Anyone here bought a payware Baron twin lately that runs on X11 and what did you think of it?that offers the G1000 also..

I think the answer is no! The only payware XP11 BE58 was by Carenado - think it is still available for sale at the Org Store or from Carenado but anything Carenado comes with the caveat emptor - Carenado no longer support XPlane products. Not aware of any threads elsewhere where people are using it or tried to fix it for whatever reason. You could buy it but your on your own thereafter!

All XP12 users have a  high quality Laminar BE58 as a default aircraft so that would explain the lack of interest in trying to mod, repair or upgrade an XP11 product that is no longer supported. 

I recently surrendered on trying to keep two XP11 Carenado products running and binned it - sad but just not worth it anymore. 

Edited January 6Jan 6 by coastaldriver

I had the X11 Carenado B58. Was really nice! Dan Klaue's (now Thandra : Developer Spotlight: Dan Klaue (Thranda Design) - Interviews - Developer Spotlight - X-Plane.Org Forum ) work... 

I had a couple other aircraft he did for Carenado back in Xp11 times.

If you consider using a Baron 58 in Xp12, you can mod the default Baron 58 using:

https://www.flightsimulator.me/simulators/x-plane/aircrafts/112-beechcraft-baron-b58-analog

Features:

• New 4K textures

• Improved analog cockpit

• Better lighting

• Updated airfoils

• Optional modular downloads

or 

https://www.flightsimulator.me/simulators/x-plane/aircrafts/78-beechcraft-baron-b58-with-avitab-integration-with-or-without-winglets-1-5

Features:

• G1000 NXi avionics

• Winglet and non‑winglet versions

• Updated airfoils

• Improved flight model

• Warning/caution messages like the real G58

This is the closest you’ll get to a freeware G1000 Baron for XP12.

Edited January 6Jan 6 by jcomm

19 hours ago, 4df5 said:

Anyone here bought a payware Baron twin lately that runs on X11 and what did you think of it?that offers the G1000 also..

Once I got the SimCoders REP package for the Default Baron, I never looked further, TBH.

If youre looking for one in v11, the Carenado PLUS the REP upgrade will give you an excellent package. And secret tip: if you ever do upgrade to v12, the REP will allow the v11-only Carenado to continue working just fine in v12! 🙂 

Other than the modern Diamond twins, I'm not aware of any Garmin glass twins in classic airframes.

The Carenado KA 90 does have ProLine glass, tho, so you might check that one out since you're on v11.

4 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Other than the modern Diamond twins, I'm not aware of any Garmin glass twins in classic airframes.

https://forums.x-plane.org/files/file/89178-king-air-c90b-evo-g1000-blackhawk/

Unless you mean piston twins.

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

https://forums.x-plane.org/files/file/89178-king-air-c90b-evo-g1000-blackhawk/

Unless you mean piston twins.

I thought I covered my bases, but yeah, that’s a classic, too! (And a good one!) 😁

6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Once I got the SimCoders REP package for the Default Baron, I never looked further, TBH.

If youre looking for one in v11, the Carenado PLUS the REP upgrade will give you an excellent package. And secret tip: if you ever do upgrade to v12, the REP will allow the v11-only Carenado to continue working just fine in v12! 🙂 

Other than the modern Diamond twins, I'm not aware of any Garmin glass twins in classic airframes.

The Carenado KA 90 does have ProLine glass, tho, so you might check that one out since you're on v11.

A word of caution if one contemplates the REP package and the Carenado Baron- I had the simcoders REP package for another Carenado orphan the PA31 up and running nicely as well - until two things - 12.4 and moving to a new Linux XP installation created some new issues with the internal menu processes for the REP XP12 version - basically became unstable in the menu department although the actual model looked ok. Same thing happened with the Carenado Fokker F50 now totally broken despite some really good upgrades that had it working quite well  in XP12 on Windows. Going to tinker with them again but I suspect the problems lie deep in the scripts.

My personal view the more XP 12 moves along and is improved in lots of other areas - patching and keeping these XP11 Legacy products going will end them. 

As for 4df5 Why not just go to XP12 and the go with the Default Laminar Baron 58 - its fine. I know there may be other reasons for sticking with XP11. 

2 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

A word of caution if one contemplates the REP package and the Carenado Baron- I had the simcoders REP package for another Carenado orphan the PA31 up and running nicely as well - until two things - 12.4 and moving to a new Linux XP installation created some new issues with the internal menu processes for the REP XP12 version - basically became unstable in the menu department although the actual model looked ok. Same thing happened with the Carenado Fokker F50 now totally broken despite some really good upgrades that had it working quite well  in XP12 on Windows. Going to tinker with them again but I suspect the problems lie deep in the scripts.

