Hello all,I have noticed for some reason, all turbroprop aircraft that I have tried so far, start moving once I release the parking brake.The aircraft keep speeding up and I constantly have to hold the brakes. Trying to taxi is a very out of control deal.Is there anyway to fix the airfile or something so they behave like the other aircraft and move only when you apply throttle?My favorite aircraft for crusing around is the DH6 Twin Otter and this problem is ruining my party :(Thanks

You'll have to experiment for each aircraft but try hitting CTRL-F1 first then either CTRL-F3 or CTRL-F4 a few times. (CTRL-F3 slows and CTRL-F4 increases by smaller increments). Tony

I should have added - don't forget to hit CTRL-F4 before attempting take-off......Tony

There is nothing to fix. This is a characteristic of many turboprop aircraft. Turboprop engines idle at a far higher level of thrust than piston aircraft. Turboprops are equipped with beta thrust range propellers and `ground idle` conditio levers for a reason.Try the search engine. You'll find many, many topics on this item.Allcott

I'm really having a bad day - ignore the above - not completely - Hit CTRL-F1 first this sets the prop pitch to idle!!! - CTRL-F4 sets it to full - CTRL-F2 and CTRL-F3 decrease/increase the pitch by smaller increments. Some aircraft will stop movement when you hit CTRL-F1 some need a few taps of the CTRL-F2 key. Don't forget CTRL-F4 before takeoff or you won't bet up enough speed.... Tony

Thank you Tony,That helped alittle bit. using the F1 key is a bit more precisethan tring to move the levers.The Otter still has the creepys thought. :)With the parking brake on you can see the wheels turning very slowly.Alcott, thank you for giving me the key word for the search.I didn't know where to start.I was able to find exactly what I was looking for and it cleaned up the problem nicely.ByDouglas K Sun Feb-29-04 01:26 AM Member since Feb 07th 2003 For the MSFS King Air, if you change the:beta_min = 15.2 //Minimum blade pitch angle for constant speed prop, (degrees)found in the aircraft.cfg file from 15.2 degrees to 4.0 degrees and then calibrate your throttle for reverse pitch using the registered version of FSUIPC you can taxi in a reasonably realistic fashion by using the beta range, but sadly, without the sound of the props changing pitch.

Alcott,In my real-world experience with turboprops: Your statement is true for Garrett / Honeywell TPE-331 powered turboprops, but it is definitely not true for the Pratt & Whitney PT6A series powered turboprops, and this would include all TwOtters. It may be (probably is) true for Alison powered turboprops such as C-130 and Convair 440, but I have no experience with these.All the Pratt-powered aircraft I have flown require adding breakaway thrust to start taxiing, but they then will accelerate enough as the power turbine "couples-up" to the exhaust flow that beta range is required to control speed to a reasonable value for taxi. But at static idle, no. You have to add power to get started.His complaint is valid and I have endured this particular burr under my MSFS saddle since about -- forever. The only FS turboprops which I've flown that don't exhibit this tendency (in FS9) are the Taccoli Avanti and the RDFS King Air 200. These are actually FS2K2 planes that I have imported into FS9 wholesale without modification.When I was beta-testing Fly! & Fly!II, I spent no little time on this one aspect of the King Air.

