Dudley Henriques

Sorry about the link. I believe this one will work https://drive.google.com/file/d/19DtAE441OEGVYtlkyskRk39mDb1rxkUq/view?usp=sharing

Eddie, bad link disregard

Just to be clear "Eddie", the "system" as it's been set up here on the forum by Inibuilds simply doesn't work. very well....at least in my opinion anyway. Customers who purchase a product through an online developer expect a direct contact point with that developer. Communicating with a developer through some intermediary who has a rubber stamp that reads "Your input is important to us and has been forwarded to the team" simply doesn't feed the pussycat. I can't speak for others but I will tell you emphatically that my personal experience with Inibuilds has been far less than satisfactory. In fact I have gone from wanting to help make the product a better product all the way down to uninstalling the T33 and writing off what I paid for it. Sorry to be so negative, and I wish you luck going forward, but I'll be moving on to more productive activity concerning any involvement I have with the flight simulation industry. Sincerely, Dudley Henriques

I have tested the T33 now for several weeks prior to doing a review on the product and as well interfaced with the forum .Based on my experience I've reached a conclusion on the product. Please know that as an independent reviewer for flight simulator and because of my somewhat unique position in the community I refrain from negative public comment on a product I review so as not to hurt a developer. With this in mind I will NOT be reviewing the T33. I do however receive a considerable amount of email asking me about specific products. I will simply say here that my opinion of the T33 is that is is extremely well done up to a point but could have been MUCH better with just some additional work. I'll be making no more suggestions for the T33. Dudley Henriques

No problem at all. It's just that this "intermediary stuff" just doesn't work for me. "I'll inform the team" I'm sure works well at your end but it's just not my thing. Perhaps the problem is that I don't seem to fit very well in the "user" category. LOL. :-))))))))))) Anyway, no harm done. I'll be passing on the T33 while at the same time wishing you and "the team" the very best. Dudley Henriques

Why there is an edit restriction for people posting on this forum is beyond me. The result for me anyway has been totally negative. I bought the plane. I like the plane. But I'll be "moving on" from the T33 due to a seeming lack of interest from Inibuilds and disgust at the editing policy here. I just don't have the time to devote to non-productive activity. Sorry. Looks like we both lost on this one. DH

I'm not certain but I believe they are "moving on" .

Let's just omit the word "engine" and simply call it a Maintenance issue. DH

This jives completely with my information coming from current operators of a T33. My source tells me that ANY venting through the Sabre Drain is considered a major engine issue possibly requiring serious maintenance. Dudley Henriques

I can't be sure but I think there might be a built in mixup with the way the T33 has been coded by INIBUILDS. It looks to me as though some things match up with the Canadian version and some with the Lockheed version. Flap gauge in % is one example. My memory is a bit vague but the takeoff flap position on the T33 I once flew was 31.5 DEGREES. I don't remember a % on that gauge at all. Dudley Henriques

I don't seem to be able to edit a posting several seconds after posting so adding here. The addition of the 750 app window as well leaves the door open for sim pilots who wish to use the classic panel, RMI, and Gyro Compass so all gain no losses. Dudley Henriques

At this point I'm simply waiting to see if the 750 Garmin can be implemented as an app window for the T33 as it is for many other aircraft both civilian and military. Integration into the panel is unnecessary to give the T-Bird GPS capability. The app serves the purpose well. I hope you will do this as it opens the door for the sim pilot to navigate while using the classic panel as well as make frequency selection both NAV and COM a bit easier while in flight flying a fast jet. Dudley Henriques

FWIW; There are certain behaviors concerning a specific aircraft where some "licence" can be used in flight model development that "walk the line" for the end user allowing a tradeoff between reality and a better experience for the sim pilot. Nose wheel steering is one of those specific behaviors. Naturally it's the developer's option whether to make these flight model "fudges". I can tell you that back in FSX when we developed our study level P51D Mustang, at A2A, we faced a similar issue with ground handling. The P51D in real life is designed so that when the stick is held aft of neutral the tailwheel is restricted to a 12 degree arc from center. With the stick forward of neutral the tailwheel was unlocked into full swivel. There was a "bug" however in the woodpile in all this where in real life the tailwheel could not be placed in the locked position again once free due to forward stick unless the rudder was neutralized and the stick placed back in a position aft of neutral. We wanted this as close to actual behavior as possible for the sim pilot but we also wanted the end user to enjoy the sim experience. The end result for us was a bit of masterful programming by our development team where we took a bit of licence and got a bit "fancy" with the programming. Our P51D remains today as one of the finest study level aircraft ever produced for MSFS. Just a suggestion but you can produce a more realistic experience for your T33 pilots by allowing a bit of "licence" with the T33's nose wheel behavior. Dudley Henriques

