wilivarob

The same error persists; everything is configured but it doesn't appear when creating the flight plan.

It doesn't work either.

I have the following problem: when I start entering the departure airport, I get the following error. I already followed the instructions in the manual using the "MakeRwys" program and it still doesn't appear. I also tried disabling the following option and it still didn't work. On the other hand, when I enter through "Taxi mnt", the airport is shown with its gates and runways. When I click "save changes" and go through the flight creation process, it still doesn't appear.

Hey there, I'm here for a recommendation or some advice. I want to print the checklists to have them more readily available, but I have two checklists: the default ones for the Carenado aircraft and one I found online for a real aircraft. They have differences. The Carenado checklist repeats the check to verify the fuel valves in their correct position in all phases (cockpit inspection, engine start, pre-takeoff, takeoff, cruise, etc.), while the official checklist only mentions it during the cockpit inspection. The engine start procedure in the Carenado checklist is also very different from the official one; the Carenado checklist includes verifying that the doors and windows are closed, which the official checklist doesn't. Which one should I print? Thanks.

Okay, so this type of letter that says "RNP Visual Procedure" doesn't apply to VFR procedures? Why then the name "Visual Procedure..." That letter is also published in the link you sent me; it's on page 51 and has the same name. On the other hand, I still have the same doubt regarding the second question: if that chart is for IFR flight, and I am coming along a route indicated by the purple arrow, should I enter through AMVES or can I cut across and enter through "BO415" (on my published chart) or through "BO414" (on the chart you sent me)?

Hey friend, I just did a test and this is what happened: 2600 RPM and 21 MP at 5000 ft. The peak almost reached the asterisk; it was a line, so 25° F. On the other hand, when I take off from the runway, the plane is running and configured for takeoff. That's when I notice the mix levers are set lower, and when I look at the ETG indicator, they're like this. So I looked up the simulator's settings to achieve these optimal mixes, and I found that it adjusts them to 100° from the peak. If I raised the lever, I saw the EGT drop, so when it dropped, I raised the EGT until it reached the peak near the asterisk. From there, I enriched the fuel mixture, trying to maintain the initial values. When I counted the EGT lines, it was 100°, which is 50° less than the 150° to 200° specified in the EGT table. I suppose the reference point here is between the asterisk line and the line below it. The question is whether I adjust the takeoff angle to 150° or the 100° configured by MSFS2020. Thanks for the suggestion. The truth is, the idea was to learn some aviation techniques, specifically VFR and IFR. I saw that the starting aircraft was the Cessna 152, and frankly, it didn't really appeal to me. So I started researching and looking for one I liked, and two options came up: a Bonanza A56 and a C337. In the end, I chose the C337. The idea is to learn things like the basics of VFR and IFR flight, and then move on to a larger aircraft (not an Airbus or Boeing). The plan is to progress gradually, flying one size larger than the other, until I reach an Airbus or Boeing. Finally, could you please help me with this question?

Out of curiosity, I might try it, but I have the following questions: 1. At what altitude? I assume that if I do it at 5000 ft or 13000 ft the peak will be different, right? 2. The RPM is set to 2600, and to get 65% MP, how much should I adjust it?

I was just curious to know what would happen if I made the adjustments to the EGT table and I was surprised because I saw that the plane responded better than it had been. Because the places where I frequently fly are airports that are at an altitude of approximately 8000 ft, when the weather does not allow me to fly VFR, IFR flights through low altitude airways are around 15000 ft. I appreciate the help; it confirmed that there are things I'm doing well, and I learned some new things today. Thank you.

