That must have been introduced with this patch, I flew in the rain yesterday and had none leaking through.
1 Like
- overall size is better now
- back window still seems odd. it appears to be a cross between the early small rear window Debonair you see everywhere and the larger window which seems much more common on the E33 Bonanza
- the fat stubby look overall seems more related to the small window combined with slight inaccuracies in the shape of the nose and a slight excess thickness of the wing resulting in an overall a âfat lookâ compared to the real thing rather than the addon actually being fat and stubby (it is also worth noting their were short fuselage and long fuselage Debonairs)
- the Debonair does in real life have a very large vertical stabiliser for its size (especially obvious on the short fuselage version of the Debonair)
Overall however, this looks like a great little addon.
A couple of real life E33 Bonanza -
⌠for comparison a B33
2 Likes
Maybe someone can clear this up for me but whatâs modeled is the âDebonair 35-E33â which to my knowledge was actually the E33 Bonanza. After A-C of the 33 (which all carried the Debonair name) they skipped D, and E was a Bonanza. The manual for this addon states itâs the E33. 
Hmmm⌠this is starting to look good! Props to the dev for fixing these issues! I take back any reservations I had about this and will be purchasing. If he could fix the avionics on the Ipanema, that would also be welcome though. 
3 Likes
Iâm certainly impressed by how quickly most issues were dealt withâespecially the oil temp and the cowl flaps (not) affecting CHT. I wonât be able to fly until tomorrow, but this at least appears to be some very nice progress. Looking forward to seeing the improvements.
@ReichertB I just now realized youâre the developer! (They should give you the âTrusted 3rd party developerâ title) I had no idea you were here in the forums. I just wanted to say thank you for your fantastic work on this aircraft! I think you may hold the new record for the fastest developer to release an update, especially one that had so much in it. Much respect to you!
2 Likes
If they had a original as a template for building the addon it must have been the C33 version. The A33 didnt had the round edge before the tail, the E and F33 had the larger back windows. The B33 and C33 Version had the smaller windows. The C33 had lager windows as an option. But in the interior the B33 should have had a bench and the c33 should have 2 seats in the back. So it is most likely modeled after an c33 version. E and F also got the name Bonanza.
The C,E and F Version share one POH.
Kind Regards, JayDee
3 Likes
How does this compare to the G36? Performance and handling?
I love flying the modded G36, but really prefer steam gauges.
1 Like
I think sheâs a little slower than the G36 but apart from that handling for me seems very similar.
Definitely seems a good option for a steam alternative to the G36/
1 Like
Avsim uploaded their video looking at this plane:
The Debonair has no turbo, but 225 hp. So she has a lot of power and is compared to GA´s fast. handlig is very smooth. At touch down, you can really hold the ptich and the nosewheel up and let it down slowly. This is not true for a lot of MS FS Airplanes. This is a quality indicator for me personally. Especially after the patch it is a very good plane in MSFS. the question for everyone himself would be, if it is worth the money. For me, defenitely. It is better then carenado and on par with just flights pa in my opinion.
If you speek german you could watch my video of the Debonair.
kind regards
JayDee
4 Likes
Itâs become a very nice plane after installing latest hotfix, although it would be nice to be able to remove the external tanks completely (i.e. setting external fuel to 0%) otherwise the winglets will stick through them. Latest update resized the aircraft and now it definitely feels authentic. Just the lights seem to be very dark, still. Especially when you fly in daylight you canât really tell if any of the ext. lights except for landing lights are turned on or off. Nevertheless a really nice aircraft. While I was on the edge to regret that purchase on day 1 I now am very happy with it and will fly it frequently
4 Likes
Probably want to move that discussion over to their thread.
1 Like
A reminder:
Badgering the developer for updates constitutes Customer Feedback / Complaints and is NOT ALLOWED here on the MSFS Third Party Forums. The vendor undoubtedly has an off-board contact process. Reach the vendor/developer there and submit your complaints/concerns.
The Third Party Forums are here as a COURTESY for General Discussion. Do not raise Customer Complaints/Inquiries here. Threads will get shut down if this persists.
