The wheeled version is available on their website now just in case I'm the only one who checks 10 times a day lol

I had a plane once (can't remember which one) but when the engine was not running I could see the prop blades rotate when I moved the lever. It seems to me that all turbo engines should model this, right???I like your idea of putting the beaver sound in the 208. I have been thinking of doing that but have not yet.

Hi Thomas,""Make sure that you read the directions on how to operate thegauge. The engine must be running, and the brakes engaged. ""It's not required that the engine is running when you start the pushback; hence the message 'OK. Pushing back. All engines cleared forstartup'.In fact, for jet aircraft it's quite common to start engines while being pushed back.Also, adding pushback to an aircraft like the Beaver seems a bit overkill. Even stronger, a Pushback cart that would be able to pushback a Beaver (Float or fixed wheel) has yet to be invented :-)(tip: how would it be coupled to the "nose gear" ?? )Cheers, Rob BarendregtPS: The full, generic package of "groundhandling" is also available here in the library, as file rcbgh-40.zip

Hence, that's why I believe Barry removed the pushback functionality from the gauge for the TBeaver. But the question was asked, and I always wondered what pushback was all about, so I made it work more as an exercise than anything else.I'm sitting here imagining a pushback cart in the woods of northern Maine :)Sorry about propagating a misconception, I could have sworn I read that in the directions. Oops :-rollThomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

>Pushback cart that would be able to pushback a Beaver (Float or fixed wheel) has yet to be invented :-) (tip: how would it be coupled to the "nose gear" ??As to specifically for the Beaver, I can't say, but generally speaking, taildragger airplanes are not a problem for a properly equipped tug to manage. You either have two special-made bars going from the tug to each of the mains (Beech 18), which you tug from the front, or a special bar with adaptors for each of the several designs of tailwheels, and you tug from the back. I remember the Beech bars going back to 1968, and I'm sure there were similar solutions long before that. DC-3s, for example, are too heavy to push! And the Beaver is no lightweight, either.Those twin bars are probably the solution for towing amphib floatplanes, too. The non-amphibs, I recall them scooting themselves out of the canal and up the railroad-tie ramp, where a little wheeled cart with hydraulic jacks could be run between the floats. Get the carts wheels jacked down, then dolly the whole shebang wherever it needed to go. At least, that's the way the Cajuns were doing it at Southern Seaplanes, 'bout 20 years ago!It's not in the backwoods that you need a tug (hopefully!), it's at the home base where the ground crew are dealing with many of these a day. But the whole idea of pushback for GA aircraft in the real world is pretty outr

File the props? Did they get dinged?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

>when the engine was not running I could see the prop blades rotate when I moved the lever. It seems to me that all turbo engines should model this, right???Sorry, Don, but no. This happens in FS where developers have made the effort, but does not reflect RW (real world) propellor action. The PT6 under discussion in this thread will (slowly) feather it's prop after engine shutdown (though pilots feather the engine during or before shutdown to prevent gearbox motion without lubrication), but it will be feathered before rotation stops, and it cannot be moved from the cockpit when stopped. Now I have seen, in the case of a PT6 with very slow self-feathering action (weak springs), where you could see the blades moving toward feather after the prop had stopped, but this is unusual -- mostly because, by the checklist, the pilot will feather his engine before moving the condition lever to cutoff. In my own operation, I always cut the engine first, then feathered, to minimize the noise and vibration which otherwise occurs, especially with a tailwind.I believe that some very old (20s-30s) birds with wooden blades and metal hubs (and possibly some ultralights) have direct-adjustable blades that you could see this action in response to cockpit control movement, but constant-speed props since the 1930s have had a governor that uses oil pressure to move the blades towards fine pitch - a feathering spring and airload provides the force that moves the blades towards coarse pitch and feather. The cockpit prop control only moves a "speeder spring" on the prop governor. When the engine's not running, no oil pressure -- no movement. An exception would be the case of unfeathering. Old piston radial-engine multiengine aircraft, such as (e.g.) the Beech 18 and the DC-3 had unfeathering pumps to make it possible to unfeather for an airstart, or to restart the engine on the ground without the inconvenience of having a mechanic come out and use a big wooden paddle with a prop-fitting cuff on the end to apply the forces necessary to rotate the props out of feather and into the fine-pitch locks against the force of the feathering springs. The electric unfeathering pump moved oil into the prop dome and forced the piston forward (same way the governor does it) to drive the props out of feather into fine pitch. When it reached minimum low pitch, spring-loaded locks snapped out and held the blades there against the push of the feathering spring, after the pump stopped. While this action was ongoing, you could see the blades twist from the cockpit. Modern piston twins do not have unfeathering pumps, I believe they have accumulators which use stored air / oil pressure to drive the prop to fine pitch for airstarting. Sorta the way the power brakes in your car will have a couple of good pumps if the engine dies, but then you're down to hard effort at the pedal. So your memory, if it's of a RW aircraft, might be of such, a modern (70s on) piston twin?I seem to recall that some earlier (40s single engine) piston aircraft may have used oil pressure to drive the props towards coarse pitch, and with the loss of oil pressure, went to fine pitch, which of course is not workable for multiengine aircraft with a pressing need to minimize prop drag on a dead engine. In either case, no oil pressure, no prop movement.Because of the incredibly wide operating range of a turboprop's propellor blades (-15 degrees to +90), and the high horsepower they transmit, I can't imagine any turboprop ever using any direct-control method of moving the prop blades. Certainly this is true of US-designed turboprops, whether PT6 or TPE-331. Somebody in our incredibly diverse group should fill us in on Eurpoean and East-Eurpoean methods.

