N520AT

Small world, very cool! I'm trying to get it organized to take a plane again this year. Will you guys be there too?

I actually was parked next to the DC-3 at last year's Dulles Plane Pull. We did a static display in one of our Dash 8's. You can kind of see the DC-3 in this picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/airlinegeeks/21390297368/in/album-72157658885333751/ Even got a DC-3 sticker from Robert's crew: http://imgur.com/a/3R4Dh

The Dash's WX radar wouldn't be too hard to simulate. It doesn't paint very much of anything. Especially when you really need it. :lol:

I've seen the NVS work quite a bit on our 200's and 300's. I've also seen it MEL'd or in degraded mode quite a bit too. B) That being said, whether it works or not I don't really care as my ANR headset makes it nice and quiet either way. The only time I care is when we're deadheading, then I just sport ear plugs. I really hope PMDG does the Dash, or finishes what they have announced. They would do a really nice job.

I'm pretty sure that any GPS on the 1900D was a customer option as many airlines chose not to get it. Most airlines (in the US at least) just opted to fly /A using VORs and DME because the routes were pretty short. Super nav 5! I have many hours (about 200+) behind a KLN90B in a CItation II cockpit. I knew that box inside and out.

I don't mean to be picky but the GPU is not dependent on the type of aircraft as much as it is the electrical system in which the aircraft has. There are two major types of GPUs, 28v and 115v. There are some aircraft with 12v systems, but GPU for those systems are pretty rare. I'm almost positive that the J41 is a 28v airplane, and that makes it fall into the more common category. If the airport is going to have a GPU at all, it's going to be a 28v GPU. Almost every airplane from King Airs to Dash 8s, to Saab 340s, to Citations and Hawkers are 28v aircraft. Sure, some have 115v AC systems but usually those systems aren't required to be online for engine start. After engine start, the ship is self sustaining (obviously). So I wouldn't call a GPU for a J41 a rare thing. When I'm flying the Dash, we pretty much need a GPU at all times for engine start. We can do battery starts, but you usually only have one shot at getting an engine started successfully (without getting a hot start or hung start) on battery power alone because the starter draws so much current and the batteries are some what weak.

The engines on the J41 - as I'm sure you know - are tubrine engines and therefore don't require carb heat..they don't even have a carburator to heat. I have no experience with direct-drive TPE331 turbines, my only experience is with free-turbines on PW123s and PT6A's. With the free turbines, they use an initerial separater. Basically, these are "doors" that swing down into the intake so any foreign contaminates that may be sucked into the intake hit the door at are flung out the bottom of the nacelle through an opening that opens in conjunction with the anti ice door. With the Anti-Ice OFF, the door is sucked into the top part of the intake (or the bottom in the case of the PW123) and it's an obstruction free path all the way up to the turbine. Activating anti-ice causes a rise in ITT and a drop in torque. Getting to cruise altitude in the winter is always much more difficult because where I fly we are climbing through icing conditions which by use of the engine anti-ice and ice accumlating on the airframe negate the colder temperatures and we usually (with the PT6's) run into our max temperature limit way (= not being able to increase torque) before we would in the summer, with hotter than ISA temps. My guess (I don't own the product) is that PMDG has this feature separately coded than anything in FSX. Does the J41 have a menu where you can assign key commands?

There's just no room. Our airline really crams em in with 37 in the back, all Economy. My knowledge of the NVS is limited, however I do know that it breaks a lot, at least on our airplanes. About a quarter to half of our flights are flown with it INOP.

Personally, I think the single cue is much easier to fly than the dual cue. I'm dreading the day when I have to fly a plane with a dual cue FD.

Sorry, I think I confused my number. Let me put it this way. I'm #26 of 41 FO's in my base.

