If you don’t correct for anything then sure 
. You will also blow-up the engine when doing that at high power setting.
In any case, prop feathered is zero thrust and minimum drag.
Flying below published stall speed is possible in ground effect and / or with power applied, nothing wrong with that.
Might be overdone of course but stalling at the published stall speed in these conditions is equally unrealistic.
Well with the mod installed I can get it to take off in a headwind at 40KTS with full flaps. It also comfortably still does wheelies.
Before someone points it out I ran out of runway, but you catch the drift.
If you’re flying low altitude (not landing) or flying over hilltops or mountain tops, you don’t want to constantly hear the GPWS calling out. This button turns it off for those situations.
On the real aircraft also? You have to fly really low or over really steep terrain to trigger the GPWS usually. Never seen such button on any aircraft I’ve flown, GPWS is there for a reason, not to be inhibited other than below glideslope and flap override. Unless the Twotter is entirely different.
What speed does it take off without any wind? Also 40 kts indicated? There shouldn’t be a difference.
Again I’d need to experiment.
Did you report this to the Aerosoft forums as a bug? That would be awesome if you could…
I think the missionary bush pilot (Kodiak) shows that his plane has such a button!
Can’t find anything like that in the POH. That being said, the Kodiak doesn’t even have a radio altimeter to my knowledge so no proper GPWS system, just this TAWS system built into the G1000.
My guess is Aerosoft provided the inhibit button instead of programming any deep, realistic GPWS logic.
landing at St Barts certainly activates this, plus the 50-40-30 etc countdown as you go over the hill…then again on landing.
How do you do Beta for a steep descent in this?
In the Milviz Porter it’s just pull throttle back to idle and dive, though it’s “faked” with a ■■■■■ speed brake afaik.
In the TW do you pull Throttle back to idle, then pull prop pitch all the way back to put it into beta & dive? Or is it something else?
The Porter is one of the only aircraft allowed to use beta in flight. I’m pretty sure the Twotter is not allowed to use beta in flight. By the way “pulling prop pitch all the way back” would cause less drag and a shallower descent, you want prop levers full forward (high RPM) for maximum drag.
Have you been able to find a POH for the simulated variant (and not the new Viking plane)
If so I would be much interested, perhaps a link.
Thanks in advance.
I think the one I found was indeed this Viking one. Although this post was about the Kodiak actually.
You don’t have to have a radalt for this these days. The newer EGPWS and TAWS systems are just names for essentially the same thing. They are actually enhanced versions of older GPWS systems and they use a FLTA (forward looking terrain awareness) function based around the use of a terrain database.
The link to the -300 POH was posted some 1000 posts above:
Not correct, you are referring only to the enhanced part of the (E)GPWS which indeed works with geometric altitude and a terrain database. This is only part of the overall GPWS system. Its a extra layer on top of the “basic” GPWS modes which still uses radalt. FLTA, PDA and terrain display are only the “enhanced” part of the GPWS.
TAWS is the ICAO requirement (an aircraft has to be equipped with either TAWS A or TAWS B), just as ACAS is the ICAO requirement, the system we use to fulfill those requirements is TCAS. For general aviation there are all kinds of “in between” systems which try to achieve the same thing without having the required hardware (e.g. radalt).
GPWS “basic” mode 2, 3, 4 and 6 (for height and minima callouts) still rely on radio altitude.
It depends on the developer. They aren’t, or weren’t animated, on the Twin Otter. I haven’t tried 1.0.3.0 yet. We were told this was for Xbox compatibility apparently. 
But it is modelled on the Caravan, and on the Kodiak as well. Although on the Kodiak it did some odd things like you could feather the prop, unfeather it, then not feather it again. It may have just been an animation issue.
Now as far as whether they are simulated correctly, as opposed to animated, I can’t categorically say.
That is right. I concur. Some manufacturers call their systems EGPWS and some call them TAWS and I was thinking of a TAWS-B system which does not require a radalt. TAWS-A does. Usage depends on aircraft type and operating rules.