>Did they get dinged?You know it! :-roll Not badly, but I don't like any. Still, what was I gonna do? Here's the boss with his guests, walking out to the plane and no tug. The pressure is on to get aboard and get the engines going, it's hot and sticky today. It's clear behind and I have two linemen to watch. The ramp looks reasonably clean, no visible rocks. I pulled the ice vanes anyway, just to make sure I didn't get FODded. When we got back home, I checked the bird putting it away, sure enough, a few pecks. Filed 'em out next day, no biggie.

Why would this cause dings?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Okay thanks for the explanation. That cleared up the prop issue for me.

Hi Stephen,Thanks for the explanation about pushback of taildraggers; didn't know that.But wouldn't they be called PullBack tugs ?? :-)Cheers, RobPS:I've also made a version of my pushback gauge that allows continuous stearing by the pilot (via stick or rudder pedals) while being pushed back (which doesn't use the preset length/turn angle, in fact: doesn't use the FS9 function at all for pushback).It also allows the aircraft being "pulled" (with engines off), eg to a parking spot. Not published yet, but I might use it for an FSX version of groundhandling.

Hey, Rob,Pullback tugs, hehe...in my lineman days on the ramp at KGGG, we just called 'em "tugs", and driving one in the wintertime was often a very cold proposition. You run out to the aircraft, by which time your hands are blocks of ice (our tug didn't have a windshield or canopy). Then you get down, grab the towbar, get down (oh, my hips) crawl under the nose, drag the towbar in with you, get it attached (usually skinning a knuckle in the process, ow again!), crawl back out, and climb up and try to drive the thing without exceeding the turn limits of the nosewheel, or bang a wingtip. The high tail on King Air 200s was sometimes a problem, too. Ah, those were the days!Well, NOW I remember you! You're the guy that fixed the Osprey & Harrier hovering flight models! For which I've never properly thanked you -- I wound up buying the Alphasim Harrier because of your work. When I get a moment (or a weekend) I'm going to try to integrate it with Kerkhove's Moller Skycar. Your gauge makes flying high-speed aircraft which are also capable of hovering a real pleasure.Your pushback gauge I have now d/led for 2004. The "connecting two physical aircraft" capabilities of FSX are pretty exciting. Will we eventually have people who specialize in tug operations on Vatsim for fly-ins?What I really want doesn't seem to be in view, because once I get out of my aircraft in FS, it's gone. I want to leave it on the ramp, have it STAY there, and get into another aircraft (a tug) and drive over to it, hook it up, and push (or pull ;)) it into the hangar.And if I want to fly an aircraft, I would like, rather than picking it out from a screen, to (at least have the choice to) go into the hangar, get any of my other airplanes out of the way with a tug (or by direct push if they're small enough), tug my aircraft out, fuel it with a fuel truck or my hangar's fuel farm, then get into it and go fly. Maybe by FSXX...Well, thanks again for your fine work.

Your idea sounds possible to me.Imagine a mission which reads the airplane you are in and automatically places an object using the same aircraft and puts it where your aircraft is sitting.1. You land and park2. You call up the switch aircraft menu and select an aircraft you want to switch into and either tell the system where the plane is parked, or the system chooses a random spot for you (which isn't the same as yours, and is perhaps some radius away from you). 3. You exit the plane somehow (press a button or the knob on the door?)4. the door on the plane opens and the camera travels out of the airplane and walks across the tarmac to your other plane.5. As you exit the plane, a process occurs which replaces the plane you are in with an object of the plane in the same position and orientation, creates the plane you are going to as an object at its parking spot, then replaces that with the plane you are switching to and opens the doors.6. Camera enters the new airplane, and you are good to go!addendum. I could even imagine a model of a person being used as the the "airplane" in the transition stage, so you can switch to a follow camera and watch yourself walk across the tarmac. Of course this person could be textured with pictures of YOU! I'm imagining several models for the person could be provided - male, female, etc.. Maybe even give you a buddy to walk with! Or a model could exist for each person in the shared cockpit model.Mind racing, racing. Lots of ways this could be done. I'm liking the idea of the interim switch being a switch to the person model, and objects created of the from and to planes in the correct positions during that switch. Then you control how you walk across the tarmac and where you look as you do.Course the entry and exit of planes could be an issue if the transition is automated, but hey, one step at a time. Perhaps a standard modeling method could be created for the entry exit path to and from the cockpit could be created so authors can integrate that into the model. Or maybe even FS already supports multiple internal models, so that there is a standard model that users could record once for each of their planes and then continue to use them (and share them). Or maybe camera paths can be created and saved to perform the same function. But this would all be moot if you switched to a person model. Then you just fly yourself from one plane to the next (the issue now being how to manage the animations (if any) of the person model being used i.e. walking, turning, climbing the wing, climbing through the cockpit, sitting).This person could be used as a passenger entering the plane through the jetway and sits in a seat and goes for a ride. Imagine being a passenger in a shared cockpit situation. Now we can go and sit in the cockpit with the pilots again, just like the old days. Could have stewards and stewardesses. Hmmmm.Sounds like we need a person with motion model for FS.Suffice to say it seems to me the functionality to accomplish this should be in FSX.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Oops, missed this one!>Why would this cause dings?Because with reverse you're using more than idle power, plus you're moving backwards which means anything loosened by your mains (or nosegear for land singles) gets to have a go at the prop. They get dings, anyway, I inspect props first flight of every day and after any rough (i.e. old / decaying asphalt with visible exfoliation) surface ops. I don't reverse on nasty stuff, in any case. But even on relatively clean looking asphalt, when you start using power while near a standstill, airflow pulls in stuff that you didn't see, plus with extra speed and force on props, a strike that might otherwise just scratch the paint can penetrate, instead.