Pict

Lol use hPa...STD setting will be 1013..makes life simpler

Would I be nit-picking if I said that a Lockheed Electra isn't a turbo prop? :rolleyes: They have two (or is it three) versions of electra technically lol but using the wikipedia definition isn't a good idea as its editable by anyone (and with all the drawbacks that cone with it). The term "propliner" applied to both the large piston props like the dc-7s, starliners etc as well as the few large turboprops that briefly were in service before jets became more common (according to Jeppessen's Guided Flight Discovery book series).

Best wait until it's released and watch for reviews/comparisons (that way you're able to compare it with Carenado's TBM850). --Xavier

Fraser McKay et al also have a great lockheed electra and also a great cl44 as well (available in the library if i remember right). Xavier

Lol someone just had to mention the infamous "W-word".....

Actually that only applies to the smaller pt6 series....the pwc100 series are all triple spool turboprops: low pressure spool (nl) high pressure spool (nh) and the free spool (connected to the propeller) From my experience the single shaft turboprops respond quickly while the free turbines respond slower...I've never flown a jet but from riding jumpseat on CAL's 737s the cfms respond to throttle imputs much faster compared than when i'm flying a kingair (the garrets on the mu2s are near instantaneous)

iFly has a better value for money as you get the same systems fidelity (I also confirmed it with rw 737ng pilots) with all the variants out of the box....plus they have a version for those running a home cockpit as well. Given I have to practice emergency procedures every six months in real life, lack of failure simulation isn't a deal breaker for me either (Fs = fun time). Also a plus the iFly has a full set of 2d panels if you're running a multi monitor setup.

From my experience flying the real Duke the aircraft is very stable when loaded properly and feels somewhat heavy on the controls (at best it feels like a ship when flying it right after flying a Duchess or Da42). I don't own Real Air's Duke so i can't comment on how it handles. Back on topic though..how does this TBM hold up regarding system performance overall? Is it something that needs quantum hardware to get 20+ fps on?

I wonder that too.. given that the R44 would be about 1,5 hours short of fuel. It does explain the unannounced 'diversions' and 'reappearances' they often do :-D

Hahaha it's why I often wonder how these helicopter pilots manage when flying R44s from Antigua direct to Trinidad on a weekly basis (EET 4.5 hours!) Xavier

Yup its common with any turboprop without counter rotating props actually. By default msfs does not simulate the prop effects that well, by going outside of the msfs model, majestic's q400 will show the more pronounced reactions you'll get in real life (and like real life the trims make life easier and prevents tired limbs :-D ) Best regards Xavier

Maybe it's just me but from what it looks like, the tutorial assumes that you have read and understood the systems manual of the aircraft, hence the apparent "step skipping". It also assumes you are following the checklist as well. So for those having issues with the "poor tutorial" Majestic did say that this is not a jump in and fly type of airplane. It's one you will have to read up on first before flying. Also learn about the quirks it has too - turboprops are not as easy to fly as jets and need to be trimmed quite a bit...even with autopilot engaged - the q400s and mu-2s are notable in that regard...on takeoff your right foot has to be heavy on the rudders in the q as its two 13ft props with 4800+ hp behind them both spinning clockwise. 4% right aileron trim + 5 units right rudder trim helps on the takeoff and initial climbout. Xavier

Hold the RSK next to the transponder until it changes (~3 seconds) out of stby. Rgds Xavier

Adam the aircraft (like the real q400) has a nose-low attitude when sitting on the ground, so you will not see a 0-degree pitch on the EADIs while the nosewheels are on the ground. Xavier

JSBSim for the calculations! Nicee!! (I also use flightgear which also uses that FDM on some models). Looking forward to tomorrow!

