Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Neutral

About DaviiB

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Seconded. I have yet to find a more accurate/complete Proline21 simulation anywhere. They knocked that one out of the park, and given what they were working with from a development standpoint, it's even more impressive. DB
  2. @fs1 Can I say again how much I'm appreciating your work on this? For those of us who aren't ready to start over with FS2020, P3D is still very much alive and this tool makes it that much better. If there's anything I can help with, please let me know. I'm fascinated by these sorts of things (and have no idea how they work lol) Cheers, DB
  3. I don't fly the King Air, but I do fly a Proline 21 equipped aircraft in the real world. IMO, the avionics in the Milviz King Air are brilliantly implemented. The FMS 3000 is a very good re-creation of the real unit and there is a lot more functionality in there than I expected at this price point. While I don't have a Navigraph chart subscription, I believe charts can be displayed on the MFD, per the real aircraft. The menu system for the charts works just as it does in my aircraft (though I haven't actually displayed any in P3D). I've noticed one small bug in a very specific situation, but it does not affect the integrity of the flight (only a display bug). As for the VNAV, we only use it on descent IRL and so far, it's worked as intended, though I have yet to try it on a complex STAR with multiple stepdowns. FLC mode works beautifully on climb and switches from IAS to Mach automatically, per the VNAV climb profile in the FMS. More shakedowns are required, but for now I am content with my purchase. Cheers, DB
  4. How about an approximate landing roll distance by aircraft type/category? Turboprop: 2500-4000ft Regional Jet: 3500-5500ft Medium Jet: 4000-6000ft Large Jet: 5000-7000ft ....with a caveat that the landing roll distance can't be greater than runway remaining at touchdown, otherwise the aircraft should just roll to the end. That would allow for some variation. OR How about you select the taxiways where you want aircraft to exit, then modulate the braking to hit taxi speed just before it gets there. The Airbus A350 actually has a feature like this called Brake to Vacate (BTV), where you pick your exit and the aircraft will brake accordingly. This would really only work for runways with multiple exits/parallel taxiways. It won't solve the landing distance issue on runways where a backtrack is required. Perhaps a combination of the two? Cheers
  5. I'd be happy to assist any way I can as well. Let me know if there's anything you'd need. Cheers
  6. Worth a mention. Captain Sim stated the following on their forums yesterday: It was listed on this page on the 767 Base Pack announce day as NON-confirmed expansion which MAY BE included in the 767 product line. Not anymore. To prevent any further speculations on the subject, the Engines Expansion mention has been removed from that page. The Engines Expansion (which is never existed) is gone. It appears that they will not be charging for different engine types. Whether the base pack will include multiple engine options remains to be seen though. I'm willing to give CS a fair shot at this.....they appear to be listening (somewhat) to their customers, and the FS community at large. What exactly do we have to lose? Nobody else appeared willing to make a payware 767 for P3D. I'd rather have the option available. DB
  7. Worth noting - the P3D version is also Free: https://secure.simmarket.com/digital-design-tenerife-south-p3d4.phtml Cheers
  8. I disagree with this somewhat. I've been simming in one form or another for almost 25 years, and currently fly a small jet IRL. The biggest hurdle when transitioning from a simulator to a real aircraft is the sensory overload from the sounds, feel and feedback from the controls, vibrations, G-Forces etc. I can be a bit overwhelming, but definitely not a complete deal-breaker. The sensation of sensory overload was present the first time I flew the real aircraft after training, but I was still able to manage....and definitely didn't crash. As a matter of fact, the full motion sim I trained in had a lower fidelity in some areas than some of the high-end addon aircraft for P3d (PMDG, FSLabs, Maddog, Majestic etc). While the cockpit and avionics were a 100% accurate re-creation of the real thing, the sounds, graphics, general immersion and actual feel of the controls were definitely not......as I quickly learned after flying the real aircraft for the fist time. This became even more obvious during my first recurrent training event after dozens of hours in the real thing. The full-motion sim felt more like a sim to me than a real aircraft....and in my mind it started to feel like FSX with a fancy cockpit setup. My point is, even the simulators real pilots use don't have 100% fidelity....and in some areas home simulators have caught up, or even surpassed the professional full-motion simulators. So I'd give an experienced simmer better than 0% odds at safely landing an aircraft if ever needed. Just find the longest, widest strip of pavement facing into the wind and let the autoland do the rest. If there's no autoland, let the autopilot stabilize it, take control at 1000ft and smoothly fly it down to the runway. It might not be a greaser, but a couple blown tires is much better than the alternative. Airplanes are not that difficult to fly once you get over the the fact that you're actually flying. (Disclaimer: The above does not apply to any tail dragger airplanes..especially anything made by Pitts) Cheers, DB
  9. Yeah, must have missed that. Probably a typo...though it would be pretty funny if they were actually modelled, but not on the real a/c. DB
  10. Pretty sure you're just seeing the heated leading edge strip. DB
  11. No worries. That sounds like a fun project. I've been in the charter world for a few years and would be happy to help out if needed. Cheers
  12. It will depend entirely on the market you're looking at. You likely won't find a Cessna 206 on the charter market near large cities but you'll probably find a few out in the bush/outback/jungle(?), where the terrain gets rugged and the shorter, unprepared landing strips are better suited to the 206. In those areas, it's plausible that you can be asked to fly out to a destination 500nm from base, but consider that the aircraft (probably) has to stop for fuel en-route if you're carrying any reasonable amount of payload. There's also the fact that there isn't always a surplus of short/rough-field capable aircraft around, so it's reasonable to assume you could be chartered for a job where you fly empty to a medium sized airport 200nm away to pick up pax/cargo destined for an unpaved airport even further away, then return empty to home base. That said, 500nm is a looooong way in a Cessna 206 and I think most missions for that aircraft would be in the 30 minute to 2 hour range (50-250nm). The only places where I can see the above applying is maybe the Australian outback, African desert, or South American Rain forests...and even then it's a bit of a stretch. Hope that helps.
  13. Not 100% sure what you're asking, as neither of those terms are standard phraseology, but here's an explanation of some of the basics: STAR: Standard Terminal Arrival Route This is a sequence of waypoints, often with associated speed and altitude restrictions, which define a transition route from the enroute (cruise) portion of a flight to the arrival (terminal area) portion. Some STARs allow for their final waypoint to be connected to the initial waypoint of an instrument approach (Closed STAR). Other STARs end with a heading to fly after their final waypoint, requiring radar vectors to the final approach course. (Open STAR) Full Procedure Instrument Approach This is an instrument approach procedure which begins at a navigation beacon, or Radial/DME fix and allows the aircraft to navigate to the final approach course using a course-reversal manoeuvre (or DME Arc) and does not require radar vectors from ATC. Many ground-station based instrument approaches allow for the full procedure to be flown, or for radar vectors to be provided to the final approach course (if radar is available) I think a "full old approach" might be referring to the Full Procedure Instrument approach, which was more common in the past when radar coverage was less extensive. (FYI - they are still used in remote areas with limited radar coverage) A "star approach" might be referring to the use of a Closed STAR for initial route guidance into the terminal area, then a direct connection to the Initial approach fix of an instrument approach. Neither of the above would require radar vectors. Hope this helps.
  • Create New...