I should say that when and if I post a suggestion such as this one I'm not seeking a commitment..........or even an answer really. If I see something in a developer's product I believe has possibility above and beyond its released level I will simply advise the developer. Just consider something like this from me as a simple data point. I seek no recognition. If the idea is a good one I hope you use it. If it ends up in the wastebasket I hold no grudges. My best to all, DH

Rather than be pedantic I'll be fairly quick here; After "flying" the T33 for over a week now I would offer this to you. As the product exists today it represents enough of the actual aircraft that a paid upgrade including what is needed to raise the product to study level I see as possible without a vast expenditure in development resources. In other words, I think the T33 has the potential to become THE "go to" Warbird in MSFS IF you folks at Inibuilds opt to proceed and upgrade to the study level. I would suggest the added work to accomplish this if you decided to proceed forward with the added development could be recouped by the release of a paid service pack that completes the airplane to the study level. I submit this suggestion to you after doing extensive flight testing in the airplane and as well fully aware that the normal protocol after release is to maintain the product with timely updating and proceed on into new product. This airplane you have created is really good enough to warrant this advance if you are so inclined. The work you have done so far is extremely good. Anyway...............my opinion FWIW. Dudley Henriques

Thank you. I was worried I was being intrusive since no one invited me to submit suggestions on making an already fine product a bit better. Since you asked.................. LOL. :-)))))))))))))) One thing I would add about the 750 is that its 98% screen area increase should make the unit much easier to use while "flying" a fast jet. One of my prime reasons for recommending the 750 over the 650. Thank you again for your reply and interest. Dudley Henriques Microsoft MVP for Flight Simulator 2006-2007

I sincerely hope that since my post above hasn't been answered that I haven't overstepped my welcome with INIBUILDS. It wasn't my intention to imply that there were flaws with the excellent work you have done with your T-Bird. My "suggestion" concerning the addition of internal coding that makes an external navigator available was simply based on experience we gained at A2A when we coded our excellent warbirds for use in MSFS. I was the realism, immersion, and system fidelity consultant to A2A on our warbirds at the time we were in FSX. During our Alpha stage in development I realized immediately that when developing a legacy warbird for use in MSFS there was a need to consider that unless we included SOME form of modern avionics in our true to life dated instrumentation the end user would be faced with a serious restriction when flying our dated warbirds in the flight simulator. The problem we faced was that although our dated panel was authentic in all respects it left the end user with very little option for navigating within the sim using the sim's available tools. This equated to the end user having a beautiful period warbird that could really only be flown locally. Our solution at the time was very similar to yours. We offered the end user a choice between a military configured P51D and a civilian version using updated avionics and navigation equipment. I see the T33 has a totally modern panel which is fine. What I also see in the great work you did on the classic cockpit is that a great deal of your end users will want to fly the T33 using that classic cockpit but by doing so they could really use an external navigation applet so they could plan a flight using GPS and still have the classic pit available to enjoy. As I said, I sincerely hope I haven't stepped on any toes by pushing this option to you. I'll leave this at that and post no more suggestions. My very best to you and the best of luck with your T33. Dudley Henriques

I noticed this evening that the T33 doesn't support an external navigator so my simple planned VFR flight from KILG to KSBY was a no go.We ran into a similar problem at A2A Simulations when we were doing our P51D. Naturally we wanted to keep things WW2 in the cockpit of the 51 but after thinking it over seriously (and since I was the realism advisor on the 51) we realized that giving the end user a GPS capability would absolutely equate to our customers USING the plane more often, and we all agreed THAT was a good idea.What I'm getting at here is simply this. And let's say I'm talking about the many end users who LOVE the classic dated panel but would really like to have access to a working GPS to use for flight planning and cross country.Fortunately the available FREE GTN750 by PMS50 does that nicely without you having to integrate the unit into the panel of the T33. Having this available opens a whole new world of possible cross country flight for the INIBUILD T-Bird pilots. I also have the Shrike F86 and it has the GTN750 unit available as a small open window AS AN OPTION.I believe all that is needed to do this for everybody is to code for an external navigator in an upcoming update.I make this suggestion fully aware that the "magic" of the T33 lies in its classic panel and not everybody wants to fly using all that glass on the modern panel.Using the external GPS window really completes the many options available for the end user when "flying" the T33.I hope you will consider the inclusion of the code for an external navigator in a future update.I will tell you that I for one will use that Garmin 750 and deeply appreciate having it available as a new option. The main point I would make about this is that the GTN750 by PMS50 would be an OPTION. It doesn't detract from the great classic panel you have provided for the T33.Many thanks for your consideration,Dudley Henriques