>Alcott,>>In my real-world experience with turboprops: Your statement is>true for Garrett / Honeywell TPE-331 powered turboprops, but>it is definitely not true for the Pratt & Whitney PT6A>series powered turboprops, and this would include all>TwOtters. It may be (probably is) true for Alison powered>turboprops such as C-130 and Convair 440, but I have no>experience with these.It definitely IS trtrue for the PT6http://www.pilotweb.co.uk/content/articles...cle.aspx?id=762http://www.todayspilot.co.uk/flight_tests/sep02/2p1.htmlI have also recently read flight tests on the TBM700, PC12 and 350 King Air which make specific mention of the idle taxi effect. So you are incorrect. It is a function of power, not type of engine.The Twotter is relatively heavy for the engine power, with large, draggy tyres that probably hold it at rest better than the higher powered aircraft, but it is definitely true that the King Air 350 increases speed at idle thrust, and can hardly be held against the brakes, requiring the use of beta thrust while taxiing.>>All the Pratt-powered aircraft I have flown require adding>breakaway thrust to start taxiing, but they then will>accelerate enough as the power turbine "couples-up" to the>exhaust flow that beta range is required to control speed to a>reasonable value for taxi. But at static idle, no. You have to>add power to get started.This may be true of SOME PT-6 powered aircraft, but not all. And certainly not the Caravan and the King Air which have high thrust-to-weight ratios. The Piper Meridian DOES require a nominal amount of thrust to move off, but then the throttle must be dropped back to ile and the speed controlled with brakes and beta, just like the others.>His complaint is valid and I have endured this particular burr>under my MSFS saddle since about -- forever. The only FS>turboprops which I've flown that don't exhibit this tendency>(in FS9) are the Taccoli Avanti and the RDFS King Air 200.>These are actually FS2K2 planes that I have imported into FS9>wholesale without modification.>>When I was beta-testing Fly! & Fly!II, I spent no little time>on this one aspect of the King Air.Looks like you should have got a taxiing test in one first!Allcott

Popular subject. I've never seen an airplane with PT6 engines hanging on the airframe that needed additional power to taxi. Even an airplane sitting on the ramp that weighed in excess of 20000 lbs (SD3-30 or 60) would always start rolling without any coaxing from the human element. Take the props out of feather, release the parking brake and the journey begins. I used to taxi with only #2 turning and burning (saves fuel), and even then I still used the beta range (minimizes heatpack wear) a bit especially with the lighter aircraft like the King Air.Coming out of feather you have to mind what's behind you. The hurricane conditions you can create will make you very unpopular with your windblown peers, although it can be a lazy mans alternative to sweeping the hangar floor as long as no one objects to all the dirt and debris being relocated to the downwind wall. A good technique used by all well mannered considerate pilots is to release the brakes and bring the props just out of feather to start rolling and then go back to feather to reduce the weather conditions aft of the airplane to a gentle breeze. Once clear of everything fragile and breakable, and clear of all persons who might be offended by your taxi technique (I'm thinking of people with the power to hire and fire employees and especially those unforgiving FAA types), you then bring the props out of feather once again and resume normal taxi ops.I've never been around the Twin Otter, but I'm pretty sure it uses the PT6A small engine, probably the -20 or -27. It could be that the extra PT wheel in the PT6 large variety lends some extra get up and go that the Twin Otter with its single power turbine doesn't have.Same thing for the little King Air types (C90), but I've no experience there either. The B200 moves right off after brake release, that I do know. Never heard of power turbine coupling either. Guess I should have paid more attention in ground school to the PWC guys from Longueuil.As far as real aircraft are concerned, nothing can match the MSFS King Air 350 for straight-line acceleration at idle power though, so I have to agree with The BeachComer:"I have endured this particular burr under my MSFS saddle since about -- forever."Regarding the MS aircraft and its tendency to exceed the speed of light on the taxiway. From the number of posts I've seen in the years since FS2000 that complain about this I'd say he's not alone. It's not just that it's unrealistic, but that the casual user has no recourse to anything but the brakes to keep the paint from blistering due to air friction at those Warp 9 taxi speeds, so you bob and weave towards the runway and you're glad to get it airborne only to discover that it flys like a test pilots worst nightmare. I'm glad Jeff found a solution in what I wrote some weeks ago, but the credit for the fix must go to Ron Freimuth who suggested setting beta_min to a low value. This was in one of those always-educational flight dynamics threads in the panel and design forum. I've learned a lot of good stuff in there from guys like Ron and FSAviator, just another reason to appreciate the valuable flight simulation resource called AVSIM.>>>>but it is definitely true that the King Air 350 increases speed at idle thrust, and can hardly be held against the brakes, requiring the use of beta thrust while taxiing.<<<

