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. Itās a sim, fly any way you want and have fun! for me this stuff is fun thatās why i like simulating it as if i was the owner/operator.
I am absolutely open to learn and adept. My main source of āknowledgeā are just POHĀ“. 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 doesnĀ“t 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, Iāve actually got mixed feelings on the Baron. Iāve been flying the NA Baron exclusively so far. It does all the things that I expect a BKSQ plane to do and itās amazing for that. My problem is that the envelope didnāt 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 weāve come to know and expect from BKSQ but how come we still donāt 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? Iām missing the next level here.
Donāt get me wrong, I appreciate how great they are but it just doesnāt feel as alive as some other planes. I really hope BKSQ digs a little deeper in this area on the next few releases. Iām 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 thereās more persistence beyond my engine being what ever %.
Itās 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 āSave Flightā. 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 wearā¦ 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 isnāt in apron.flt), but up-thread thereās reasons why state saving currently doesnāt work in 2024 and I was hoping thereās a shortcut for folks who are OK with editing files.
