This information is based on data and real world tests. What is written in the poh are suggestions and guidelines, not what is allowed.
What is widely known today with all the data collected from modern engine monitors is that running ROP is worse in most ways for the engine. Backed up by data from Savvy and gami. Also backed up by boroscope inspections where engines operated LOP look a lot cleaner.
Spending more time in the climb, with lower airspeeds and higher CHTs is of course worse as well.
This is just me who likes to nerd about engines in my spare time. Itâs a sim, fly any way you want and have fun! for me this stuff is fun thatâs why i like simulating it as if i was the owner/operator.
I am absolutely open to learn and adept. My main source of âknowledgeâ are just POHÂŽ. I came across a few articles about the leaning controversy allready but never really engaged to deep into that matter, because for me it is not that important yet. So just because I am not convinced yet, that doesnÂŽt mean I would not be open to change my mind, if I would read more about it. Same for Climb Power etc..
But I am more the type of simmer, that is satisfied with a very basic knowledge about the operation of aircraft in the context of the simulation.
Your insights are definetively very interesting and I will keep them in my mind for future discussions.
So after a fair few flights, Iâve actually got mixed feelings on the Baron. Iâve been flying the NA Baron exclusively so far. It does all the things that I expect a BKSQ plane to do and itâs amazing for that. My problem is that the envelope didnât get pushed at all with this release in terms of doing a little more with the persistent state, wear and tear and use of the walk around.
The TBM, Dukes, Starships and now the Baron/Bonanza are all great for the reasons weâve come to know and expect from BKSQ but how come we still donât have oil consumption and the need to check it? Is my battery wearing out or does it just take a beating every start and is brand new the next flight? Iâm missing the next level here.
Donât get me wrong, I appreciate how great they are but it just doesnât feel as alive as some other planes. I really hope BKSQ digs a little deeper in this area on the next few releases. Iâm dying for the AC690 and even though I know BKSQ will nail the TPE331 simulation and that alone will be worth the price of admission, I still hope thereâs more persistence beyond my engine being what ever %.
Itâs been a LONG time since I did this, but I remember it working.
Basically, you have to load a flight in the same state you want to change. So, load a flight that will use apron.flt.
Change whatever cockpit elements you want to configure, then do a âSave Flightâ. This should drop a new set of files, with a *.flt name.
Find the one that corresponds to the default apron.flt. Compare the 2 (original and newly saved) and only bring over to the items that relate to the NAV info you want to set. Save and replace the original apron.flt (make a backup of the original) and test. May take a few edits, sometimes you need more than one line item to make something work properly in the cockpit.
I agree. I was thinking the same. I love the Baron. It is all I am flying right now. It would be nice though to have the next level as you say. Tire wear, oil, dirt and bug accumulation that is now in 24, is it just resetting every flight in terms of wear⊠More accusim level of ownership. But I am happy with it, it is overall very good, and very realistic. Flies very nice too.
Yeah, I know that it should remember (and I know that it isnât in apron.flt), but up-thread thereâs reasons why state saving currently doesnât work in 2024 and I was hoping thereâs a shortcut for folks who are OK with editing files.
I guess you and i we both knew what we were getting before the purchase, so we canât complain. But i get your point and i also stated something similar. I also love the âowning-the-plainâ feeling that you get from a deeper wear&tear and maintenance system (thatâs the reason why i am anticipating the new SystemPulse engine for the SWS Kodiak so much). And the lack of such systems is the reason why these aircraft are not a 10 out of 10. To mention the elephant in the room, the Comanche really is the reference here. But there is always pros and cons to everything and the Comanche is not a 10 out of 10 either.
On the just flight forum there are some folks asking about the possibility to dig deeper in this area. I think Black Square is aware of that. According to them they never really thought about that âowning-the-aircraftâ aspect for their products. The thing is that you really need your own parallel engine for that, so it is a major decision and investment for a dev.
Overall, the value for money is really fantastic and i try to focus on what i got and what i like instead of what theoretically could be.
There is a radio 1 and radio 2 variable in the state.cfg which is located in the aircraftâs sim objects folder in the main 2024 directory (not community). You might try experimenting with those but fair warning, I donât know what those actually do. Mine are both set to 1 and Iâm using the GNS530/430 if thatâs any help.
FYI, in case you hadnât discovered this, you can hide/unhide the throttle/mixture/prop levers by clicking the white triangle on the elevator trim gauge area. (learned via my post on the JF forumâŠI didnât see this feature referenced in the manual, and I couldnât find this myself despite lots of clicking around!)
You can also do this with LVARsâŠsearch for the string âhiddenâ. You need to set all five of them to 1 or 0, even though one of those is something like âhideAllâ. I use custom views and buttons on my yoke, and hide/unhide them depending on what view Iâm using, i.e. the runup where you check the alternator outputs when turning on the various heaters.