That's what I thought, and I don't know if I mentioned it, but I thought I was the problem or that the plane had a problem, and now I know it's the plane. Your advice would be, take off and climb with the optimum mixture and once at cruise I adjust the mixture with the EGT, taking it to 50° F below the optimum or peak mixture. Edited: Following the advice to only use the EGT, I did a test and this is what happened: On takeoff, the chart indicates adjusting the mixture to 150° to 200° rich from the peak. In this configuration, the throttle lever is at full (see image), and the EGT peak reaches the point marked with an asterisk. The GTN 750 gauge shows 100.5 fuel flow, but as we taxi down the runway, it reaches 113.6. This is the peak Adjust to 150° according to the table This is how the levers look with the previous adjustment, everything at full and at an altitude of 8300 ft During the climb, the chart indicates adjusting to 125°, so since the mixture lever is at full, I simply reduce it to 125° from the EGT asterisk and adjust every 1000 ft. Here adjusted as the EGT table says for ascent, 125° The lever adjustments are now as follows and the ascent speed as stated in the checklist When I reach 13,500 ft, the climb rate drops considerably, so I reduce the airspeed from the initial 600 ft to 300 ft, and the airspeed recovers. At cruising speed, the table indicates a 50° enrich peak. Here, the peak is no longer the one marked with an asterisk. So, by adjusting the new peak and maintaining 50°, the GTN 750 indicator shows 85 of fuel flow, which is close to the consumption in the cruising performance table, which would be 2600 RPM, 15 MP, total lbs/hour 91. Peak on cruise Adjusted to 50° as per the EGT table What it shows on the GTN 750 This is the EGT table.

That's the GTN 750, and it's not the one it comes with by default. Also, the image is just for reference since I didn't have the simulator running at the time to take a real screenshot, so that 8 Gallons isn't my configuration. I performed these tests: 1. When using 156 lbs/hr (78 per engine) for takeoff, this is what the GTN 750 gauge shows; it doesn't go beyond that. If I lean the mixture, it goes down; if I richen it, it goes down. This is what I call the optimal mixture. Takeoff Climb And this is the speed that this configuration generates. Now when I adjust to what was previously discussed, maintaining 78 Lbs/Hr on takeoff (39 per engine) and 68 Lbs/Hr on climb (34 per engine), this is what is obtained. Takeoff Climb And this is the speed that generates these adjustments. I add the following, although the values are not those in the table, they are the closest. I'd like to add something else, in case it's helpful: these climb tests were performed at 2600 RPM, 21 MP (it doesn't climb higher due to the altitude), an approximate climb rate of 600 bpm, and a weight of 4530 lbs. And one more small detail: when I climb at 2800 RPM (full throttle), I gain a little more speed.

I think I made a mistake. When I fly adjusting the mixture to the values on the nameplate, the plane struggles to climb above 12,000 ft. When I use the optimal mixture, it climbs well. Throughout the entire process—takeoff and climb—I maintain the optimal mixture, gradually reducing it until there's a peak (digital indicator). So, if the indicator peaks at 120 lbs/hr during takeoff, as I climb I begin reducing the mixture until there's another peak, and so on. The relative value is between 100 lbs/hr and 90 lbs/hr. This is the digital indicator I'm referring to. The image shows gallons/hour, mine is set to pounds/hour

Here's how I do it: 1. During the "Before take-off" checks for magneto testing, I need to have 1800 RPM. After completing the checklist and before putting the throttle to idle, I start adjusting the mixture to slightly increase the RPM (up to a peak). 2. When I line up on the runway, with the brakes applied, I can adjust it a bit more. At this point, I have the RPM at maximum and the throttle at maximum. I release the brakes, and the mixture gradually increases until it stops moving on the digital gauge. Then it starts to decrease and then increases again slightly, reaching approximately 120 lbs/hr. 3. When I finish retracting the landing gear and flaps, I begin reducing the RPM to 2600 and start adjusting the mixture to 78 lbs/hr (although the closest I get here is 77 lbs/hr - 70 lbs/hr).

Hey buddy, I'm having a strange problem and I'm not sure if it's normal (which I doubt) or if the plane has a bug. It's been mentioned that when approaching an airport at 8,000 ft takeoff, I should adjust the fuel mixture to 78 lbs/hr, and when starting the climb, I adjust it to 68 lbs/hr. What's happening with this setting? The plane is having a hard time climbing above 12,000 ft (the target altitude is 15,000 ft). But when I use the optimal mixture (I call it optimal up to the peak), the plane climbs without any problem to 15,000 ft.

Hello everyone, I have a couple of questions: 1. Based on the chart in the image, is this type of procedure (Visual RNP) valid for making approaches when flying VFR? 2. Assuming so; if my flight path is the purple arrow, can I fly directly to the point shown by the purple arrow (BO415), or must I enter via AMVES (red arrow)?

Okay, thanks.