved DA Cheyenne, right? Maybe the FDE folks can work together on this one.

Edited February 27, 201214 yr by CoolP

you cought me :( ...well this is somewhere in the code overwriting the FSX engine. Actually i did not test if it is just the gauge or the real fuel flow that changes. Certainly the raise in TQ does not fit the real behaviour. With all the listed bugs in the electrical and fuel system, I'm kind of thinking not writing a review about her anymore and just forget it as in the past Carenado never cared much about killing bugs. In absence of a good PC-12, this was my hope to have a decent alternative to the Cheyenne with more modern Cockpit. But it looks like I hoped for too much.

I think, from former releases, you can divide the plane in two halves. These are the FDE aspects and the ones on the systems like electrical and fuel.The first part is done by Bernt Stolle (co-working with Carendo on some titles, doing free enhancements on others) and I may summarize his efforts as being driven by big dedication and of course competence. That's my personal impression. So this is a thing with a sort of direct access and opportunity to discuss items. As you did quite some payware titles and also come with the technical background on things (mechanical engineering, right?), there surely is a way to improve and discuss those items.The other part is more difficult I guess, though not impossible to improve. However, that's not something you can work out with Bernt, if I got that right. That's a Carenado design decision and policy thing. So you may be right that e. g. the unique fuel system of the plane may never arrive in FSX. You may also be correct on the items with electrical loads and things, since that's not what they are aiming at from my viewpoint.However, to conclude, I think if you post your items on the flight and engine model, or if you write Bernt a PM, things could improve easily. So anything that can go into the air file and aircraft.cfg may indeed be worth a note.Side note.

Actually i did not test if it is just the gauge or the real fuel flow that changes.

I think it's the real FF. The RXP units show the same value. However, one could run a small tool of course or see how the tank contents behave. But my guess is that the FF gauge shows what's really happening to the sim values.

Edited February 27, 201214 yr by CoolP