1 Like
Direct support can be obtained via the following link:
brsimdesigns.com - This website is for sale! - brsimdesigns Resources and Information.
2 Likes
Strange reflexions of a far away flashing light on the windscreen⌠A second ago I saw the silhouette of my airplane in front of me, in the clouds. This is a bug for sure (mod related)
You do realise this whole âI am going to sabotage anything new you try and do until you do what I want with your other productsâ tantrum throwing is both counterproductive and also somewhat childish.
People are interested in the new aircraft and any potential issues with this new one - not issues you may have with previous ones.
5 Likes
Ok, I just had a chance to fly the update. So the scaling has definitely been addressed and the plane looks much better. Also, I discovered that my render scaling had been bumped down to 70% at some point, so that may have been contributing to my complaints about exterior texturing. With that fixed and the update installed, the plane looks very good externally and the texturing is very crisp. There is still a very small gap around the pilotâs vent window (when viewed from the insideâat least with the default livery), but it is now less noticeable. One other issue is that changing the altimeter setting on one altimeter changes all altimeters.
Other non-functional items seem to be the strobe lights as they donât work for me with the default livery. The nav lights and beacon are still a bit dim in the daylight, but that seems to be a problem that Asobo introduced with SU5 as I have the same issues with the PMDG DC-6. Lastly, I believe the transponder is supposed to show the aircraft altitude when in alt reporting mode, but this isnât working. FL is always showing 0.
With respect to fidelity however, this aircraft still has some issues. I do not know whether the developer intended this to be a high fidelity aircraft, but even after the update, there are still some issues around performance. As an aside, a minor detail is that the C33 was the last model to be called Debonair as the name was changed to Bonanza starting with the E33âthough only the A model with the more powerful IO-520 truly deserved the name change.
Anyway, today I found a POH and did a bit of investigation into performance. Note that the only difference between the C33 and the E33 was a new windshield. The first thing that I noticed is that the airspeed indicator is in knots, which it shouldnât be. I meant to mention this yesterday, but for that era of aircraft, airspeed was still primarily in MPH with knots usually being displayed on an inner ring in the IAS. Indeed, the placards all use MPH as the primary speed with knots as the secondary speed. The other weird thing is that the tachometer only has 3 minor ticks (instead of 4), so RPM canât be set precisely.
I took the aircraft up to 7,000 feet using a cruise climb setting of 25" MP and 2500 RPM. Performance was plausible on the way up. I was getting 115 KIAS with 700 FPM which would be a little more than 130 MPH which agrees with the book. At 4,000â the manifold pressure was maxed out so I could only maintain about 500 FPM up to 7,000â. Going above that, 500 FPM wasnât going to be possible at 130 KIAS. Overall, I would say climb performance seemed reasonable. BTW all of this was done well below gross weight.
At 7,000 feet with full throttle giving me 22" MP and RPM set to 2450 should have given me a 75% power setting and 185 MPH (TAS), which should have been about 160 KTAS. What I got was much less. I was getting 131 KIAS with OAT at 10 degrees C. With the barometric pressure at 30.12, that worked out to 147 KTAS and about 169 MPH TAS. At 3,000 feet and 75% power I was able to cruise at 170 MPH TAS, which was about right. 7,000 feet, though, is the sweet spot for high speed cruise and it is disappointing to not be able achieve the 185 MPH speed (which was the selling point for the aircraft in real life).
Leaning remains a bit of a question mark. Fuel flow at 75% power at 7,000â should have been 13 GPH, but that has to be taken somewhat on faith. There is an EGT, but Iâm not sure how leaning is supposed to work in this model to know if it is accurate. Interestingly, at a bit over 18 GPH, I could get 136 KIAS, which would give 176 MPH TAS. In real life, richening the mixture like that should not have resulted in an increase in power. So, I remain unconvinced about the accuracy of the mixture model. That said, mixture modelling is a problem generally for piston aircraft in MSFS, so perhaps the developer is limited in what can be done.
