For those flying the Baron 58

[FSTipster]

As many of the regulars here know, I'm flying one of these around the world in FS2002 right now.

FSD recently released updated flight dynamics for this aircraft. Unfortunately the auto-installer they insist you use (don'tcha just hate those? lol) doesn;t woirk on my setup because I don't use a default panel.

Anyway, I digress.

The point is I noticed after delving into the files a little, that the fuel capacity had been increased to 166 gallons. In Microsoft's default version it's 142.

Intrigued, I e-mailed Raytheon (who manufacture the thing for real) and asked them what it was.

They replied within minutes (nice to see) with the following reply:

The Standard Fuel Capacity for the 58 Baron is 166 gallons (although we probably haven't built one without the extended range option in years). The extended range fuel tank option capacity is 194 gallons. Our Beechcraft Bonanza A36 has a capacity of 74 gallons which may be where Microsoft got that number.

I've decided that in the quest for realism, I'm going to use the extended version. It does explain why the quoted maximum range of 1,569nm seemed way optimistic on any flight I've ever done in the Baron!

So now you know. Just amend the relevant entry in the aircraft.cfg if you wish.

[BFMF]

Microsoft should do their homework better

[FSTipster]

Indeed they should....

I just received notification that the 142 gallon capacity for the Baron was the capacity used on models built in the 60s and 70s.

Hopefully, someone at Microsoft will have picked up on this before FS9 hits the shelves.

[BFMF]

Maybe you should forward your e-mail to the Microsoft FSCOF team

[ozzy72]

Well detected John, I use the Baron a fair bit, and I always thought it was just all that yeti buzzing that was wasting fuel.....

Mark

[FSTipster]

I always thought it was just all that yeti buzzing that was wasting fuel.....

Mark

i bet you were using the re-paint I've got when you were doing it too.

I thought they were looking less than friendly when I landed near them ...  ;D

[ozzy72]

It seems blow-drying their fur makes them v.angry.... 'Cos it gets all knotted...

Tee hee

[jcool28]

Hey tipster, thanks for doin that bit of research I'm going to make the change to extended range as soon as I get home. Do you know what else the flight dynamics update includes? I am also using a custom panel in my baron so it's not going to work for me either. I was very satisfied with the update that was already out that adjusted the contact points etc to make for smoother landings.  In your proding did you find any changes that would affect  inflight characteristics?
Steve

[FSTipster]

Hi jcool

After a lot of faffing, I eventually found a way of getting FSDs autoinstaller to install the update outside of my FS2002 installation. (No mean task I can tell you!).

Consequently, what I ended up doing was using their airfile, and cutting the bulk of their aircraft.cfg into my own. I did however modify the fuel capacity to 194 gallons and retain my own lighting effects. (See Hardware and Software - Aircraft section in the link in my signature for more details).

As far as the panel goes, I thought this was going to be easy (wrong again as usual).
FSD introduce a new gauge, which replaces both manifold pressure dials (the green area is significantly extended) and the left rpm indicator only. This is something to do with curing a yaw problem they perceive the Baron has but which, I have to say, I've never experienced. This might well be because my .air and airfile files were already modified by another file (again - see the same section in the link in my signature). The problem was that replacing the Baron originals with the new gauges (at the same sizs) resulted in them not displaying. NO IDEA WHY!

I eventually solved the problem by putting them in via notepad without size details - just x,y co-ordinates - and then adding the resizing co-ordinates after I'd run FS2002 with the gauges in at the wrong size. Very weird but it's the only way I could get them to display.

The net result is that the Baron's overall airspeed is increased and actually brings it into line with the specs at the Raytheon site.

If you want to IM me your e-mail address, I'll e-mail you the necessary gauge, .air and aircraft.cfg files. I'll include the entries you need for the panel.cfg but you may find you have to mess about as I did to get them to work.

[Jock in a Frock]

Tipster, thanks for posting this info regarding the Baron's fuel load discrepancy. I've amended my model to the extended range now.

However I don't think the fuel guages are calibrated to this new fuel load, since they display full even when down to about 75% (71 gallons each). I believe the guage file may need tweaking.

Do you know any way I could achieve this?

BTW, I'm using the default panel (although I know you're not).

Regards,

Jock in a Frock

p.s. I'm enjoying your RTW flight.

[FSTipster]

Hi Jock and glad you're enjoying the RTW flight. I just finished Leg 9 and I'll make the usual post as soon as it's published.

As to the gauge - take a VERY close look at it - visually I mean.

When I first flew the Baron (in complete default setup) I thought much the same thing. However, if you get your magnifying glass out and examine it, (I've uploaded an image here instead)  it's incremental. By this I mean that half way around the gauge is not half tanks. The span of the gauge for half tanks to empty is much larger than from half to full. This is presumably to give it more accuracy when tanks are getting low and the information is, perhaps, more important.

The very last mark before Full is, in fact, 3/4 - not the one before it which is what I initially thought. Having just flown Leg 9 with the same setup and fuel gauges, I can confirm that they do still read accurately. It's just that the top quarter of the fuel tank capacity hardly registers any movement because the interval is so small and you can now travel nearly 400nm on quarter of a tank.

Hope that explains it.

[Jock in a Frock]

Indeed it does, mate. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am now confident I can get more range out of the Baron

Did you have to modify the .air file? Modifying the aircraft.cfg didn't seem to be the only change required.

Looking forward to Leg 9.

[FSTipster]

Indeed it does, mate. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am now confident I can get more range out of the Baron

Did you have to modify the .air file? Modifying the aircraft.cfg didn't seem to be the only change required.

Looking forward to Leg 9.

If all you want to do is extend the fuel capacity and, consequently, the range, then theentry in the aircraft,cfg is all you need.

If you want realistic power and so on as defined (mostly) in FSD's file, you've got a bit of a job ahead of you if their installer doesn't work for you (Read: anything but the default panel installed as far as I can tell).

It took me 2 days to bypass the installer and get the relevant bits of the aircraft.cfg file into mine and the gauges working.

Having said that, the failure of the gauges to display was the hardest part in the end. I solved that as described earlier in the thread. Note that FSD also supply a new .air file which you will need to get the whole thing working properly. It only took me as long as it did because I had to combine the best bits of the other mods I have in for my Baron.

[Guruswarmyoz]

The major issue on the fuel tanks on the Baron has been left out by both Microsoft and this FDE update by FSD.
That is on any Beech, when fuel is burnt off during flight the CofG in the Baron (& Bonanza's) moves REARWARDS.
This can be quite a dangerous situation if it is not taken into account - i know of several Baron Accidents that were caused by the CofG going outside the CofG envelope in flight (all Fatal). Needless to say that a proper weight and balance profile of the Baron at the start of flight and at the end of the trip when loaded is essential.

[Jock in a Frock]

FS2002Tipster, I have jsut flown from Nassau, Bahama to Savannah Int'l, South Carolina (around 400 miles), and still had 67% of my fuel left. By my reckoning this will give you your 1100nm range with a safe margin of error.