I'm at a US Regional currently flying Dash 8's. We're a pretty small company and we have a lot of movement, so my stint on reserve was short. I've been here for almost 4 months and I sat 3 days (yes, Days) of reserve and the rest of the time I have had scheduled trips. Our bidding cycle is currently 28 days, and I'm holding 13 days off on a regular basis (almost 14). I'm currently at 65% seniority in my base, which isn't bad at all considering how long I've been here. This was my schedule for the last bid cycle. Tues-Wed Off Thursday-Sunday- 4 day trip, worth 20.31 hours of flying. Mon-Wed Off Thurs-Sun 4 day trip, worth 23.49 hours of flying Mon-Thurs - Off Fri-Mon- 4 day trip, worth 20.34 hours of flying Tues-Fri- Off Sat-Tues- 4day trip worth 21.56 hours of flying. All in all not a terrible schedule. I have to admit though, once I get home after a trip after dealing with ATC delays, MX issues, WX, approaches to minimums etc. The last thing I want to do is fire up flight sim and pretend I'm at work. It makes me laugh looking back on the times where flying an approach to mins in the sim was fun, having weather to do deal with was fun and challenging but now all I want it to be when I go flying is clear and a million. I love what I do and at times it does seem like work but I love what I do and would never be able to do something else and be so happy/satisfied with life.

As a RW Dash 8-200/300 pilot, I have found that the Majestic Dash is VERY detailed in terms of systems and it is 100% spot on. Visually, it is not as pleasing as the NGX.My hope is that with the PMDG Dash, we will get the best of both worlds in terms of visuals and systems.

I do have plenty of real world experience in this. We get this going back into Toledo all the the time from Chicago Center and Cleveland Center. And it's not "wrong" at all. It's legal, perfectly legit and it's exactly what they're expecting to you. I'm really having a hard time explaining this for the third time, but I'll try.Why are you saying that it is wrong? I'm curious as to what your source of information is that is telling you that I'm wrong and the controllers of Chicago and Cleveland Center are all wrong?Where in the instructions "Cross 46 miles Northwest of Toledo at 11,000" does it say to proceed direct to the Toledo Airport 315 radial 46 mile fix? It doesn't, but I'll play along. What are you going to do after you reach the 315 46 mile fix? Now your clearance limit has changed. What are you going to do if you lose comms on your way to that fix? You never received a "you are now cleared to Toledo via...." clearance. Basically, according to your example the new clearance limit is the Toledo 315 radial 46 mile fix. That's great, so how do you get to Toledo now? Toledo is still 46 miles away. And what about HIRED? Can you just completely omit that portion of the flight plan? You can't just go and deviate from your flight plan without the words CLEARED in the new instructions. In this instruction ("Airliner 123, cross 46 miles northwest of Toledo at 11,0000") the word "cleared" is not anywhere in the flight plan.If that was the case (that they want to to proceed to the Toledo Airport 315 radial 46 mile fix). They would say "Airliner 123, you are now cleared to Toledo via present position direct to the Toledo 315 radial 46 mile fix (can't legally do that because Toledo is not a VOR, it's the airport). CROSS 46 miles northwest of Toledo at and maintain 11,000" But that's not what they say.Like I said before, you're getting hung up on the direction in the clearence. Here's why I say this. When I first started flying into/out of Toledo, I got this clearance for the first time and I was pretty dumbfounded by it. Like you, I was thrown off by the cardinal direction that is in the instructions. Fortunately, I was flying with a guy at the time who had heard this multiple times.If it was said this way:"Airliner 123, cross 46 miles from Toledo at 11,000"Okay, so 46 miles from Toledo at 11,000. Well theres two places that I could be at 46 miles from Toledo. On the Northwest side (since I am coming in from a Northwesterly direction) and the Southeast side. To alleviate the confusion there, the FAA added the direction from the fix of intended crossing to make you aware on which side to cross the fix at the altitude. Since they want us to cross Northwest of Toledo (the side closest to us) at 11,000, they added the direction of the clearance.What do you think of my example in Indianapolis that I posted with the CLANG5 arrival? That's the exact same situation.All this aside, how do you KNOW that 315 is the radial that they want you on? Northwest could be anything from 271-359. So at this point you're guessing. What if you choose the 315 radial and they want you on the 340 radial? That's not practical, it's confusing and that is exactly why the direction in the clearance is SOLELY meant to identify which side of the fix of which the controller intends you to cross. Nothing more, nothing less. Basically, you're over complicating the clearance. Over thinking it.Here is the specific phraseology from the FAA 7110.65: Furthermore, that is not an acceptable clearance to give to a VFR aircraft because:-they don't have to be talking to anyone in the first place-how do you know that said VFR pilot can identify "northwest at 46 miles?" Once again, northwest can be anywhere from 271-359. They're not required to carry any sort of navigation equipment on board. Not even charts. So now you gave a clearance to a VFR pilot who can't tell 46 miles from 60 miles (because all he has is the Mark I eyeball). Not practical.Your confusion on this is kind of like my confusion on holding clearances. Sometimes I have to sit back, think about it and de-complicate it. A hold clearance can be something like this:"Airliner 123, proceed direct to Allentown, hold Southeast on the 135 degree radial, right turns, one minute legs"For me, I'd hear the Southeast part and get confused. I try to pay as little attention to the direction as I can and break down the clearance.So, we'd proceed direct to the VOR, hold on the 135 degree radial in the southeast quadrant of the station. Okay, so, on the inbound leg to the VOR we would set the reciprocal of 135, so 315. This always confused me, but once I read more into it and stepped back it made more sense.