What I meant to say in reference to the King Air was that it can only be held by hard use of the brakes, which is why Beta is recommended to give the pilots, the passengers, and the aircraft an easier time. Sorry!Anyway, the point is that MS actually DID try to model a real world effect, just muffed it up like usual. The King Air default visual model is so poor it hardly bears much relationship to the real thing. Here's hoping FS2006 models turboprop engines correctly at last.Allcott

>>>>What I meant to say in reference to the King Air was that it can only be held by hard use of the brakes, which is why Beta is recommended to give the pilots, the passengers, and the aircraft an easier time. Sorry!<<<< No apology is necessary Allcott; I was just doing a little lighthearted leg pulling. I figured you meant excessive braking, as you seem too savvy to believe otherwise. And while we're on the subject of typos and things people meant to say I believe that this statement in my previous reply regarding BeachComer's observations about the Twin Otter qualifies for some revision:"It could be that the extra PT wheel in the PT6 large variety lends some extra get up and go that the Twin Otter with its single power turbine doesn't have"That ought to be obvious to the most casual observer.:-roll The extra power turbine is primarily responsible for the big horsepower increase between the PT6A small and the PT6A large, so in effect I was saying that an engine with double (or more) the horsepower rating of the engine(s) installed in the Twin Otter would lend some "extra get up and go"!What I meant to say was it could be that the extra PT wheel in the PT6 large engine may lend some extra get up and go at idle power that the Twin Otter with its single power turbine doesn't have (also at idle power). The foregoing is only speculation of course.Now it's my turn to apologize, and it serves me right for being a smart-xxx.RegardsDouglas

