6 minutes ago, tttocs said:

Can't argue with anything you say here, but unless I truly had money to burn I would neither invest in a turbine conversion nor buy into a converted plane.  The economics just aren't there.

That said, please don't misunderstand.  This is a sim, where RW economics don't matter if you don't want them to.  I've flown the last 20 hours or so of sim time in the Turbine Duke, because it's an unbelievably well done simulation that's fun to fly.  Frankly, I don't think either the Turbine or Piston Duke make much RW sense, pretty as they are.  It was a flawed plane that never found much traction IRL.  But here in sim-land, they're two of my favorite planes.   I'm sure I'll have a lot of fun in the Turbine Bo as well.

 

Scott

No worries. Everyone has their own opinions and that's good as it keeps the conversation interesting. I too think the T-Duke is an interesting machine. I'd have the -34 engines instead of the -21 but that's personal preference. You could have a fabulous airplane for +/- $1.5 million. I really enjoy it in the sims.

Not that many Dukes around. Even fewer T-Dukes, Got to stick my head in a piston duke for a few minutes once and thought very interesting airplane. With turbines it would be a rocket ship. According to the people doing the conversion it is. Great to have it in our sims. I helped with the beta testing of the RealAir version many years ago. I flew for a living for 40 years and had a lot of Pt6 time on various "dash #" variants on king airs and the E110. 

I think the T-Bonanza would be a very safe airplane with all that power plus having O2. Curious what the engine is derated to. I'm looking forward to the T-Bonanza too.

 

10 minutes ago, dbw1 said:

I think the T-Bonanza would be a very safe airplane with all that power plus having O2. Curious what the engine is derated to. I'm looking forward to the T-Bonanza too.

According to the Black Square manual, it's a PT6A-21 de-rated to 500 shaft horsepower.  I expect the take-off roll will be eye-popping with takeoff distance listed as 840 ft.  Landing distance is almost as impressive at 1,105 ft.

 

Scott

36 minutes ago, Soul Rebel said:

Of all the models included in the 36/58 bundle, which one would be the fastest in the 8.000/12.000 ft range?.

 

Probably the TC or P Baron 58.

5 minutes ago, tttocs said:

 I expect the take-off roll will be eye-popping with takeoff distance listed as 840 ft.  Landing distance is almost as impressive at 1,105 ft.

 

 

Oh it is 🙂

 

22 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

Forget pay day.  I have just pawned my car so I can get this.

You see this is the advantage of having children.

You can rent 'em out for medical experiments!

I would like to hear the pro/con arguments on the Baron reference:

1.) Normally Aspirated;

2.) Turbocharged;

3.) Pressurized.

Noted in Baron history is the timeline of options #2 and #3 during the 1980s. It appears these options were discontinued post ~2000. I assume the reasoning was cost, weight and maintenance. I don't know if higher MGTOW on some options validates cost/benefit analysis. I've been looking for some opinion articles but haven't found any yet. 

 

I was wondering what that plane was in the video.  Reminded me more of a Piper Malibu or similar.  I thought they were trying to see how much we pay attention.  🙂

Edited October 22, 2025Oct 22 by kerosene31

 

Yes that means I can finally post!

(most of these will be uploaded at the usual spot upon release).  Release version can't have most of the logos/branding etc

 

4 hours ago, Les Parson said:

I would like to hear the pro/con arguments on the Baron reference:

1.) Normally Aspirated;

2.) Turbocharged;

3.) Pressurized.

Noted in Baron history is the timeline of options #2 and #3 during the 1980s. It appears these options were discontinued post ~2000. I assume the reasoning was cost, weight and maintenance. I don't know if higher MGTOW on some options validates cost/benefit analysis. I've been looking for some opinion articles but haven't found any yet. 

1) Cheaper to operate and maintain, less fuss with turbochargers/chance of ruining the engines with shock cooling and other turbo issues.  Not exactly sure on fuel burn... I would guess less than TC?

2)  Why TC when you have...

3) Pressurization and TC hehe!  Great for longer flights, but you'd need O2 supply to climb into the lower FL's.

"Everything looks better in tip tanks" TwoToneMurphy

dd

3 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

1) Cheaper to operate and maintain, less fuss with turbochargers/chance of ruining the engines with shock cooling and other turbo issues.  

Shock cooling seemed to be debunked as no such thing . “Square” rule is also being questioned! I actually asked a veteran FAA inspector about “square rule” and he went like “well 50 years ago there used to be a thing with old radial engines ..  “ lol

I was watching a lot of V1’s stream yesterday and man do these planes look incredible.  The sounds are also off the charts!  It looked like these will certainly be on par with the dukes and possibly even better.  The PT6 Bonanza was literally insane!