JesC

Maybe because a licensed pilot is not necessarily an aircraft/equipment owner and may not have access to the Garmin updates? Just a thought. Jesse

Hi Folks. As I read through these comments I had a few observations that might be helpful. Keep in mind that these are normally aspirated engines. They are not turbocharged and certainly not turbine engines. As such they will begin to lose power as altitude increases. At 9,000' on a normal day full throttle would only yield about 55% power. According to the performance tables that should result in a TAS of just over 190 MPH (about 167 kts) . Jesse P.S. Wind has nothing to do with TAS, it only affects groundspeed. True Airspeed is Indicated Airspeed corrected for altitude and temperature.

Me!!. I remember. This is a great idea for a paint. I knew something was missing from my Aztec. Have already put down my deposit on a delivery position. And when I get mine, I already have a great selection of panel colors to customize mine!! Thanks for sharing your creativity and hard work, Ray. Hope you have some hair left when it is finished. Jesse

Thanks Raymie. That's what I meant to say but actually said Shift+F2. Have now corrected my post. Jesse

FSX. Dual Saitek Throttle Quadrants. Lowering the prop controls below the detent activates a switch which I have mapped through FSUIPC to the "Propeller (decrease RPM rapidly)" command and it is set to repeat. I use FSUIPC so that each prop control is mapped separately. By default the FSX "Propeller (decrease RPM rapidly)" control is mapped to CTRL+F2; however that only controls the left (Number 1) engine. FSX also has a control command for feather prop but I don't believe it is mapped to any key by default and I don't recall ever trying it. Have never used P3D but perhaps this will help you find a similar technique. Jesse P.S. A similar technique is used for Reverse Thrust on the Throttles.

I'm having no problem whatsoever feathering the props. Very realistic behavior. Very impressed with this aircraft. A great simulation! P.S. Sounds and lighting are good on my setup. Autopilot behaves perfectly as it should. An Alabeo Home run for me.

Here is a link to stormscope manuals: https://www.stormscopes.com/manuals.html

One other quick thought; if you keep a pretty dark night environment you could always try the overhead lighting located in the ceiling. That will cast some additional light on the pedestal/autopilot.

No problem here. In fact the night lighting seems very realistic in my set up. Are you turning on the "Avionics" light switch in the overhead? The popup also makes it easier to see and is usually the way I use the autopilot anyway. Hope this helps to get you a little farther down the road. Jesse

From their facebook page: Customers should download the package again from the link provided. Downloads and installations were increased. You should uninstall the aircraft before installing this new version.

By default the cargo pod is off. If you check the box the cargo pod is in place. So if you want the clean configuration don't do anything. Hope that helps, Jesse

Looks like it is being operated by North West Geomatics, Ltd. You can see the aerial camera window in the belly of the aircraft in one of the photos. According to one comment it was formerly a French Army target towing aircraft. Have a look here: http://www.nwgeo.com/products/acquisition.php

Yes indeed!!!

Very glad to hear you are enjoying UTXv2 Canada, Cobalt. Hope you will continue to inform the developers of the anomalies you find, like the Churchill area. They tend to be very responsive; providing any fixes that are practical. I saw that they are planning a release soon of their initial v2 fixes. Maybe they can include something for the Churchill landclass. Jesse

I sympathize with your concerns, No kidding. I am also truly sorry that someone like yourself who seems to love flying in Northern Canada would miss out on the great enhancements that UTX has offered. You are right that they didn't solve every FSX problem, but they did make some huge changes that may be worth considering. They also do listen to their customer base. Keep trying. If for no other reason than correcting the shorelines it is well worth the investment. (I also love the addition of the lighting )I hope you can reconsider and take another look. I think you will enjoy the changes. http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=utxcanv2 I also hope you will continue to provide a voice to arctic flyers looking for a bit more reality. Thanks to your comments I have been flying "Way up North" much more lately; and really enjoying it. Would love to hear more about your experiences, what you are flying and where. Blue Skies to you Cobalt. Jesse

I have been really happy with my Logitech G110. Simple, straightforward and reliable with 12 Game keys and three memory levels for a potential 36 user defined functions. Just another option. Jesse

You're just not old enough Ron. :smile: All a matter of perspective I suppose, But, I remember when it was the fastest, and most luxurious single engine plane on the ramp.