Anyone know what the gauge was in FS9 that you could enable it, it would start pushing back and you could steer with the rudder pedals? It was quite handy.

That's the thing though. HIRED/-20 plus the 26 miles to Toledo from HIRED gives me 46 miles. And that's where the controllers are expecting you to cross at 11,000. Not the TOL/305/46 (315 would be the exact radial for Northwest) or whatever. The "cross 46 miles northwest of Toledo @ 11000" does not void your flight plan. You are not cleared direct to Toledo in the clearance. You are simply crossing a point that is 46 miles from Toledo on your flight plan route. This is how it works in the real world.I think you are confused about the direction that is given in the clearence. This is only given to tell you which side of the fix to hit your crossing restriction. Northwest means if you're coming from a Northwesterly direction, cross on the same side that you are coming from. If you are coming from a Northwesterly direction and they say cross 25 miles Southeast of the VOR @ 11,000, then the place you want to cross at is on the other side of the VOR.Here's another real world example that I experienced recently. I was going into IND and this was our filed route: ILLIE V96 FWA.CLANG5 (available here: http://dtpp.myairpla.../00203CLANG.PDF)Overtop of WGNER we received this clearance:7"Citation 123, at pilots discretion, descend to cross 20 miles Northeast of the PENDS intersection at 9,000"So, we put in the FMS "MIE/-3" because that would give us 20 miles from PENDS (17 nm from PENDS to MIE, then an addition 3 from MIE to make 20 miles total) AND it would allow us to stay on the arrival. If we put in a of PENDS045/20 (045 for Northeast) then it would take us off of the arrival, at which point ATC would be asking if we were still planning on heading into IND.I fired up the NGX and I put both of our ideas in. For me, MIE/-3 and for you PENDS045/20.As you can see, your 045 at 20 miles (where the green dashed radial line intercepts the 20 mile dashed arc) is well to the west of the course that we need for the CLANG5 arrival. If you do MIE/-3 that will give you the 20 miles (flown/flight plan distance, not straight line distance) you need to cross to get to 20 northeast of PENDS at 11,000 ft.Just for grins, let's do the original example as well:"Airliner 123, cross 46 miles northwest of Toledo at 11,0000"Now, once again. As you can see, your 305/46 off of TOL is well to the west of where our flight plan and ATC intends us to go. HIR04 is HIRED/-20 and keeps us on our flight plan route. Once again, this is flown or flight plan distance and not straight line distance.I think you're getting confused with the direction in the clearance. It's just there to tell you which side of the fix in the clearance to cross at the altitude restriction.

