BeechV35Pilot

That must be the factory turbo engine. The aftermarket turbo of the V35 I fly is bolted onto a 285HP Continental IO520 engine.

Do not have any ties other than a customer, but an FYI that PC Aviator is having a 50% off sale at the moment for a MegaSceneryX bundle that includes Hawaii, Las Vegas, and Reno, Nevada. All three photo scenery add-ons for USD $19.97: http://www.pcaviator.com/store/product.php?productid=18273&cat=358&bestseller=Y

As much as the turbine model reads as if it is a lot of fun to fly, the piston version is probably more in line with my speed and handling preferences so tonight I jumped in feet first and picked up this aircraft and a Reality XP GNS530W. Great to see active support in this forum from the company reps. Look forward to learning this aircraft. Oh, and looking forward to the sound pack being talked about here as well. Very nice.

In a climb I have no problems with seeing 30 gallons per hour, but once leveled in a cruise the fuel burn for this turbo aircraft should be 16 gallons per hour, not the mid 20s simulated in this V35 model. These engines should not be flown at that greater horsepower setting to which you allude during cruise or the range of the aircraft is significantly reduced, hourly operation costs increase, and maintenance issues become more numerous.The reality is that managing the engine controls of a turbonormalized piston engine is actually EASIER than doing so in a normally aspirated engine of the same size with a variable speed prop. In a standard climb it is simply wide open throttle, mixture full rich, and set prop to 2500 rpms (after initial takeoff setting of full forward, that is). Once leveled and airspeed settles down, the pilot only needs to lean out the mixture so that turbo inlet temperature peaks and then, with continued leaning, drops about 70 degrees F (yes, that dreaded lean of peak controversy). Prop and throttle remain where they are. This combination results in a horsepower value similar to a normally aspirated aircraft at 25 inches MP at sea-level, which of course the advantage being that the turbo-equipped aircraft maintains this constant horsepower value up to the critical altitude instead of losing it with each 1,000 feet ascended.But I understand the limitations of the FSX model, both overall and with regards to this aircraft's specific configuration. I suspect the above simulation may not be achievable in the sim aircraft, certainly not by someone like me who doesn't have a lot of experience tweaking the config file properly.

Overall a detailed first review and I enjoyed reading it.However, one point: The reviewer used phrases like, "it is natural to resist change," but IMO that idea trivializes what I believe are the more obvious issues: Most active simmers have a lot of money invested in add-ons to make FSX or FS2004 as close to the real experience as possible and most are unwilling to throw away those costs for a simulator that only provides a small fraction of the complete flight sim experience.Indeed there may be a lot to come, but if truly MS has closed off Flight to the payware and freeware expansion by the community, they have removed the one element that I believe had made the MSFS franchise so large.

Barnstormer, a follow-up: I had a chance last night to make the turbo mod changes and give the Carendo Bonanza a test flight. Two immediate observations: First, making the modifications you suggested to the aircraft.cfg file did work. The aircraft became a turbo and was able to maintain standard pressure and power as I climbed into the teens (13,000 feet and above).However, and this may or may not be directly related to those changes, the aircraft felt too powerful. I need to do some more testing of the normally aspirated V35 flight model to see if that model also exhibits these characteristcs, but there were definitely some aspects of this model that suggest the engine was too powerful. For example, indicated airspeed didn't fall off in cruise at the higher altitudes. In fact, it actually increased above overspeed range in level flight at higher altitudes, which is the opposite of what should be happening (as you know IAS should fall off at higher altitudes). Maybe it is the Carenado flight model or maybe it is the turbo mod - more testing is needed.Secondly, the aircraft fuel flow remained in the high 20 gallons per hour and only lowering throttle or RPM would drop it into the low 20s. Actual cruise should be somewhere around 16-17 gallons per hour. With a turbo (at least a turbonormalized piston) one normally flies wide open throttle, 2500 rpm, and leans the mixture to a setting that results in a fuel flow of around 16 gallons per hour (and optimal airspeed, turbo inlet temperature and horsepower, etc). Couldn't come close to that with this aircraft.Thank you again for your suggestions. Not having to mod the air file was indeed a surprise to me.

I missed this comment first time around - sorry for reading too fast. No, the Bo V35 does not have a pressurized cabin. The pilot and passengers instead wear supplemental oxygen above altitudes starting at 12,500ft (the rule actually has a few stipulations on timing and altitudes, who wears it when, etc). In my case I have an o2 canister that drapes over the back of the passenger seat and canulas that attach to one's nostrils. The canulas are rated to 18k feet and above that you are supposed to switch from canulas to full blown face masks that cover both the mouth and nose. The tank lasts about five to seven hours, depending on how many people are drawing from it.The service ceiling of a normally aspirated V35 is between 17,500 and 18,500 (depending on year/engine size), but the Tornado Alley brand turbonormalization modification increases the service ceiling to 20,000 ft.Here's a picture of the instrument panel during that trip. Note the altitude and the manifold pressure at about 2 inches below standard pressure:

Thank you very much for the help. Henceforth I promise to read before I click. :)

Will do. When I have it tested I'll report back. Again, thanks.(and sorry about my display name changing here - I am trying to restore my original one. Moving too fast through the forum software without reading closely)

Okay, rookie mistake - I was looking over my profile when I accidentally changed my "display name" to my email address (Firefox had filled in the name box with my login info) - I had no intention of doing this and see that I cannot even restore my original due to the forum restriction about one change per month.Please could a forum admin restore my original display name, which should be "BeechV35Pilot" ? Appreciate any help here.

That is excellent info, Barnstormer. Thank you. The only parameter I have a different opinion on (based on my real-world experience in a turbo-normalized Bonaza V35) is the critical altitude - For most turbo Bonanzas, the critical altitude is typically around 20,000 feet, not 10k. I had my Bo up to 21,000 once on a return trip from Denver, Colorado (US) to the Northeast US and I recall losing manifold pressure somewhere between 19 and 20k. In your experience I should modify both the air file and the aircraft.cfg file with these changes, correct? Aircraft mods themselves are new to me so I want to be sure I understand where I will need to place these changes (after backing up first, of course).

Hello, Long time simmer and previous Avsim member before the unfortunate site nuke a couple of years ago - just getting back into it now under a new moniker.Back in FS9 there was a freeware turbo mod release to the payware Dreamfleet BE36 that allowed that aircraft to be flown as a turbo. Now that I have moved up to FSX a mere six years later, I would like the same type of mod for either the Carenado V35B or BE36, but do not see one available. Thus, I am considering doing one myself (after comparing the turbo mod for the FS9 BE36). Two questions: Is there a turbo mod for either of these FSX payware Bonanzas already out there that I may have missed? If not, is there a good air file editing tutorial somewhere that would give me the knowledge to do this mod myself?Regards,