Certainly easy to understand your concerns. I'm sure it is quite frustrating. On the other hand, their response seemed very reasonable. http://www.simforums.com/forums/utx-canada-v2-update_topic53286_post334535.html#334535 And in fairness, further in the thread NickN offered what seemed to be a reasonable solution: http://www.simforums.com/forums/utx-canada-v2-update_topic53286_post334869.html#334869 I'm sure it is quite a challenge for developers to meet everyone's expectations. It does seem however that UTX has generally met the majority of users expectations and quite often have exceeded them. Jesse Just to clarify about the vegetation landclass; this from the UTX Canada V2 announcement: Brand new landclass using the latest available data. This includes not only urban areas, but also vegetation landclass. The top 100 cities in Canada (by population) have been hand-classified for extreme accuracy. http://www.simforums.com/forums/admin-utx-canada-v2-released_topic53665_post336477.html#336477 Jesse

I also highly recommend UTX Canada V2 (or any other UTX product for that matter). I am a long time user of their products and I have never been disappointed. Using it in FSX without any other landclass and it looks great; especially with GEX. I found it to be a bargain even if it were only for the lighting. Jesse

I had previously posted basically this same information in another thread. I just thought it might be helpful in furthering the discussion here as well. I asked Carenado about the issue of the correct manifold pressure and they responded with a quote and a copy of a page from the POH that states as follows: The POH states: "The engines are adjusted to provide a maximum 40” Hg manifold pressure at full throttle in standard temperature at sea level ." I also searched and found a couple of other references to this issue. Unfortunately it was much easier to find information on the Chieftain but I found these to be helpful and pertinent. From a Piper Chieftain ground school training manual: "The maximum MP is set during a maintenance action and is affected by the seasons. It will be readjusted during maintenance for an optimum 42”." And from another Piper reference on the Chieftain in Flying Magazine (May, 1973): "The [Chieftain's] larger blowers enable the engine to pull a maximum of 42” of manifold pressure, two inches more than the Navajo B." So, I am thinking that just maybe Carenado has this one correct. Maintenance sets the engines such that the wastegates open at 40" to prevent exceeding Piper's recommended limitation for the TIO-540-A on the PA 31-310 and perhaps extending engine life. This would seem to be a typical procedure and was probably implemented on Carenado's study aircraft. Of course, I also recognize that at least some operators may have chosen to not implement this procedure for their own reasons or considerations, hence much of the confusion over what is "correct". Personally, I see no reason to change the MP and have been getting performance numbers "by the book". Others may choose, much like some real world operators, to boost the maximum to 46"; perhaps to gain a bit better take off performance. I sincerely hope this is helpful information. Jesse

I am a bit confused. Are you saying this aircraft's engines (TIO-540-A) are not turbocharged? Or, just saying that we should do this to revert to a 300 model??? P.S. I note you are now suggesting MP=40. Typo???

Bill, My sentiments as well. In fact, I think this is one of my favorite purchases from Carenado. I have enjoyed our discussions on this aircraft and appreciate all of your comments. Frankly, you have made me stretch a bit on researching the Navajo and I have learned a great deal more about this fine aircraft than I ever would have done on my own. (I even drug out my old protractor to measure the flap setting! :smile: ) Thanks and... Blue Skies, Buddy. Jesse

"Crappy" is a matter of opinion and you are certainly due yours. I have found it to be very authentic and for me, a welcome variation. Hardly a "fix" issue. Different aircraft and different equipment affords an even greater real world experience that can be very enjoyable. If every aircraft is outfitted with the same equipment things could become very boring and lackluster. The Navajo is an excellent and very accurately done offering! I am really enjoying this one!!

Hello Bill. Are you quite certain about the 46" manifold pressure? I ask because this seems to have become a very contentious point and I am confused by some rather conflicting information on the subject. In fact I asked Carenado about the correct setting and they sent back a reply which included a copy from the POH. The POH states: "The engines are adjusted to provide a maximum 40” Hg manifold pressure at full throttle in standard temperature at sea level ." Of course I realize this is not entirely clear in and of itself as it is possible that the POH means this simply as a caution, that the pilot should manually make this adjustment when advancing the throttles so as not to exceed the 40" limit. So, I also searched and found a couple of other references to this issue. Unfortunately it was much easier to find information on the Chieftain but I found these to be helpful. From a Piper Chieftain ground school training manual: "The maximum MP is set during a maintenance action and is affected by the seasons.It will be readjusted during maintenance for an optimum 42”." And from another Piper reference on the Chieftain in Flying Magazine (May, 1973): "The [Chieftain's] larger blowers enable the engine to pull a maximum of 42” of manifold pressure, two inches more than the Navajo B." So, I am thinking that just maybe Carenado has this one correct. Maintenance sets the engines such that the wastegates are opened at 40" to prevent exceeding Piper's recommended limitation on the PA-31 310's engines. Can you (or, anyone else) add anything further to clarify this? Thanks so much for your continued input. Jesse Edit: After re-reading the POH quote it seems less ambiguous to me since it does state that this adjustment is at full throttle.

Downloaded, installed and flown. Love this aircraft. Good job Carenado!!