Many of these flights had ATC vectors, speed restrictions, weather (I slow for bumps significantly, getting down near maneuvering speed), etc. I've always chosen routes with preferable weather and this simple raw data confirms how meaningless these deviations are in terms of total trip time.Īnd the data also shows that this system really adds significant performance. Kudos to the folks at Tornado Alley Turbo for this amazing transformation to our Bonanza, which we've now had for 30+ years. Then climbing to 16,000' and seeing 188 knots! Imagine flying west at 12,000' seeing 167 knots groundspeed. I was also surprised to find that going west I was able to gain significant speed by finding an altitude in the teens that had a crosswind instead of a headwind. I was also very surprised that the distance flown was so similar (only 38 miles different in spite of the course differences). I was *astonished* when I looked at the data with the west bound trip only taking 28 minutes more than the eastbound trip. The eastbound trip went through Little Rock (well out of my way) due to weather and westbound trip was much more direct. Most of the flights were IFR although the last 2 legs heading west were VFR due to excellent weather. As far as I know these are wheels up to wheels down times and are pretty accurate. Now for the summary trip data from Flight Aware. I find this setting to be a nice compromise providing a very fast TAS but also acceptable range. She'll go faster but she'll use more gas. My preferred cruise setting is WOT, 2300 RPM, LOP with a fuel burn in the 15.x GPH range. With COVID concerns I decided it would be wiser (although more expensive) to fly the Bonanza ('76 A36 with a Continental IO-550 and a TAT TN Whirlwind III with Rammer scoop system). It happened to me the first time, but never again.I have a brother retired in Florida and he's been after me to visit. Again, really cool if you have a real-world aircraft you are mimicking in the sim.ĮDIT: The aircraft might freak out and flip over the first time you load it after the changes. Opening the aircraft.cfg file allows you to change the tail number that is assigned to the aircraft in the "atc-id" line. Since you're in the aircraft folder making improvements anyways, you can use the flight_model.cfg to adjust your empty and max gross weights (if you have a real-world aircraft w&b you are trying to replicate), you can pre-load weights into seats (I put my family with their weights and luggage in the stations we use IRL). All of these figures were adjusted and tested just under MGTOW, with a normal vy climb to altitude and the associated fuel burn-off during the climb. No more flying approaches at over 20" MAP. Where the aircraft would struggle before to climb past 11.5K, it now comfortably hits its ceiling right around the published 18.5K. That's close enough to book for me not to mess with it any further. This gave me ~174 TAS at 8K ft with a fuel flow of ~15.7, WOT, 2700 rpm and ~164 TAS at 10K ft with a fuel flow of ~13.5, WOT, 2500 rpm. I set the fuel flow scalar to 0.67, power scalar to 1.54, and idle rpm mechanical efficiency scalar set to 1.15 gives a ~600 rpm idle. Open the engines.cfg file for the aircraft.
0 kommentar(er)
