Do you have comments or suggestions about these mini-reviews?

Hey Bear,
Love your column, keep up the great work. Also loved the response you gave to Kirk Olsson's aircraft. I think it is great and it flies great. Some people would bitch if they were hung with a new rope :)

Hey there,

I really love the idea of a round up of the best uploads, especially when internet call charges in the uk have failed to keep with the times and the amount of time I can spen downloading is limited as a result.

However some food for thought. I read the reveiw of the C-17 and have to wonder about something. I saw this aircraft flying at Farnborough some years ago now. And then it was billed as the most manouverable transport aircraft available, certainly why the RAF were considering it alongside the new C-130J. So, is the fact that it takes an age to complete a circle realistic. Not only that, I watched it take of in four times it's own length, once around the airfield and land in even less distance. It then reversed along the runway unaided, did a three point turn and take off in the opposite direction. This lovely aircraft doesn't need a runway. A bit of hard grass will do it.

Anyway, se what other people think.

Thanks for your time,

Chuck.

Chuck,

I went over to Boeing's website and read upon the C-17 and pretty much everything you pointed out is true, so it's obvious that maybe Kirk's airfile is a wee bit off in this area, but none the less I still enjoy flying it anyway.

Bear

I read your review of Kirk Ollson's C-17 and I have to wonder: Are you talking
about the same aircraft I am?

First, you say that "Approach to landing must be done from much further out
(increase your approach distance by at least 50% as compared to the default
737 for example)."

I fly this aircraft around the pattern at Meigs and take it out just a little bit
farther than the stock 182. Works fine. But then, I practice flying visual
approaches with every aircraft I download. On a visual approach, five miles
is the farthest out from the runway I'v ever had to use, with any FS aircraft.

The MTOW of this aircraft is 580,000 pounds, by the way... not 400+ tons.

I couldn't let this statement go unchallenged:

"Now, where ever you decide to take-off from or land at, make sure you've
picked a runway with sufficient length for an aircraft of this size and weight,
least-wise you may find yourself doing a quick runway extension with this FS
aircraft's landing gear...!"

Hmmm... I just finished landing this C-17 at Meigs, on Rwy 36, and got it
stopped before the first turnoff. That's with Realism full up and 75,000
pounds of fuel! I did use reverse and brakes... Your review makes reference
to the "proper landing speed" for this aircraft. Which is what? I flew downwind
at 190 knots, turned a three mile final at 145, and flew short final at 110 -
115 knots. This aircraft is designed to use runways of 3,000 feet in length
and can take off and land in under half that with a load equal to two tractor
trailer trucks.

Terry

Dear Bear,
Thanks for alerting me to this awsome C-17 model. I have been looking for a decent one (and a decent b17 preferably f model) and hope this is it. I am unable to locate the panel file that you refer to in the article though. Let me know if you have any other rescources for a good C-17 panel.

Thanks

Respond to this article: