Twin Otter Extended Preview (FSX,P3D)

[marvic 183]

viking needs to do a new twin otter with the pt6a140 867hp engines just like cessna has done with the grand caravan they could de rate them to 835hp for economic reasons but the 750hp does not provide enough extra power for float ops. and the speed is still slow the croise speed with the new engines would be close to 185 rather then 147 like the corrent -400.

chad hittenberger

Viking are looking for Engineers. Maybe you can go there and help them out with your ideas.

http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=2127

[DocBird 12]

Viking are looking for Engineers. Maybe you can go there and help them out with your ideas.

http://www.vikingair...nt.aspx?id=2127

Well said!

[DocBird 12]

Another idea (not only for the Twin Otter):

Lately I tried to replace the face of the pilot of my C185. That seems to be complicated since the respective “Pilot”-file is a special *.bmp (extended bmp) file that is not easy to replace.So you have to download certain paint programs...

So the question is: Would it be possible to have the file for the face of the pilot at hand to replace it with a simple *.bmp or *.jpg file? Or even better some kind of a menu to browse to the file that contains the new face?

I am sure that a lot of customers would appreciate it to have their face on the pilot of the Twin Otter!

[KPD 0]

Another idea (not only for the Twin Otter):

Lately I tried to replace the face of the pilot of my C185. That seems to be complicated since the respective “Pilot”-file is a special *.bmp (extended bmp) file that is not easy to replace.So you have to download certain paint programs...

So the question is: Would it be possible to have the file for the face of the pilot at hand to replace it with a simple *.bmp or *.jpg file? Or even better some kind of a menu to browse to the file that contains the new face?

I am sure that a lot of customers would appreciate it to have their face on the pilot of the Twin Otter!

JPG won't work. Only BMP and DDS. And due to the fact that most paint softwares do not natively support FSX texture formats (i.e. DX3, DX5, etc.), you inevitably will need a plugin or a third party application. Unfortunately, there is no way to "un-complicate" the process. On the plus side, converting applications and plugins are free and won't cost you a penny.

[DocBird 12]

JPG won't work. Only BMP and DDS. And due to the fact that most paint softwares do not natively support FSX texture formats (i.e. DX3, DX5, etc.), you inevitably will need a plugin or a third party application. Unfortunately, there is no way to "un-complicate" the process. On the plus side, converting applications and plugins are free and won't cost you a penny.

Yes, Kavehpd, I was pointed in the right direction and see that it is freeware. But I am always very reluctant when it comes to freeware…

[IGrant 51]

Yes, Kavehpd, I was pointed in the right direction and see that it is freeware. But I am always very reluctant when it comes to freeware…

-imgtool comes with the FSX SDK.

-DXTBmp is a free program that will convert almost any image file into any other image format.

Not really anything to be hesitant about here. Basic texture editing is pretty straight forward particularly interior textures like a pilot since there won't be spec maps and complicated alphas.

[BeaverDriver 37]

viking needs to do a new twin otter with the pt6a140 867hp engines just like cessna has done with the grand caravan they could de rate them to 835hp for economic reasons but the 750hp does not provide enough extra power for float ops. and the speed is still slow the croise speed with the new engines would be close to 185knots rather then 147knots like the corrent -400.chad hittenberger

You aren't serious, surely! The Twin Otter doesn't have enough power for float ops??? Have you ever SEEN a Twin Otter on floats?? What other twin engine airplane operating at slightly under 12,500 lbs have you seen get off the water in under 1200 feet? Not a rhetorical question - I want to know.

There are a whole lot more factors that go into the cruise speed of an aeroplane than simply the power. And on what "experience" OR training do you draw on to be able to state categorically that the Twin Otter would cruise at 185 knots as opposed to the 147 knots (and you'd be doing well to see that speed on floats, quite frankly)?

Honestly Chad, I wish you would quit spouting off about things you have no clue about, and demanding things of developers that are so far out in left field it approaches the ridiculous. It's getting tiresome.

[bliksimpie 14]

Honestly Chad, I wish you would quit spouting off about things you have no clue about, and demanding things of developers that are so far out in left field it approaches the ridiculous. It's getting tiresome.

thank you, well said

[Aeromaestro 60]

You aren't serious, surely! The Twin Otter doesn't have enough power for float ops??? Have you ever SEEN a Twin Otter on floats?? What other twin engine airplane operating at slightly under 12,500 lbs have you seen get off the water in under 1200 feet? Not a rhetorical question - I want to know.

There are a whole lot more factors that go into the cruise speed of an aeroplane than simply the power. And on what "experience" OR training do you draw on to be able to state categorically that the Twin Otter would cruise at 185 knots as opposed to the 147 knots (and you'd be doing well to see that speed on floats, quite frankly)?

Honestly Chad, I wish you would quit spouting off about things you have no clue about, and demanding things of developers that are so far out in left field it approaches the ridiculous. It's getting tiresome.

Well said, bro. Say, even if Viking did strap PT6A-140s on that thing, there's the simple fact that while some speeds will change, the VMO (Maximum operating speed) on that thing is 166 KIAS (Sea Level - 6700ft). VNE is 198 KIAS and this dude wants to cruise at 185?? How you gonna overcome the drag created by those huge honking landing gear/floats hanging off the airframe. The thing's got thick high lift wings, not thin high speed wings. I know what kinda cruise will give you that speed. A cruise dive involving some serious structural issues....! Where does he get off saying the Twotter is ill-equipped for float ops??!! Honestly, Chad, you're spending waaay too much time in the universe paralleling this one. When you're not demanding stuff, you're spouting unrealistic crap that's gotta be seen to be believed. Cut it out! Not marvelous...

[Chad Hittenberger 5]

what i was simply saying is that if the goal is to creat a new twin otter then viking should have done just that and i know the stats for the corent one are as publiched on the viking web site. the aircraft has always been a staple in my fsx hanger and i thaught that it was a good time the real aircraft was braught fermly into the 21st centory and for that we need a new wing and engine, may be the pt6 140 is a good canidet.

chadhittenberger.

[W.Skinner 3]

what i was simply saying is that if the goal is to creat a new twin otter then viking should have done just that and i know the stats for the corent one are as publiched on the viking web site. the aircraft has always been a staple in my fsx hanger and i thaught that it was a good time the real aircraft was braught fermly into the 21st centory and for that we need a new wing and engine, may be the pt6 140 is a good canidet.

chadhittenberger.

if you change a wing make it a faster profile you have a chance of killing the planes ability to carry a specified weight load. The twotter isn't supposed to be a fast plane. It's intended to haul lots of stuff into places most planes can't not even get as you know.

[Aeromaestro 60]

if you change a wing make it a faster profile you have a chance of killing the planes ability to carry a specified weight load. The twotter isn't supposed to be a fast plane. It's intended to haul lots of stuff into places most planes can't not even get as you know.

Thank you, Skinner! Good lookin' out. Try to learn a little about the ins and outs of aviation, Chad. For you that knowledge will be worth it's weight in gold. No hard feelings but you really need to think and do some research before you post. A lot of thought was put into Twin Otters before they even left the drawing board. The plane we see today was intended to be what it is and nothing more.

Yes Viking is rebuilding it but the aircraft retains at least 60% of its originality, the newer 40% going to new avionics(glass) and other little 21st century upgrades. We know you like the Twin Otter as do the rest of us. So quit the unrealistic ideas, ok? As a real world pilot, I would find your comments funny if they weren't so ridiculous. Let's just let Stefan, Mathijs, Finn and the other Aerosoft experts do their thing so we can have the finished product sometime soon.

(Now back to the topic....)

Any chance of some of the latest exterior shots, guys? Is it any further along that what we've already seen? Hittin' the liveries yet? 25.20 euros (+ VAT of course) has already been set aside....

[Chad Hittenberger 5]

i hav done the reserch and i understand that doing thoes things changes the usefulness of the plane the only real point i am tring to make is that they could conciter the bigger and brand new pt6140 because it is 21st sentory tech and having a more areodynamic engine cowel would bring the look up to date. i may not be the scoller that some of you are but the ideas and theroys i have are good. well that is my opinion any ways. i think a good debate makes everybody smarter. i exept the critisisum i ern the flight sim comunity is the bert one in the world. i love to be part of it. thx for leting me do so. ps can we get the otter next ? just a question. mathjs some cabin intiror shots would be great.

chad hittenberger

[W.Skinner 3]

i hav done the reserch and i understand that doing thoes things changes the usefulness of the plane the only real point i am tring to make is that they could conciter the bigger and brand new pt6140 because it is 21st sentory tech and having a more areodynamic engine cowel would bring the look up to date. i may not be the scoller that some of you are but the ideas and theroys i have are good. well that is my opinion any ways. i think a good debate makes everybody smarter. i exept the critisisum i ern the flight sim comunity is the bert one in the world. i love to be part of it. thx for leting me do so. ps can we get the otter next ? just a question. mathjs some cabin intiror shots would be great.

chad hittenberger

Chad, I work in the military aviation industry. I have been to engine school, airframe school and weapons systems school. From what I have learned about a PT6 is all PT6 engines are generically all the same. They just get bigger and the SHP increases with different models. They are not a 21 century engine. They are old reliable design engines that just keep getting new life in mods to design. Now a cowling might allow for better airflow over and around a engines and wing but I'm sure if Viking believed there was a huge increase in better airflow with a new cowling they would have implemented it. Also a bigger engines can increase weight of the aircraft and also drag if the cowling is increased in size potentially.

I see the 100 series twotter now and then and trust me it has no issues with transporting stuff or speed for the job it does.

Now I'm not saying all this to bash you but to try to inform you that a simple change that may sound great may actually hamper the true intended performance of the aircraft.

[Chad Hittenberger 5]

so skinner when will we see the next gen terboprop engines comming out?

chad hittenberger

[W.Skinner 3]

so skinner when will we see the next gen terboprop engines comming out?

chad hittenberger

No idea. I don't work for Pratt and Whitney Canada who makes the PT6 engine family.

Anyways back on topic.

[craigy 20]

The other main consideration is the wing. It is designed for STOL operations not speed. So apart from adding weight to the wing to support a bigger engine, the wing probably won't support an increase in the cruise speed that would be economical.

Looking forward to this plane. Will be based in the Caribbean, probably TNCM

[JanTenner 38]

Hey guys,

I have a little question. As I try to build a small home cockpit I am curious if all functions can be used by key strokes. Some aircraft designers remade some functions so that those are only accessible via the vc. That wouldnt be that perfect as that would mean that I have to use the vc. I dont care if it is the default FSX commands. All that counts is that I can assign it to a key or button.

I am really looking forward to this aircraft. It really looks great so far

[DocBird 12]

Hey guys,

I have a little question. As I try to build a small home cockpit I am curious if all functions can be used by key strokes. Some aircraft designers remade some functions so that those are only accessible via the vc. That wouldnt be that perfect as that would mean that I have to use the vc. I dont care if it is the default FSX commands. All that counts is that I can assign it to a key or button.

I am really looking forward to this aircraft. It really looks great so far

I second that question/request, since I also "develop" my little homecockpit. Nothing facy though but having the Saitek power-levers on the ceiling is great fun!

[Finn 873]

I second that question/request, since I also "develop" my little homecockpit. Nothing facy though but having the Saitek power-levers on the ceiling is great fun!

We use alot of so-called custom Vars in the VC.

But we plan to release the necessary LUA/LINDA scripts for FSUIPC inorder to build home cockpits.

Due to reallife duties, the developer we have to do that stuff might not get it finished when the Twin Otter will be released, but definitly some time after.

Finn

[W.Skinner 3]

The other main consideration is the wing. It is designed for STOL operations not speed.

Thanks for pointing out the stol properties. Completely forgot that portion of a profile.

[JanTenner 38]

We use alot of so-called custom Vars in the VC.

But we plan to release the necessary LUA/LINDA scripts for FSUIPC inorder to build home cockpits.

Due to reallife duties, the developer we have to do that stuff might not get it finished when the Twin Otter will be released, but definitly some time after.

Finn

Thanks alot. LUA/LINDA support is great. If the Twin Otter becomes that good as I hope for than it will be the main aircraft my cockpit will be build for. Therefore I am fine with putting some work in. But that gives me much freedom to set it up as I like

[BeaverDriver 37]

Yes Chad, you could put bigger engines on the plane. You could make the wing a lot thinner and the body more streamlined. You could possibly redesign the floats so they are more streamlined and creating less drag. You could increase the structural strength of the airplane to withstand higher airspeeds. So now you have an airplane that will cruise at 180 kts (maybe - doubt you'd ever see a seaplane doing that, but ok). You also now have an airplane that needs to be at 90 kts before you lift off, thus needing 2500 feet of runway/waterway to get airborne, won't climb as steeply and will be more load critical. You won't be able to haul 12,000 lbs because your floats no longer have the displacement necessary to float that kind of weight due to them having been streamlined. In other words, you no longer have a twin Otter. So that begs the question, who's going to go pick up the people you left on that remote lake that is only 2000 feet long with 100 ft trees at either end and who have a crapload of mining gear to bring out with them? The "new" Twin Otter isn't going to do that, if you design it the way you envision it Chad.

I think you are totally missing the point on what the Twin Otter was built for and its main purpose in life. It is a STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) airplane. Skinny up the wing, decrease the floatation in the floats and redesign the airframe so it's fast, and you completely lose the STOL part of the airplane. In essence, you are taking a Dodge Ram and trying to turn it into a Ford Mustang. Why do that when there are Ford Mustangs already being built? You are building an entirely new airplane designed to do an entirely different job, and leaving nothing left to do the old job for which it was designed and is still in demand for. It makes no sense and would cost far more than it would to simply use existing equipment designed to be a "Mustang". If Viking ever entertained your ideas, they might as well file for bankruptcy now and save the trouble later.

I stay with my original comments Chad. Maybe it might be time to listen instead of talking. You might learn something along the way. Some here, including myself, have spent a lot of time around airplanes, and in my case, 17 years working the bush in planes like the Beaver, Single Otter, 185's, 180's, Aztecs and so on with almost all my hours either on floats or skis (and I'm still in aviation, making this my 47th year in that field). Somehow, somewhere along the way, we've picked up a "little" knowledge about airplanes, how they work, and what airplane is designed to do what it isn't. If Aerosoft were to adopt your ideas on this, I think I could say with 99% certainty they'd have a hard time selling a single machine. Doing what they ARE doing now, I suspect they'll have to work hard to keep their servers from crashing from the sheer numbers of people trying to download the airplane the second it's released. I hope you understand what we are trying to tell you.

Now, let's get back to the airplane and leave the silliness behind, shall we? Thank you.

[Aeromaestro 60]

Yes Chad, you could put bigger engines on the plane. You could make the wing a lot thinner and the body more streamlined. You could possibly redesign the floats so they are more streamlined and creating less drag. You could increase the structural strength of the airplane to withstand higher airspeeds. So now you have an airplane that will cruise at 180 kts (maybe - doubt you'd ever see a seaplane doing that, but ok). You also now have an airplane that needs to be at 90 kts before you lift off, thus needing 2500 feet of runway/waterway to get airborne, won't climb as steeply and will be more load critical. You won't be able to haul 12,000 lbs because your floats no longer have the displacement necessary to float that kind of weight due to them having been streamlined. In other words, you no longer have a twin Otter. So that begs the question, who's going to go pick up the people you left on that remote lake that is only 2000 feet long with 100 ft trees at either end and who have a crapload of mining gear to bring out with them? The "new" Twin Otter isn't going to do that, if you design it the way you envision it Chad.

I think you are totally missing the point on what the Twin Otter was built for and its main purpose in life. It is a STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) airplane. Skinny up the wing, decrease the floatation in the floats and redesign the airframe so it's fast, and you completely lose the STOL part of the airplane. In essence, you are taking a Dodge Ram and trying to turn it into a Ford Mustang. Why do that when there are Ford Mustangs already being built? You are building an entirely new airplane designed to do an entirely different job, and leaving nothing left to do the old job for which it was designed and is still in demand for. It makes no sense and would cost far more than it would to simply use existing equipment designed to be a "Mustang". If Viking ever entertained your ideas, they might as well file for bankruptcy now and save the trouble later.

I stay with my original comments Chad. Maybe it might be time to listen instead of talking. You might learn something along the way. Some here, including myself, have spent a lot of time around airplanes, and in my case, 17 years working the bush in planes like the Beaver, Single Otter, 185's, 180's, Aztecs and so on with almost all my hours either on floats or skis (and I'm still in aviation, making this my 47th year in that field). Somehow, somewhere along the way, we've picked up a "little" knowledge about airplanes, how they work, and what airplane is designed to do what it isn't. If Aerosoft were to adopt your ideas on this, I think I could say with 99% certainty they'd have a hard time selling a single machine. Doing what they ARE doing now, I suspect they'll have to work hard to keep their servers from crashing from the sheer numbers of people trying to download the airplane the second it's released. I hope you understand what we are trying to tell you.

Now, let's get back to the airplane and leave the silliness behind, shall we? Thank you.

Agreement. 100%.

[IGrant 51]

How about a Twin Otter Extended question:

Any word on beta or smooth reverse transition? That is way up there on my wish list but not necessarily on the 'expected list'.