My personal view the more XP 12 moves along and is improved in lots of other areas - patching and keeping these XP11 Legacy products going will end them. 

As for 4df5 Why not just go to XP12 and the go with the Default Laminar Baron 58 - its fine. I know there may be other reasons for sticking with XP11. 

Fair points.

Even on a plain vanilla Windows install, the Carenado PC-12 + REP never worked at all on v12. Not sure what was different in the PC-12 code base, but it became a brick as soon as I switched to v12. I contacted the SC rep, and he said he had tried but just couldn't get it to run.

Which was a shame, because small turboprops, and the PC-12 in specific, are among my most favorite aircraft.

I'm hoping a REP will eventually be released for the Thranda PC-12, but it doesn't seem like SimCoders & Thranda are working together too much these days (which is also a shame, as the REP + Kodiak is (still) a heckuva addon package!).

Edited January 7Jan 7 by UrgentSiesta

Quick footnote - reworked the PA31 into XP - shows up as XP11 aircraft. Applied the SimCoders REP package - again works perfectly as long as it is selected as an XP11 aircraft in XP 12.4 but a no show no go as an XP12 model. Not that it is an issue on one level if I have a need for the PA31 well just selecting it as XP11 version does the trick and no issues within XP 12.4 then at all. The same could apply for the Carenado Baron but as the LR default Baron is fine by me - why bother? 

I got the REP for default B58 in XP12, it flies fine, but I never able to hit the table number as accurate as say Thranda PC12, Blackhawk C90 or AFL350(as recent updated)

18 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

My personal view the more XP 12 moves along and is improved in lots of other areas - patching and keeping these XP11 Legacy products going will end them. 

Yes. I'm glad the Saab 340 was salvageable for 12.3 and beyond.

 

15 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

Quick footnote - reworked the PA31 into XP - shows up as XP11 aircraft. Applied the SimCoders REP package - again works perfectly as long as it is selected as an XP11 aircraft in XP 12.4 but a no show no go as an XP12 model. Not that it is an issue on one level if I have a need for the PA31 well just selecting it as XP11 version does the trick and no issues within XP 12.4 then at all. The same could apply for the Carenado Baron but as the LR default Baron is fine by me - why bother? 

Save the ACF with Plane Maker 12.4 and it should show up as an XP12 aircraft.

 

15 hours ago, C2615 said:

I got the REP for default B58 in XP12, it flies fine, but I never able to hit the table number as accurate as say Thranda PC12, Blackhawk C90 or AFL350(as recent updated)

Me too. But I don't bother with the table numbers as GA manufacturers always lie in their POH anyway.

1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

Me too. But I don't bother with the table numbers as GA manufacturers always lie in their POH anyway.

The issue of what the POH says and what the aircraft will do for GA aeroplanes was once clearly spelt out in a very detailed accident investigation report in Australia probably 30 years ago. The accident involved a PA31 that had an engine failure after take-off at Melbourne at night on a freight run. The then BASI (now ATSB) revealed that the so called performance figures were not achievable by any aircraft in operation. They then detailed (in tabular form) how cumulative wear and tear on a variety of components would lead from a presumptive or POH figure of a positive rate of climb etc to a very large negative ROC. They also revealed that the data presented by the manufacturer(s) was also representative of a brand new aircraft with basically zero time new engines and airframe and flown by a highly competent and experienced test pilot (not your average pilot by any means). The primary issue was you could not know what the performance would be for any given aircraft due to its state of wear and tear (even little things like the engines condition, paint condition, gear door operation etc) but to rely on that data was not possible.

What did it mean? BASI referred back to the original certification class or type certificate which for that class of aeroplane (any Ga twin) meant - by the rules it only had to demonstrate that single engine flight was possible if at 5000 ft and in the cruise and under optional conditions. Equally nobody had data sets for engine performance etc for a worn (if even slightly) engine and then again there is the dreaded ISA bogey - that is all certification and data is based on ISA or the international standard atmosphere (pressure, temps and watervapour) ISA is merely a theoretical mean and you will very rarely encounter ISA condtions anywhere in the world and in most countries - never at all. So it is not that they lied but shall we say gilded the lily! Same for the so called engine performance data. Nothing has changed since then except people do not understand that the type certificate and approval is very different for a GA aeroplane as opposed to a Transport Category aircraft (tubeliner) there the type certificate process required multiple demonstrative and proven data that the aircraft could and would achieve book data. 