Gentlemen,I went to Beechcraft to take my first King Air ground school in February 1978. It was for the B-90, which had what Douglas so succinctly calls the "small" PT6, and this is the engine with which I have all my PT6 experience, spread among B90 (200 hr), 100 & A100 (1100 hr), B200 (1150 hr), and various Cheyenne and Conquest I (350 hr). On the B90, Cheyenne and Conquest I was a contract pilot and thus not responsible for aircraft maintenance. On the others, I was chief and only pilot (and everything else including the you-know-what cleaner).In all of these aircraft it was necessary to add power to get rolling. Once rolling, yes, it (B200) would accelerate to 30-40 kts if you would allow it, so beta was necessary. But it would not start rolling without adding some thrust. This was true for both large- and small-main tire versions of the A100, and my 200 experience was all with the small-tire (110 psi) main wheels. Stiff on landing but faster in cruise than the floatation tire versions.It can have a lot to do with propellor rigging and selected idle speed, but it is not a braking system problem, as I found it on a wide range of "small PT6" powered aircraft, and esp. since this behavior was also evident on airplanes for which I didn't have MX responsibility. Oh, yes -- and my brake pad consumption was below average, according to my MX shop.In my first King Air ground school we covered the question of engine operation with the props feathered, and for all the 90 & 100 series King Airs it was not recommended, because the exhaust had melted through the front radio bay doors of some poor guy's straight 90, early on. The prop blast is necessary to keep the exhaust trained, moving, and mixed with enough ambient air to keep fuselage skin temps low enough to prevent this. When I started with the B-200 which had the longer stacks more directly aligned with the nacelle, it was OK as long as not for "extended ops". Still, you couldn't do it if you had a tailwind from the wrong angle -- it caused terrible harmonic vibrations with the slow-turning props. All to say, it's the pilot's responsibility to make sure that the ground crew positions his airplane so as to not cause problems for someone else when starting.TwOtters don't have this restriction because the engines are so high that there's no fuselage for the exhaust to impinge upon.I cannot explain Douglas' different B200 experience, but I am certainly wise enough to not dispute it. "Experience talks, the rest walks". It perhaps has to do with fuel loading -- I usually ran 2400 lb fuel or more. Oh! I might add that all my experience is with three-blade prop models -- that certainly explains the difference, if Douglas' experience is in the later four-blade models."Decoupled": Anyone with PT6 experience in cold weather (-30C in Gunnison, anyone?) knows that the "small PT6" engine can be started with ground personnel holding the props to preclude the PT section from turning before there is adequate oil pressure for the power turbine gearbox. The "large PT6" on the Saab 340 has a brake which allows an engine to be run as an APU while keeping the prop stationary during pax loading. In either case, the turbine blades are effectively "decoupled" from the gas flow -- not an official aeronautical term, conceded, but one which I felt would cause no trouble for someone with PT6 knowledge , and which would also convey the idea to others reading the thread who lack such knowledge. The point being, there is not really anything you could call a solid relationship between gas generator (N1) speed and PT power until something over 70% N1. It's a lot like a worn automatic transmission: you add power, and some little while later there is some output.So much for technical matters. Now, Alcott, I hope you will reconsider your sarcastic remarks which effectively state that I should have done taxi tests before posting. In other words, you're saying I don't know (anything) about the subject. You take a man's 11 years and 2500 hours of turbine experience and say he should have done some taxi tests? Has it ever occurred to you, O Young Innocence, that there might be someone on this forum whose taxi time exceeds your total time? I don't mean me, because I don't know you, and therefore can't compare our experience. But you, sir, don't know me, either, and had no business making such a statement until you knew what you were talking about. And not even then, to a stranger. Your comments don't reflect favorably on the thoughtfulness, consideration, and intelligence which I feel you must have in plenty, due to the subject matter and your earlier and subsequent comments. You have a choice, and it may well mark you for the rest of your life: you can be a scorpion, stand on your pride, and do the best you can to sting me. Or you can swallow your pride, admit that perhaps you spoke hastily, and earn everyone's respect thereby. Choice is yours.Good manners are always in style, and Heinlein once opined that an infallible mark of a sick culture is rapidly increasing incidence of uncivil behavior. Tom Allensworth recently made a post (called "My Rant", I kid you not) about the increasing incidence of flames he's receiving for failing to maintain 100% expected output of Avsim's free library service, which is only another proof of creeping rot. Drivers almost routinely shoot others on the freeways just because someone else "got in their way". Concealed carry permits are going briskly here in Texas.There are daily more people, crowded closer together, than ever. Little irritants become big problems under crowded conditions. The oil of Please, Thank You, and I'm Sorry are not merely nice amenities, they are essential if we are not to self-destruct. Good manners, especially between strangers, must increase if we are to maintain anything that could be said to be "civilization". The word "civil" plays a leading role in that word. Take note and study on it, for there will be a test -- perhaps soon! ;-)Remember Aesop's fable about the wager between the Sun and the Wind, each of whom claimed to be stronger. A wager was placed, and the test turned upon which of them could remove a man's overcoat. The wind blew with all his rage and bluster, but succeeded only in making the man wrap his coat ever tighter. Then the sun came out, and with his kindly warm rays, accomplished the deed that roaring and force could not accomplish. Worth remembering, for all of us. --The BeachComer

Good manners start at home!Rather than edit my previous reply (and be tempted to change something thereby), I'll put this out where it may be more visible.I wish to apologize to Allcott for repeatedly misspelling his name in my previous post. I was replying under Douglas' post, used the spelling with which I'm familiar, and didn't notice the errors until reading the entire thread after posting.No disrespect was intended with the errors.--The BeachComer

some planes move even with parking break applied. What I do is press the slew key (y, I think) when I don't have anything to manipulate on the plane.byestephan

