Strobe Beacon Switch Issue

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Folks,

I think the Strobes/Beacon switch is wrong - using DA for a guide - in Beacon the beacon light should be lit as it is - - - in Strobes I believe both the Beacon and Strobes should be on an would make sense but they're not... Reported to Carenado...

Regards,

Scott

[RobertBernardK 7]

Taking the DA cheyenne as guide or base...  Mean that...  DA cheyenne is still best and a example to follow for the developers like carebeo...  I'm felling tempted as graphic speaking...  But I open my eyes and remember that the DA is used to real world training tool and the temptation gone away....  

Regardless 

RB

[FDEdev 955]

I don't think that the switch/function i wrong. IRL the switch also says BEACON-OFF-STROBE. Not BEACON & STROBE.

AFAIR the requirement is to have one of those lights turned on during flight. 

Concerning 'DA real world training tool', I do prefer the Carenado FDE over the DA FDE due to the IMO more realistic handling & aerodynamics.

[RobertBernardK 7]

Thanks for your feedback @J35OE Do you have RL experience in the PA31T?  

Regardless 

RB

[FDEdev 955]

Not in the PA31T but in similar sized twins and a few thousand hours in PT6 powered planes.

[RobertBernardK 7]

And do you like the behavior on the pt6 28 in the carenado cheyenne? (knowing that in the last planes the carenado pt6 its poor modeled)

redgars

RB

[FDEdev 955]

Yes. What is it that in your opinion is poor modeled (apart from the ongoing ITT/EGT discussion)?  

[RobertBernardK 7]

I mean in the early planes like the king 90/200 the fuel flow don't match with the charts of the planes, the spool up time of the turbine it's some unrealistic, in the BE1900 they jump ahead a lot with the model of the pt6, in the F406 too...  Obviously the item that you said the ITT / EGT values. 

That's is why I asked about your felling in the pt6 28 of the cheyenne 

Regarding 

RB

[FDEdev 955]

We are seeing different things apparently. I don't see any significant fuel flow discrepancy and I don't know what you mean by 'jumping ahead a lot'.

The 1900 is still my favourite turboprops in FSX/P3D and nothing is jumping ahead...

[RobertBernardK 7]

Jumping ahead is like they are getting better and better with the simulation of the PT6 that's is I want to mean.  Indeed the 1900 it's a good plane and we'll modeled. I'm still on the fence with the cheyenne, with your opinion I'm on the almost buy part. 

But I'm still waiting the 690, I have experience in the commanders, Shrike and 690 family, the cheyenne too!  But less that the commanders that's why I like the cheyenne 

Regarding 

RB 

[DEHowie 269]

Other than a slightly long spool time the Cheyenne II is very good.

It does have some minor discrepencies to me but the feeling of flying one of the most awesome Turboprops you will ever strap on is still there.

Flies faithfully and only thing missing is the SAS representation...to implement that wouodcbe difficult aa it was botched in the real plane andcmade it a unforgiving aeroplane at best.

Loved every minute...

[FDEdev 955]

2 hours ago, DEHowie said:

Other than a slightly long spool time the Cheyenne II is very good.

You can increase the ff gain in the aircraft.cfg from 0.025 to e.g. 0.030 or 0.035. This makes the startup more 'aggressive' but acceleration is a tad better during normal ops. 0.025 is a compromise.

[TurbineEngineData]
fuel_flow_gain          = 0.025