What the controller is expecting you to do is to maintain your present flight plan route and cross a measured distance away from the airport/intersection/VOR on your flight plan route.You're en route from KMGN to KTOL and your flight plan is basically KMGN HIRED KTOL. You're on your flight plan heading to HIRED and the controller says "Airliner 123, cross 46 miles northwest of Toledo at 11,0000". You comply. This is a pretty standard thing to happen IRL as they are trying to get you under the MIZAR arrival stream for Detroit.So, if you take a look at Skyvector (http://skyvector.com...HIRED:A.K5.KTOL) you will see that the leg from HIRED to KTOL is only 26 nm. This means that the controller wants you to cross a point that is 45 miles from Toledo on your flight plan route. So, you have the 26 miles from HIRED to KTOL and you need another 20 miles to meet the 46 total miles for the crossing restriction. So you would end up putting in "HIRED/-20". This places HIRED01 (new waypoint..custom waypoint) on your current flight plan route (magenta line) exactly 20 miles from HIRED. On skyvector, it shows a dot just north of the HIRED intersection. This is where HIRED01 would be located on the ND. If the controller gave you something like "cross 5 miles Southeast of HIRED at 9,000" then you would put "HIRED/+5" in the CDU.This is much easier than place/bearing distance because by the time you figure out what radial & distance puts you 46 miles from Toledo on your flight plan route, you've already blown the crossing restriction and now you are getting a letter in the mail.Most FMS's in the corporate world have the ability to do custom waypoints, I don't see why the 737 wouldn't have it. Heck, in the FMS that we have in the King Air we can even name our custom waypoints as long as the name that we put in isn't in the database already as a predefined intersection. So we could put "KTOL/-20/ROCKS" then "KTOL/-10/PMDG". It would show up on the MFD/ND (read from KTOL)...KTOL (magenta line)...PMDG (magenta line)....ROCKS (magenta line).

Anyone have any videos or samples of the clips being used?

Custom waypoint are great when the control says "Airliner 123 cross 40 miles northwest of Toledo at an maintain 12,000"Plug the waypoint in, put 12,000 in for VNAV and let VNAV do the work.Happens all the time in the real world.

People want release dates, but PMDG doesn't hit them so said people get angry. People want release dates, PMDG says it'll be out when it's ready and people get angry. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

@ :50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmRKSv73lZg @ :58 On the all of Cessna Citation jets (Citation 500 series, 650, 750, 680, 560XL etc.) it is mandatory that you test the EMER STOW function of the thrust reversers prior to each flight. This involves activating the thrust reversers, selecting the Thurst Reverser EMER STOW switch on the glare shield and making sure that the buckets stow with the actuation of the switch and the TR paddles in the up position. On the Cessna Citation 500 series limitations, there is no limitation on using TR's to control taxi speed other than reverse thurst must be at idle below 60 knots due to FOD considerations. At ExpressJet Airlines, it is an approved procedure to use idle reverse thurst to control taxi speed on the EMB145 jets. Note that all of these aircraft have tail-mounted engines, and the risk of FOD is nearly 0 with the engines at idle thrust.

90% of the time approaches are visual. They are easier to do and are more efficient. At PHX for example, 350 days out of the year visual approaches are in use. Even at night. Whether the pilot decides to back the visual with an IAP is up to them.

Hehe, sorry I just saw this thread last week. Unfortunately I do not. But the scenery looks great!

Shez, Awesome scenery. Finally someone shows TOL some love. I am a pilot based out of TOL and if you need any detailed pictures or anything let me know. I have pretty much unrestricted access to the ramp at TOL and I worked line service there for almost 4 years. BTW, I hope the FlightSafety building is modeled

I dunno, iFly or whatever it is is a competitor to the 737NGX. PMDG still released their product. And the King Air isn't exactly unpopular or widely unused. It's the most popular turboprop ever built. It was mentioned earlier but Carenado is more of a "looks" company it seems like. They don't like to get into systems, which is where PMDG excels. A turboprop in FS takes a lot to make it work the way it should, and PMDG is perfect to handle the job. I don't understand everyone's fascination with the 777. I mean, I like it too but it's far down the list of the aircraft that I want for FSX. But, that's exactly why PMDG chose the 777 - everyone wants a quality one for FSX. I like flying the big iron just as much as the next guy but I sometimes feel that the business aviation aircraft aren't given a fair shake.

There are many different King Air models. The 90 is a completely different animal than the 200. I'd take a B200 or a 350 with the Proline 21 avionics suite. I'm totally confident that PMDG could pull that off. With the Proline 21 avionics done on the King Air 200 or 350, you open up doors to produce many other aircraft that use the same avionics. Piaggio, CJ1/2/3/4, KA90, Astra, Falcon 50, etc. Me thinks it would be a very good move by PMDG as the avoinics suite is the "base platform" and all you have to do is build the model and integrate the panel into the model. Could save a lot of time in getting products out the door. <shameless plug> I have quite a bit of KA time (PL21 and non PL21), so you know, I might be able to help out on the tech team </shameless plug> I don't run a FS Dev company though so I could just be rambling on about things that I have no clue about...