In the sim this is merely an annoyance but in the RW making erroneous assumptions about performance would get you killed. 

Edited January 7Jan 7 by coastaldriver
Spelling correction.

On 1/8/2026 at 1:29 AM, Bjoern said:

Me too. But I don't bother with the table numbers as GA manufacturers always lie in their POH anyway.

 

On 1/8/2026 at 2:27 AM, coastaldriver said:

 Nothing has changed since then except people do not understand that the type certificate and approval is very different for a GA aeroplane as opposed to a Transport Category aircraft (tubeliner) there the type certificate process required multiple demonstrative and proven data that the aircraft could and would achieve book data. 

In the sim this is merely an annoyance but in the RW making erroneous assumptions about performance would get you killed. 

Thanks for the info, I'm in the 121 side so not aware that much about GA.

But it seems to me REP B58 uses LESS fuel in cruise than the table🫠

Having been a testing officer, instructor and check captain in the RW for both beolw 5700 kg types (GA) and Heavies. You have to have a very sound grasp of what an aeroplane can and cannot do which means a thorough understanding of the manufacturers manual and data and knowing that the type certification process is different for performance - in GA it is what you get in the Heavies it is very different and as a result you end up with literally books of perfomance data on a heavy to consult, use and refer to. I avoid discussions on the heavies because the area is very complex well shall we say more complex than people appreciate and the sim dumbs this down for the user to best case stuff that is easy to use and reference. I give a quick example to illustrate even the heavies do not tabulate or have data for severe preciptation flight that is when the wing airflow is almost in liquid air and the engines are gulping in huge quantities of water. There have been a few accidents over the years where this has brought people undone (e.g Thunderstorm penetration events).

Back to GA stuff you type certification process (excluding the issue of materials construction etc) as it relates to performance is quite rudimentary particular when you compare a single engine type to a multi-engine type or twin. Performance is limited to calculating weights and balance, then take off and landing performance, stall speeds and then various structural speed limits. Basically your take off speed is not V1 V2 etc but simply the TKOF safety speed that is a factor of 1.5 Vs thats all the rest is what conditions will give you that or stop you (temp, field length, obstructions etc). There is no such thing as V1 V2 in a GA type they are not calculated even though you may get accelerate/stop tables for take off and landing. The main issue that catches people out year after year after year in RW is underrstanding the effect of the change in the LF and the stall speed of an aircraft  as the AoB changes. The other is VMCA or the minimum control speed for a twin after engine failure - that figure is based on the fin size and rudder authority it is also calculated for the aeroplane in the clean (no flap or gear configuration) there is no VMCA figure for a flapped aircraft in GA its not demonstrated or required to be given. I can tell you from trials undertaken with a few different GA twins it will be as much as 30% higher than for flaps up so if you have a VMCA of 80 knots for example in the book in reality if the flaps are down it will actuallly probably be close to 100 knots. My favourite example for twins is the De Havilland Mosquito it would fly at about 100 knots but the VMCA for the Mosquito was 180 knots why look at the miserable little fin and rudder at the back. My long view and for survival was to treat every GA twin a single engine aeroplane if you lost one, get the nose down keep control and look for a field to crash land in - you are not going to fly it away in most circumstances. a 50ftpermin ROC is hardlly going to get you anywhere safe except and obstacle free paddock somewhere. As for the quick 180 back to the field if you lost an engine is a single - forget it ( I could do it once but it was in an agile airforce trainer with exceptional roll control and balance, because theroretically you could do it does not mean we did or condoned attempting. Most people are so surprised when the fan stops they fail to notice the bleed off in speed, attitude and the fact that gravity has now taken over.  

Anyway some thing worth knowing for simmers when they consider how the simulated aircraft performs compared to real life aircraft. 

Hijacked the thread somewhat apologies. just good to consider this stuff now and then and to reinforce why I use XP for flight simulation, it simulates aerodynamics and engine performance very well and well as I can no longer muck about with real aeroplanes it is good fun to try out different types in the sim because in XP it is an authentic and realistic flight simulation. 

As for the Baron always the Rolls Royce of GA twins and a delight to fly in real life next to the King Air of course. And the BN2 Islander because it was actually ceritifed in the transport category so even though it seems like a rough GA twin it is not it is a little airliner just slow and noisy!

Edited January 9Jan 9 by coastaldriver