>>>>I went to Beechcraft to take my first King Air ground school in February 1978. It was for the B-90, which had what Douglas so succinctly calls the "small" PT6, and this is the engine with which I have all my PT6 experience, spread among B90 (200 hr), 100 & A100 (1100 hr), B200 (1150 hr), and various Cheyenne and Conquest I (350 hr). On the B90, Cheyenne and Conquest I was a contract pilot and thus not responsible for aircraft maintenance. On the others, I was chief and only pilot (and everything else including the you-know-what cleaner).<<<>>>It can have a lot to do with propellor rigging and selected idle speed, but it is not a braking system problem, as I found it on a wide range of "small PT6" powered aircraft, and esp. since this behavior was also evident on airplanes for which I didn't have MX responsibility.<<<>>>All to say, it's the pilot's responsibility to make sure that the ground crew positions his airplane so as to not cause problems for someone else when starting.<<<>>>I cannot explain Douglas' different B200 experience, but I am certainly wise enough to not dispute it. "Experience talks, the rest walks". It perhaps has to do with fuel loading -- I usually ran 2400 lb fuel or more. Oh! I might add that all my experience is with three-blade prop models -- that certainly explains the difference, if Douglas' experience is in the later four-blade models.<<<>>>In my first King Air ground school we covered the question of engine operation with the props feathered, and for all the 90 & 100 series King Airs it was not recommended, because the exhaust had melted through the front radio bay doors of some poor guy's straight 90, early on. The prop blast is necessary to keep the exhaust trained, moving, and mixed with enough ambient air to keep fuselage skin temps low enough to prevent this. When I started with the B-200 which had the longer stacks more directly aligned with the nacelle, it was OK as long as not for "extended ops". Still, you couldn't do it if you had a tailwind from the wrong angle -- it caused terrible harmonic vibrations with the slow-turning props.<<<>>>"Decoupled": Anyone with PT6 experience in cold weather (-30C in Gunnison, anyone?) knows that the "small PT6" engine can be started with ground personnel holding the props to preclude the PT section from turning before there is adequate oil pressure for the power turbine gearbox.<<<http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...=15935&page=13#16032where I relate the following:"the PT6A-45A/B/R/-67R can be really hard to start in very cold weather, one creative solution to reducing the load and allowing the engine to spin up to a higher RPM before putting fuel in it was to have a really confident and intrepid person hold the prop stationary while the engine was started. This relieved the airflow of the burden of having to turn the power turbine, reduction gearbox and prop, resulting in an easier start with a frozen engine. As soon as it lit off the guy holding the prop would let go and back away, and a happy ending ensued. Most of the time."everyone reading that probably thought I was full of it, but even I couldn't make up something so bizarre. Actually it's not as dangerous as it sounds. I think. Speaking of bizarre, way back when I was with the 2/17 Cav at Ft. Campbell we used to track the main rotor blades on the Slicks (Hueys) with a high tech device called a 'tracking flag'. This consisted of a sturdy steel pole about 2 inches in diameter and around 10 ft long, with two lengths of angle steel about 2 1/2 ft in length placed perpendicular to the pole and about 3 ft apart welded to one end.Attached to this medieval device (with about twenty wraps of 0.040 safety wire to preserve the 'constructed by paleolithic man' look of the thing) was a sturdy canvas strap (the flag). The 'technician' (and I use that word with caution as 'potential causualty' is probably more appropriate) would affix several layers of wide paper masking tape to the edge of this canvas, making SURE that at least 1-2 inches of tape protruded from the canvas edge along its entire length. Our technician (possible victim) would then color code the tiedown tabs on the blade tips using state of the art red and black grease pencils. When this fellow judged the deposition of this space age pigmented material on both blades to be in the correct proportions, it was time for the games to begin.With a smirking commissioned or warrant officer minding things from the right seat, the aircraft was started and as soon as the rotor rpm stabilized our hapless enlisted peon would raise his tracking flag to the vertical with the canvas strap wearing its masking tape decoration facing the 48 ft rotor disk which was spinning at about 320 rpm. Our highly skilled Army aviator in the cockpit would then move the cyclic forward to tilt the rotor so the spinning blades were in the lower portion of the canvas straps span, while the less skilled but much braver (or dumber) enlisted peon would CAREFULLY bring