Rocket_Bird

Hmm my day job? I work as a professional slacker. It requires great discipline, many bags of chips, a large variety of soda drinks, and a hard bum for long hours of sitting. On the side, I work as a King Air 200 and Beech 1900D pilot I guess . The skills above transfer over.

It is not enough in at least several countries including the US, Canada, Australia, and probably many others. As part of the acceptance check by a line pilot for this particular aircraft, without a third independently driven attitude indicator, this aircraft is not airworthy. Here in my country, anything with 10 or more seats operating in commercial air services require a standby indicator. On top of this, it is a dual EFIS setup. I am not aware of any 1900D without the third attitude indicator.

Does anyone have a panel fix for this airplane that includes a standby attitude indicator? It's suppose to be a commuter aircraft, and at least in my country, the airplane cannot he flown with more than 9 seats without it. I know this is flight Sim, but it is grinding a bit on my OCD problem :/

The NGX. Seems to be feature rich and has a HUGS.

A2A's Civilian P-51 - It has the performance of a King Air more or less and is IFR capable. Plus you are running off a merlin. Plus you are flying with style. Plus you can barrel roll if you feel bored. This is my baby for getting away from airline flying. Though in all honesty, a King Air is a good airplane that doesn't really require you to stick out the routes either. You really don't need any kind of professional flight planner and a full dispatch sheet. I fly a bit on the real B200 myself, and really, outside of work, it can be used just like any other aircraft. Fly low and slow direct GPS from point A to point b? Sure! How do I flight plan? I use the default flight planner , which doesn't stray too off from the real thing. How do you fuel plan from one point to the other? Just top up the main tanks, and if you want to go further, top off the Aux. ZFW is 11000 lbs, so as long as you keep it below that, just keep it simple. I own the Flight1 King Air B200 and the Carenado one, and in all honesty, if performance is important to you, and you don't mind a few systems not being modelled (autofx test, rudderboost, and a few nitpicks with ITT), the Carenado is actually decent and feels more like the real thing. As far as rudder goes... I don't have pedals myself . The real King Air really doesn't require much more rudder input than a single anyways, and both F1 and Carenado has a yaw damper and 3-axis autopilot if you so desire. The Real Air turbine Duke is also a treat of similar class. I have a few quirks with their PT6 modelling, but it's decent. With RealityXP, I probably won't stress out too much about it unless you really really want to check RAIM during your flights or would like to shoot an LPV down to minimum. I generally stick to the default GPS myself... but then that's mostly because I'm cheap B) .

I actually don't use ezdok and track ir since I move around a bit with just my laptop. That said, from what I've read on the softwares, I think the combination would work just fine.

Coming back to this thread, and having experienced the real B200 a little more, I think I actually am starting to have more respect for the Carenado King Air vs. the F1 model for some reason. The F1 model is actually great in it's class, and the avionics is a nice touch, but I think the Carenado King Air actually "feels" better. I can set an attitude and I can get an airspeed with what I expect. The slight balooning everytime I add flaps seems to correspond to the real thing. I also take back my comment about the taxiing before, because it doesn't feel too different and the idle setting seems to put the levers just slightly in the Beta. That said, I haven't flown a real Blackhawk varient yet to really make the fair comparison. The AutoFX light seems to come on at 90% N1 as expected in the Carenado, but I'm not sure if it actually works (as in actually feather if the torque drops on one side). I don't fail my engines enough to see though :lol:. Loving the Carenado though, and it works great with Accufeel.

Hi Jet, Thanks Ya, I actually have a registered copy of FSUIPC, though have yet to install it on my laptop. I actually have a X52 as well, so I think your tips above will help--I just have to get around to it. I have downloaded the SP2 version of the Carenado. For the most part, I don't have any major complaints outside of the above observations thus far. Kind of wish the crossfeed and autofeather would work a little better, though for the most part, it doesn't deter too much from the experience!