Beechcraft singles do tend to be slippery and that behavior is well modelled. 15" of manifold pressure and the prop in full will adequately slow the aircraft without risking shock cooling. According to the provided documentation flaps can be extended at 120 KIAS, whereas according to the POH flaps can be extended at 120 MPH IAS. Regardless, what is confusing is that the white band on the airspeed indicator starts at 100 KIAS which isnât correct whichever the plane is modelled forâthough 104 KIAS would be 120 MPH IAS which would make the markings almost correct for the book values. In any case, the gear can be extended below 165 MPH IAS (which is 143 KIAS) and that is the real ticket to getting slow enough to extend flaps.
All of that said, the speeds in the included documentation donât seem to jibe with the speeds for the real aircraft. For example, the listed take off speed of 68 KIAS is 78 MPH IAS, whereas 70 MPH is the POH speed for normal take offs. Similarly, the listed 140 KIAS cruise is 161 MPH IAS, which would be plausible at a 55% power setting, but is nowhere near the 185 MPH that most people would be buying the plane in real life to achieve. Interestingly enough, bringing the RPM back to 2300 RPM from 2450 RPM had almost no effect on my speed when I was at 7,000â. I could still get 134 KIAS. However, leaning to 11 GPH (I couldnât get 10 GPH due to lack of precision) which would have been reasonably correct for that power setting resulted in my airspeed dropping to 122 KIASâwhich is 137 KTAS and only slightly slow for that power setting.
Meanwhile the service ceiling of the actual aircraft is (according to the POH) approximately 18,000â while the included documentation lists it as 12,000â. The latter is insanely low, even for a normally aspirated aircraft. Either the documentation is wrong, or there is something seriously wrong with the model. As a test, I took the aircraft up to 14,000â so I would say the included documentation is wrong. On the way up, the plane adhered to the POH expected rate of climb with respect to altitude very well. I was down to 200 FPM for the last 1,000 feet.
At 14,000â and 75% power, I actually did get the book performance of 165 MPH TAS, which was interesting. Given that performance is expected to fall off at that altitude, perhaps that makes sense given that what I got seemed to be fairly close to maximum model behavior regardless of altitude. Interestingly, descending back down to 7,000â at 1,000 FPM down without touching settings still wouldnât get me into the yellow band. At 1,500 FPM down, I was able to do 170 KIAS descending out of 8,000â. At 2,000 FPM, I was hard pressed to hit 180 KIAS and that was descending out of 4,000â.
I will also say that the cowl flaps still donât completely have the correct effect on cylinder head temperatures (for example, I pulled the power off in a 1000 FPM descent with the cowl flaps wide open and there was no effect on cylinder head temps). OTOH, having them closed on the ground resulted in temps pushing the red line when adding power.
So where does that leave us? The performance specs in the documentation may or may not be accurate for this particular model, but they are not accurate for the real life aircraft. Which is to say that while this may look like a Debonair (Bonanza), it doesnât completely perform like one. The model is a much slower cruising aircraft than the real deal.
The immediate fixes that were released were appreciated and vastly improve the quality of the aircraft. However, the inability to mimic the top-end cruising speeds of the real E-33 Bonanza is still a significant issue, as is the confusion between knots and mph, along with the strange seemingly ad-hoc performance figures with the included documentation. For folks that donât care about fidelity and just want something nice looking with lots of buttons and switches working (all of them, in fact), good flight behavior, and a fair price, I can recommend this aircraft without reservation. However, for folks that are looking for a full Debonair experience, this aircraft still comes up a bit short. That said, the developer was quick to update initial problems, so perhaps some of the remaining issues will be addressed as well.
1 Like
Unless the addon manual says this is a perfectly stock aircraft, itâs not necessarily incorrect to display knots. Any airspeed indicator can be installed in an aircraft, well, you know what I mean⌠STCâs and allâŚ
Now, if the faceplate says knots, but youâve calculated the airspeeds indicated correspond to be in MPH, then thereâs an issue. But that can be easily rectified with a quick texture edit.
2 Likes
True, however it would be both foolish and unusual to install an airspeed indicator that was knots only in an aircraft where the POH was in MPH. That generation of aircraft was MPH, which is why replacement airspeed indicators are usually dual-ring.
1 Like