Photobucket working - Hi Res screenies

[Gregory]

*Screenies*

These would appear to be the full size lossless PNG file..

Cruising in King Air C-90

http://i1341.photobucket.com/albums/o752/FlightSimGregory/2012-11-1_22-31-42-46.png

Descending over Medford Oregon in C-90

http://i1341.photobucket.com/albums/o752/FlightSimGregory/2012-10-31_22-10-52-937.png

On field in California (night view)

http://i1341.photobucket.com/albums/o752/FlightSimGregory/2012-11-1_23-8-20-562.png

Over Milpitas, California - reprocessed and reposted

http://i1341.photobucket.com/albums/o752/FlightSimGregory/2011-0319_859.png


*Videos*

Unfortunately the native MOV files are corrupted.. that is converted to
MP4 and have lost quality.

National Airport - 717 takeoff

http://s1341.beta.photobucket.com/user/FlightSimGregory/media/MVI_4205.mp4.html

National Airport - MD80 takeoff

http://s1341.beta.photobucket.com/user/FlightSimGregory/media/MVI_4209.mp4.html

Tweetiebucket - Softy ice cream in July

http://s1341.beta.photobucket.com/user/FlightSimGregory/media/MVI_5475.mp4.html


-G

[Dallas]

Gregory <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote:

> Cruising in King Air C-90

Yes, it's a worthy replacement for the Aeroworxs B200. The hi res cockpit
in the VC is remarkable. My only negative comment is that the sound file
is not as good as the Aeroworxs.

Danny is trying out some different sound flies, I hope they work out.

--
Dallas

[Gregory]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:00:44 -0500, Dallas
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.hotmail.com> brought the following:

It sounds ok to me, but improved sounds would be good. The MD80
sounds are Worse. Back to the King Air.. it doesn't seem to climb well
above FL190 as compared to the Cheyenne. The Perf charts go much
higher. Is it normal to climb the C-90 at 200 or even 100 fpm? Depends
on GW? Step climb it? The fuel system is a little complex, and it was
drawing from the LEFT tanks only until I set up a cold metal default
flight and switched AC.

Still not too happy with ground handling in general.


-G

[Dallas]

Gregory wrote:

> Back to the King Air.. it doesn't seem to climb well
> above FL190 as compared to the Cheyenne. The Perf charts go much
> higher. Is it normal to climb the C-90 at 200 or even 100 fpm?
> Depends on GW? Step climb it? The fuel system is a little complex,
> and it was drawing from the LEFT tanks only until I set up a cold
> metal default flight and switched AC.

Somebody else will have to answer... I'm not flying, I'm spending
money and setting up. :- (

--
Dallas

[Danny]

I did add the sound files. They are music, errrr, engine sounds, to my
ears. I like them. Just did a 4 hour flight from KDAL to KAND, my home field
in Anderson, SC. I thought the engines sounded good. Never have flown in
nor been around a King Air to hear the actual PT6A engines so I just have to
decide on my own if they sound good. A bit different than the sounds
Carenado put in the package.

They are from TSS, Turbine Sound Solutions.
http://youtu.be/fxaQtyJNHlk?t=18s








"Dallas" wrote in message
news:2112317003373654550.198831Cy...@news.east.earthlink.net...

[Gregory]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:48:33 -0500, "Dallas"
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> brought the following:

Got the performance sorted now.. that's after spreadsheeting the Perf
Table at ISA and 1900 RPM. Here are the three main parameters:

http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/C-90_Torque_vs_PA.png

http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/C-90_FuelFlow_vs_PA.png

http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/C-90_Airspeed_vs_PA.png


It's more than pretty colors and cool sounds.. it's how the AC operates
and why. So then.. what's the trade-off going above FL200? Is it FF
(fuel economy)? The climb rate becomes VERY slow.

Have dumped the AIR file and examined Cdo.. and propeller efficiency/
power coeff tables.


-G

[Dallas]

Gregory <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote:
> So then.. what's the trade-off going above FL200? Is it FF (fuel
> economy)? The climb rate becomes VERY slow.

Very generally speaking, normally aspirated reciprocal engines have a sweet
spot of 6,000 feet. Turboprop's have a sweet spot of 25,000 feet.

--
Dallas

[Gregory]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:48:46 -0600, Dallas
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.hotmail.com> brought the following:

Those numbes are direct from the docs that came with the FSX model.
They'd have to be verified with real operating manuals. Simply put, the
C-90 for FSX can barely climb above FL220 with <40% fuel and two
souls on board. I've had to level off, then start `up´ again.

Have also dumped the AIR file and see some interesting tables, but will
not go about posting THAT info. You [meaning anyone] could check it out.


-G