I'm pretty new to the King Air 200 from the real life perspective, so my opinion probably wouldn't count much. I have both the Carenado and the Flight1 version loaded up to help with my training, and I think both models have their quirks--at least compared to what I'm experiencing so far. The F1 version certainly seems to model the engine characteristics a tad better, including handling. The responsiveness seems to definately be better in the F1 version out of the box, whereas the Carenado throttles seems a bit sluggish. In the real airplane, it seems you really have to keep the throttles in Beta to keep the speed down on the taxi. In this regard, F1 seems to top it, as in the Carenado, I can barely get the plane rolling even slightly above flight idle. Both airplanes seem to have some small issues with regards to the load meter/volt meters on the overhead panel. The carenado volt meter does not come on at all on battery power though it seems to appropriately read 28 volts when both generators are running. The F1 does come on, but with one generator/engine running, the voltages show 24 volts and 28 volts respectively--which is a telltale sign of a current limiter problem if it were real. The F1 model has the G1000, which is nice, though it is also limited in a few features that I would use on a real life G1000. The Carnado version has a decent EFIS with most of the gauges working--though I do find it hard to overtorque the engines (not that one would want to... I was curious), and also the vacuum gauge is on in spite of the fact that I select bleeds off. The crossfeed also doesn't seem to work in the Carenado (version SP2). The Carenado B200 does not seem to autofeather, though the F1 does. The Carenado version has more sounds and sounds more real (with the exception of the loud blowers!), whereas the F1 seems to be awfully silent in a lot of click spots. The F1 model seems to have some excessive ballooning when going from flaps approach to full. The Carenado model seems more subtle. Of my limited experience in the King Air, I don't recall the ballooning being THAT aggressive in the real plane, so I think Carenado is a little better in this regard. That said, I'll need a few more hours in the real plane to really make any sound judgement on this. Anyways, that's just my two cents. I do have exponentially more hours in the sim models then I do in real life, but those are the items that stand out to me so far. At the moment, I'm flying the ole -42 engine on the B200 with steam gauges, so in this respect, I've mostly been using the Carenado version to help me learn. Both models I think are quite worthy of the payware title though and seem worth their respective prices.

Well, to each his own opinion. While I agree certain issues require more indepth testing, there is no reason to hold back on issues that are trivial. Certainly the arguement of breaking other things is valid, but that only holds true if indeed a patch does break other things. I don't really see much issue with having to update several times other than a minor inconvenience, and that new operations center (which has updated itself several times anyways) is there to make things easier, no? I'd wait longer for a "good" product to release, but patching issues isn't exactly a fresh product out of the assembly line, especially when it comes to patching an initial release.

The whole "It will be ready when it is ready" thing seems a bit like chasing the rainbow of perfection, which doesn't seem to make all that much sense in a patch unless a fix is breaking the rest of the plane. Bugs should be squashed as they come, like pest control. Waiting 2 and a half months for an update of an initial release seems quite unusual. I don't know the company, but I do wish things rolled along a little quicker.

To be fair, my first impressions of the 777 was pretty good, and I did enjoy flying it for what little time I spent. I have, however, shelved it since the early days of it's release as some of the bugs tended to grind on me, and thus far, PMDG has not released any hot-fixes which specifically addresses the problems I have. To be frank, since it's mid-november, and still no fix has been released, this has made PMDG perhaps the slowest developer to address issues, or at least in comparison to others who do fix their products that I have seen so far, and this has grated on my nerves to the point where my interest has dwindled. That said, It's not bad I think...

Had long pauses/freezes with FSX before. Doubtful it's an issue with the T7, as I've had it with other aircraft. I haven't had it since throwing a vista uiautomationcore.dll and updating fsuipc. One of the two solved it I think, though I'm not positive (it's an issue that has bugged me the longest time). I also updated my audio drivers as well, so it could have been that. A release of a hotfix would be nice in any case instead of having it stalled because of this issue. Some of the glaring issues have kept me away from the T7 since purchase (for instance, I just can't stand flying with a master caution light continuously on when I load up C&D). The FBW might be a good fix though.

Got the same problem with cold and dark. I have a walkaround though: Go into your navrad page on your FMC and delete the ILS frequency there (117.30) before inputing your arrival. Should work as normal once you clear that out.

No offense to China (I'm Chinese myself), but stuff like this does worry me.