norman_99

Thanks for the reply. As far as I'm aware, increasing the critical altitude only increases the height at which max MP (and therefore max power) is available too. As far as enabling auto mixture, I guess it's a toss up between constantly leaning to maintain the power whilst climbing, or not using the mixture at all. Either way isn't totally realistic.I'm just surprise that I couldn't find much more on this topic in the forums, as it seems to be a fairly large flaw in the modeling of turbocharged engines.Michael

Yes I do. It seems that the turbocharger is actually working, as I'm getting 39" MP up to 12,000 and it reduces as per the POH above that. This issue I'm now having is that in order to maintain power, I have to drastically lean the mixture. I should be able to obtain the same power with the same mixture setting at any height below 12,000 with leaning only required above this as MP starts to drop. Have you had any similar issues with turbocharged engines, or is this a limitation of FS9 I'll just have to live with?Thanks for yore help, Michael

After a bit of playing around, I've found I had to lean the engines significantly to achieve the rated horsepower at the critical altitude. This is unrealistic, as the turbo's are feeding the engines with the same volume of air no matter what the height, and the reason turbocharged aircraft don't require progressive leaning in a climb to maintain power.Is there any section of the air file which deals with fuel flows related to RPM and or altitude that could have an effect on this? Again, any assistance would be appreciated.Michael.

So nobody else has ever had any problems with turbocharged flight models? Probably just something I've overlooked. Any comments would be most welcome.Thanks, Michael

G'day,I'm just starting to get into editing flight models, and was trying my hand at making a flyable Cessna 402C out of an AI model. I've got access to POH's and other data so started using these figures with AirWrench. My problem is I've managed to get the engines set up nicely at see level, with 39" MP and 2700 RPM producing exactly 325HP, which I can read from a test panel I'm using. But at 10,000ft, I only get about 260HP, yet the turbos seem to be working fine cause I'm still getting 39" MP and running at 2700 RPM. This isn't really possible, as with the same MP and RPM I should be getting the same HP, no matter what altitude I'm at.I've set the critical altitude to 12,000ft, so should be getting full power and MP up to that height, then both decreasing above 12,000. Is there a setting I'm overlooking or is there a problem with the turbocharging simulation within FS9? Either way, if anyone has any ideas or solutions I'd love to here them, and don't limit them to AirWrench, I'm open to any suggestions.Thanks, Michael

G'day,I was just wondering of there are any plans to introduce a form of uncontrolled airspace in a future version of RC. I do most of my flying in Australia and outside the major cities, the class E airspace floor is 8,500 if in radar coverage, or 12,500 outside. Because of this ATC will never clear you for approaches to these airports, but simply give you a clearence to leave on descent, as well as information on any IFR and known VFR traffic. The rest is left up to the crew to do.I know it's possible to select the departure or destination as uncontrolled, but the center controller just takes over the ATC duties, so the system is not completely accurate when operating in Australia. I also understand that RC divides airspace up into vertical sectors, and therefore was wondering if it would be possible to creat an uncontrolled sector, with the option of allowing the user to set the hight of controlled airspace, similar to setting the MSA. That way it would still be possible to operate IFR, with appropriate calls, such as CTAF, as well as taxi & departure calls to ATC, but be able to track as you'd like, only getting a clearence once reaching the controlled airspace.I know that a feature like this may take a lot of work include and that i'm probabily the only person who's requesting it so i totatlly understand if it's not on your list of priorities, but i'd just like to if the idea has been brought up before. Even if you don't plan on including it, thanks for a great program, FS just isn't the same without it.SincerlyMichael

G'day,Just wondering if there had been any thought given to the idea above.ThanksMichael

Hi Jim,Thanks for the help, but unfortunatly the only internet access i'll be having for the next few months will be thru a cafe. I guess i was just wondering if it would be easy to make the archive download screen as a seperate exe that could be run from a USB drive. I've tried all sorts of ways of installing and running AS on a USB drive but with no luck. I realise i'm probabily the only person who'd like this capability, so i completly understand if it can't be done.Thanks AgainMichael

G'day,I was just wondering if it would be possible to download past weather using a seperate interface then AS6. I ask because I don't have direct net access now for the next few months, but would still like to download the entire weather for the last week on a seperate computer (Say at a cafe). Maybe this could be via a web page, or a seperate program. I realise that this is not the most requested new feature (if requested all), but it would greatly enhance the experience for people without a direct internet conection like myself. Any ideas or other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.Thanks, and keep up the great work.Michael

Subs,Thanks for your quick reply. I realise that different classes of airspace aren't modelled, which isn't a problem as to IFR aircraft they're all very similar (G aside). I was just curious to know if there have been any thoughts about an "uncontrolled" sector, or something similar. Till then, cancel IFR might be the way to go.Thanks again and keep up the great work.Michael

G'day,Firstly let me start by saying what a great addition to FS radar contact is, keep up the good work guys.I do have a question regarding operations to uncontrolled airports though. I realise in the US that the floor of class E airspace is much lower, and therefore IFR flights will recieve clearences for approaches into most airports. But in australia, Class E exists from either 8500 or 12500 and up. Once an IFR aircraft is at TOD, they simply get "cleared to leave controlled airspace on decent", and passing either 9000 or 13000, get told "contol services terminated, contact center on ***.**, the class G area frequency. Aircraft therefore never get cleared for approaches because they occur outside controlled airspace. The class G frequency continues to provide traffic info to IFR aircraft, such as "traffic for your decent to armidale is eastern 2023, IFR dash 8, currently ***, expecting armidale at ***" but no control servecies. On takeoff, you make a taxi call on the class g airspace, and possibly get a code if in radar coverage, but don't get a clearence. Once airborne you make a departure report on the same frequency, and only get a clearence if climbing into the overlying E airspace.I realise that it's impossible to model every copuntries procedures, but was wondering if there'd been any thought put into simulating non controlled airspace in a similar way. Maybe through an input for Class E floor on the controllers page, similar to the LSALT input.This is mearly a suggestion an in no way a critisism of the hard work everybodys done, but i'd be interested in any ideas you have about this area.Thanks for a great productMichael