If I might add my voice to this; I noticed this evening that the T33 doesn't support an external navigator so my simple planned VFR flight from KILG to KSBY was a no go. We ran into a similar problem at A2A Simulations when we were doing our P51D. Naturally we wanted to keep things WW2 in the cockpit of the 51 but after thinking it over seriously (and since I was the realism advisor on the 51) we realized that giving the end user a GPS capability would absolutely equate to our customers USING the plane more often, and we all agreed THAT was a good idea. What I'm getting at here is simply this. And let's say I'm talking about the many end users who LOVE the classic dated panel but would really like to have access to a working GPS to use for flight planning and cross country. Fortunately the available FREE GTN750 by PMS50 does that nicely without you having to integrate the unit into the panel of the T33. Having this available opens a whole new world of possible cross country flight for the INIBUILD T-Bird pilots. I also have the Shrike F86 and it has the GTN750 unit available as a small open window AS AN OPTION. I believe all that is needed to do this for everybody is to code for an external navigator in an upcoming update. I make this suggestion fully aware that the "magic" of the T33 lies in its classic panel and not everybody wants to fly using all that glass on the modern panel. Using the external GPS window really completes the many options available for the end user when "flying" the T33. I hope you will consider the inclusion of the code for an external navigator in a future update. I will tell you that I for one will use that Garmin 750 and deeply appreciate having it available as a new option. Many thanks for your consideration, Dudley Henriques

Probably the reason I'm not experiencing your issue is that I handle my throttles (Prop and jet both) in the sim exactly the way I handled them in real life. ALL my power adjustments are made smoothly. I anticipate power increase AND decrease and apply throttle accordingly as needed. Although true that you can in jets move throttles faster than when flying props I simply prefer the way I interface with my throttles which is to always adjust power with the objective being to avoid rapid changes in temperatures and pressures.. All I can say really is that "flying" the T33 (sim) using my method of handling power I'm not experiencing any issues at all. Dudley Henriques

If I may............. I'm presently "flying" the sim T33 and have flown the real one, (Long ago 🙂 I'm not noticing any spool up issues in the sim. One thing about approaches in this airplane; Many pilots flying the early jets (including me) learned early on how to handle the built in engine spool up situation. After the break coming off initial, I would apply speed brakes as I used g to bleed off the airspeed down to my gear and flap limits. I'd leave the speed brakes out through my entire approach. What this did is raise the drag index. This added drag allowed me to carry power well over 50% to compensate for the added drag and into the rpm range where power could be increased avoiding any spool up issues if added power was needed during the approach. Hope this helps a bit. Dudley Henriques

Excellent video. I believe this makes everything much clearer for everybody. May I suggest you put this up on your website so all can view it? Many thanks for your time. DH

I figured since the starting fuel switch has no function there had to be some "licence" taken with the way the fuel system was coded. What I am asking with my question to the devs is whether or not when they coded the system they accounted for a full fuselage tank when asking for the tip transfer switch to be ON after engine start. (Which is normal for the T33) Reason for the question is to deal with any confusion when reading in the manual that any fuel transfer has to be watched so as not to have overflow in the fuselage tank. In other words the reader might ask after reading the supplied manual and the way it has been written........"will I cause overflow if I open the tip tank transfer pump after engine start if the fuselage tank is already full"? Just a potential point of confusion that might require some clarification. The reality for this situation (actual T33) I believe is that the fuel burn rate (even at idle) for the J33 engine is more than high enough to handle the transfer rate of the fuel pumps even with ALL the pumps operation. So there should never actually be a situation where fuel is being emptied out through the Sabre drain. In fact I think that if there actually IS fuel being drained out through the Sabre drain that might very well be of enough concern to cause an engine inspection. I wasn't sure of this so in fact ran it by several friends who are operating T33's currently. No big thing here really. Just a bit of possible confusion after reading the manual for the sim T-Bird. DH

Understanding that the 230 centerline tips should always be selected on after engine start due to the pressurization issue.............. Assuming a full fuselage tank when starting, did you code to reflect the fuel burn rate even at idle to overcome the fuel transfer rate from the tips so that no overflow will occur out from the Sabre drain? Many thanks DH