Fraser Mckay et al have an excellent (freeware at that!) set of panels for the old Dart/Allison/Tyne powered turboprops including the F27/FH-227 (available as full packages over at cbfsim.org). -Xavier

Holding a CPL/IR/mu-2 rating...preparing for ATPL written currently

IFly carries the BBJs 1,2 & 3 as part of their 737 lineup and also FeelThere has their Legacy (a bit dated but still great and I believe the range is closer to the 3500-4000nm though) I've read that Gulfstream & Dassault restrict payware developers from making payware replicas of their aircraft so the chances of finding a payware G5/4/550/450 or F900/50/7X are pretty slim. No word on anyone doing the Bombardier Globals either... Off topic a bit: there's an awesome (freeware!) Falcon 7X available for x-plane 9/10 if you use Laminar's platform as well (^_^). Edit: Yeah I found they're especially blurry (but readable on my laptop) if you run the sim at 1024x768 and medium texture resolutions in particular. Xavier

The marshland at the western portion is pretty visible in real life (brownish as apposed to the deep blue/green of the lake itself) and looks like a solid piece of land until you fly lower enough over the area to see the water in between the sawgrass. I'm not an owner of Florida 2.0 but based on the screencaps i'd say the one showing the brownish area on the western edge is more accurate to reality than the screenie that doesnt show it. I have a few pics from a flight I did over the area I'd like to attatch but can't seem to find a means to do so.

I agree! I'm all for mature, balanced constructive critique of any product. What I am not for is for persons comparing existing products with something not yet released (eg, 777/A320), or bashing a person just because the show a favourable opinion to a competing company's product (like what often happens regarding Ifly 737/PMDG 737ngx)...I've even seen some excellent freeware that (in my opinion) surpasses many payware equivalents in outright realism and systems fidelity...but are bashed horribly simply because they don't have a VC or have a very basic VC. Xavier

Sadly it's a bit of a pet peeve I've had with many threads here...as soon as a discussion about any product that just happens to be the same aircraft type PMDG is working on or released, some PMDG fans (notoriously the Ngx/777 fans in particular...) often either try to or are actually successful in derailing the topic at hand with (mostly childish or uncalled for) bashing of the aforementioned competing product. It's beginning to look like mentioning Ifly's 737 or Captainsim's 777 in a favourable light is taboo for some persons in the FSX forum. The worst thing about it is...most never even tried the other product in the first place (easy to tell)...just reminds me of the old debates regarding the sega saturn/ sony playststion/ nintendo 64... Sorry for my marconic english, Xavier

Bristol I think the quote above is actually the catalyst of what probably set the mod/dev off...In your situation I would have just mentioned the problem again as you did, but without adding the "would it really be too much trouble to include the tutorial flight in the package, rather than having to go through this process to get it..." or anything along that line, as it could have easily be read as in insult, sarcasm, a lack of respect or rudeness/impoliteness (not an uncommon thing to find in posts by frustrated users either - especially over at the Airsimmer forms et al). So it really sounds like a case of the moderator going on the defensive after your remark above (when you look at it that way, his email to you regarding not being a "monkey in a call centre" can be put into proper perspective...as people do and will throw low blows to persons providing a service to them). ...just my $0.02 Xavier

I was noticing the same thing, seems the Blue and Yellow hydraulics drain slowly whenever i select cold and dark as my startup option. When I select normal startup state they're fine. Xavier lol I guess I must take the fifth place then as i'm primarily a 2d flyer as long as a 2d panel is present...(pterodactyl?) :lol:

+1 for the maddog 2010 i'd add the majestic software dash-8 flight1 citation mustang ( for smaller metal) and the simcheck A300 to the list as well regarding outright systems fidelity ohh and lets not forget DA's fokker 100/70 (its perfect if you're equally at home and happy whether its 2d only, mix of 2d with vc or 3d vc panels like me - but if you're a part of the "i can't fly anything without a vc" crowd best skip this gem...) regards, xavier

i think its a combination of two things - HJG's aircraft were designed to both be flown realistically as well as tailored to use the panels they offered (particularly regarding engine and autopilot operation). while you can use other panels, you'll find some quirks using panels other than HJGs themselves.normally on approach/landing you want to fly a stabilised approach...a good rule of thumb is:on the initial approach reduce to 200kts (flaps 5 below 220 kias), then on base reduce to 170-180 (flaps 15). always ensure you use a 30 degree intercept angle to the localizer course if flying under autopilot or hand flying (it avoids excessive banking to intercept the final approach course). when established on final reduce to final approach speed and set flaps to landing setting (~150k/flaps 25, ~145k/flaps 30, ~140k/flaps 40). try to avoid extending the flaps while in turns as well - only extend when wings are level. ensure you're at your final landing speed and flap setting before you intercept the glide path to landing (a good reference point to use is before the outter marker or ~5 - 7nm from the runway on final.). hope this helps and happy flying-xavier