the EDGE ONLY of the masking tape into contact with the spinning blades. This was known as the low track. If you did it right then on the tape preserved for all to see would be the red and black grease marks left from the passage of the tiedown tabs through the tapes edge. These marks were usually some distance (1/4-1/2 inch) apart after a main rotor blade or hub change, and this indicated the distance that the blades were away from rotating (tracking) in the same plane. Since this causes a vibration (called a vertical vibration, any weight imbalance between the blades caused a more severe and potentially dangerous lateral vibration) that increases with airspeed and can be more than annoying depending on the severity of it, the mission here was to cause these blades to rotate precisely or nearly so in the same plane. By studying the marks on the tape you could then adjust the pitch change links to make this ideal a reality. But not before tracking the blades once more under vastly different conditions to attain a high track. All metal rotor blades are not created equal with some blades being weaker than others. This weakness becomes apparent under aerodynamic load when the blade begins to 'fly'. So with flag once more raised to the vertical our brave soul awaits the moment when his superior (but not necessarily his better) has once more positioned the rotor disk but this time at the upper portion of the cavas strap, AND raised the collective just enough for the aircraft to be light on the skids. Anyone who has stood near (or under as you must to attach a sling load) a hovering helicopter will tell you that it tends to be a little windy. Even with the aircraft only raised a little you feel more than a touch of air on your face, and in winter you instantly understand what wind chill is all about. So standing in this buffeting tornado you again cause the lightest contact between tape and blades, and if all goes well you have your high track, have identified the weak blade and can adjust the stronger one to fly up and follow the same path as its weaker brother.To hold the tracking flag steady required a wide stance with the unyielding steel pole held between your legs. To move it into the blade tips for the high track with any precision you had to wrap your left leg around it to act as a brace or pivot point. If the metal or canvas parts of the tracking flag contacted the blades the best you could hope for was an injury to that leg but other more delicate anatomy was definitely in harms way. And this is why you stay in school kids.We used to track the tail rotor with a broomstick, a plastic oil sample tube, and one of those multi-taskers the grease pencil. A grease pencil of any color was inserted into the plastic oil sample tube and the tube taped to the broomstick. With the helicopter running you would lay the broomstick on top of the nav light or tailskid and use either item like you would a bridge in billiards, to steady the 'cue' as you moved in and made contact. In fact we called this 'shooting the tail rotor' which was analogous to shooting pool I suppose. I once tried to shoot the tail rotor by laying the stick along the driveshaft cover well forward of the vertical stabilizer and the exhaust melted my oil sample tube, my pencil blew away and all I got were melted plastic marks on the inside blade. Worked just as well. We had a Strobex arrive just before my ETS, it took us two hours to set up and then we flew around for 30 minutes trying to make it work. Turned out the pickup on the swashplate carried away because someone (the maintenance team leader a boy wonder 1st lieutenant) didn't tighten it. After that it was back to the stone age tracking flag.I think that tops my previous tall sounding tale. Both of these stories are true, and the main rotor tracking really was dangerous and stupid, even if it did get the job done. 30 below zero weather is more than I've had to deal with, and we held the props for a different reason than lube to the power section. We also had electric heater kits installed on the gas generator and power section that made a big difference on cold days, and I knew some bleed air tricks with the bleeds and prop levers (prsov's and the P3 line) that sometimes helped to get things going, but -30 degrees, man that sounds like call in sick and stay home weather to me. Your comment about adequate oil pressure up front reminds me of the nylon web prop restraints we used on windy days to keep the props from wind milling. We had a guy who managed to light off an engine (no fireguard outside the aircraft) without removing the prop restraint. It didn't damage anything but his pride, and I heard it made a terrific noise when it let go and slammed into the side of the airplane. Wish I could have been there to see that and the look on his face. At a safe distance of course. It must have been something like a poor mans prop brake before it broke. And that brings me to yor next comment. >>>>The "large PT6" on the Saab 340 has a