Bonanza Professional

@meh1951 huh, that's even stranger, I'm pretty sure it's working in the turbocharged models but I'll double check later today.

Sorry just found this info this morrning: The Beechcraft A36TC has specific baggage weight limits depending on the location: the aft baggage bin is limited to 70 pounds.

Hello, To clarify this from the TDS Sim Software side of things. Whenever the GPS/VLOC switch is in VLOC position, as in when flying an ILS approach, it is the MSFS autopilot system/logic which takes over. The TDS GTNXi Pro does not handle any logic or handles anything. The TDS GTNXi Pro full follows the official MSFS SDK in terms of autopilot/logic. Fine tuning of ILS capture is performed via the aircraft's config files, the TDS GTNXi does not have access to these files. From the TDS side, we are working on a custom autopilot, as a courtesy to our customers, but this is a very laborious process. Not to worry, we have the best intention to our users to continually improve the TDS GTNXi Pro!

A type of sim event variable, and usually one you can bind in MSFS and have work instead of needing third party software. I would look in the controls for Toggle Alternator 1 or similar.

thx for your quick reply.. I will continue to test the bonanza with MSFS 2024.

@jmarkows Ohh ok thanks. Wouldve never thought of that.

i answered in there https://community.justflight.com/topic/8967/thanks-for-the-updates-starship-1.2-and-velocity-xl-1.4/11?_=1762104368433

You weren't crazy. I found the constant that was changed. Not sure how, but the shutdowns will now be in line with my other aircraft. Thanks for pointing it out.

I'm aware, as this existed in my previous incarnation of this aircraft. I don't know why Asobo's decal material would behave this way. There is one thing I can think to try, but it might have other strange results. I'll give it a shot, though.

No worries at all! Just thought I'd ask!

Isn't the 0-100 for the given K event?

More info: It seems, that it is also partially persistent. When i wrote the initial mail i was flying in the normal A36. At some point i could change to the TP or TC models and there i had normal behaviour. Going back to the normal A36 i had the big increments from the get go. Great, i thought, something reproduceable. Unfortunately after flying the TP for the last hours it somehow reset on the normal model. Now the course knob behaves there as usual as well ... And again thx, had so much fun today flying from the smaller VFR airports in the Bretangne, trying to fly VOR approaches manually, going along the coast clockwise. I have no idea what is realistic but i like the new sounds. Yesterday, while flying the Baron i suddenly had some tapping noise, first i thought i had a failure but i only had inadvertendly clicked on the keys ... ... so open baggage door ... nice touch.

low_rpm_shake_scalar = 0 didnt do anything. I then tried these in the flight model: min_castering_angle = 0 ground_new_contact_model_up_to_speed_lateral = 0 ground_new_contact_model_up_to_speed_lateral_steering = 0 (added) enable_high_accuracy_integration = 0 _lateral seemed to help the most.. now the high accel's go away with even very slow movements, but when you brake to a stop there's a jolt and continued hard lateral accelerations. also shutting the engine off while stopped brings accel to 0 [image: dca889de-cb4e-4576-854a-dc74f57c5ada.png]

I was able to patch one file to have L-variables for all buttons and rotaries of the KLN90B. May I send these to BlackSquare as an Idea for the update? If yes: which way? @Black-Square

Thanks. Missed holding it down for three seconds. Works as advertised.

It is in 2024, yes. It does look like it sweeps across the screen like a weather scan or test pattern, then remains white.

In MSFS2024 You need to load passengers and crew via the ATC Ground menu. First You need to load the Co-pilot and Passengers in the MSFS2024 EFB Payload menu, then call "Ground" and ask for boarding. Look here: Youtube Video

I've done some tests on this, and also looked at the tables more closely. Interestingly, the only table in which there's a significant discrepancy in fuel flows between the normally aspirated (NA) and the turbonormalized (TN) variant (at altitudes where the NA variant can still achieve the same MAP as the TN variant) is the 55% power table. For example, at 6,000 feet, 55% power, the fuel flow for the NA variant is 56 PPH, whereas the fuel flow for the TN variant is 70 PPH. At 65% power, on the other hand, the fuel flow given for both variants is exactly the same: 87 PPH. I did some testing in the sim. It looks to me as if, in the 55% power table, the fuel flow for the NA variant corresponds to a 100 LOP lean, whereas the fuel flow for the TN variant corresponds to a 50 ROP lean. The fuel flow in the 65% power table (which, as noted is the same for both variants) seems to correspond to a 50 ROP lean. So there does seem to be a difference in leaning strategies, but only for the 55% power table, where the NA variant uses LOP, whereas everything else seems to be ROP.

The math comes out to 4.977hrs with four 170lb people at 15,000ft. With 190lb people, this will be 4.453hrs.

I wish I had a better answer for you on that one. Brake efficacy is not something I have control over in MSFS. I suppose if any real pilot encountered the same problem, he/she would just do their best to ensure the correct operation of the aircraft's systems at whatever power setting they could maintain.