brake which allows an engine to be run as an APU while keeping the prop stationary during pax loading. In either case, the turbine blades are effectively "decoupled" from the gas flow -- not an official aeronautical term, conceded, but one which I felt would cause no trouble for someone with PT6 knowledge , and which would also convey the idea to others reading the thread who lack such knowledge. The point being, there is not really anything you could call a solid relationship between gas generator (N1) speed and PT power until something over 70% N1. It's a lot like a worn automatic transmission: you add power, and some little while later there is some output<<<< The ATR has the same thing, the French call it 'Hotel Mode'. I'm no advocate of prop brakes, but I'm a big fan and really enthusiatic about M.E.L stickers. We used a lot of them with the early ATR-42-300 airplanes and the Ratier-Figeac prop brakes.I could argue that it's not possible to decouple the gas flow from the gas generator (the gas flow is really just very hot air that smells of burnt kerosene, PWC calls it "hot expanding gases") from the power turbine(s) without removing the C flange bolts and moving the power section elsewhere, and that a prop brake just provides a mechanical means of preventing the PT wheel, RGB, prop flange and prop rotation that Pratt & Whitney intended when they designed this engine as a device or machine for transmitting motion to another machine. Even the mechanical definition of the would 'couple' really doesn't apply. As I understand it, that describes two equal forces that produce rotation by moving in parallel but opposite directions. Also, whether the power section and prop turns or not there is certainly a gaseous relationship between Ng and the power section's output, but in a free turbine there should never be a SOLID relationship between the CT and PT sections. Although I've seen things migrate from the gas generator to the power section that were better suited to and more useful in their original location that could be construed as providing a solid relationship between the two, but we just called it engine failure.Before you take exception with what I've said, let me say that I'm just being light-heated and mildly argumentative, and having a little fun with semantics. Besides, I like your worn automatic transmission analogy, it's very descriptive of the response time at low engine speeds. So don't take any of the above seriously, it's obvious to me that you've been there and done that, and know what you're talking about. And you've made your point in a very clear way. I know a little about this too, and the fact that it DID cause some confusion for me is indicative of a gap in my education, not in yours. I wasn't implying that YOU didn't know what you were talking about, I was just saying that I had never heard of it and didn't know what you meant. Next time I'll just nod sagely and say something like "Oh sure, everyone knows that!"Apologies in advance if this intrudes on any dialogue between you Allcott. Any problem you have with him ain't none of my business, but some of what you wrote concerns everyone.I have to agree that good manners are always in style, but I believe it's the anonymous nature of the internet and not the decline of civilization that causes some of the behavior you see on the forums. Boorish people have always been with us, and always will be. I doubt that over crowding or high population has anything to do with it (unless you meant a high internet population), the exception of course would be those freeway altercations you mention. Things can be more than a little crowded and frustrating on the roads.I think anyone in Texas that goes to the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry permit and buys legal firearms probably isn't a person you have to be concerned about. It is the far greater majority that are packing illegally that worry me as they are much more likely to throw down on you and for much less cause. Or did you mean that the concealed carry permit people have obtained the authority to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves against the outlaws? That's the trouble with internet forums, its all too easy to misunderstand what someone writes, or to separate what they write from what they mean. Add language problems to that and trouble is brewing. Concerning Tom's recent well justified rant, I don't see the vocal minority who complained about the interruption of service as proof of creeping rot in society, but it is proof that unpleasant adults and ill-manned and poorly raised children are members here. I recommend ignoring them as much as possible because the alternative is not worth your time.None of the above relates much to MSFS, so I'll echo Allcott's sentiments about the engine modeling and put in a request here to MS to please fix the KA 350's ground and flight dynamics, and please do something about the sounds and visual model. Happy landings and beach-combing to youDouglas