Introduction In this section we examine FS2004's aircraft from several perspectives: General Aviation (mainly carried-over aircraft from FS2002), "Century of Flight" theme aircraft (some would say, the heart of this new version), and the air transports (all carry-over aircraft). Steve 'Bearracing' Cartwright treats us to his inimitable and thoroughly-researched writing style for the first two topics—except that we felt that the classic mainstay of Flight Simulator for years, the GA Cessna 172, and the COF Douglas DC-3 (new to FS but a now-classic add-on with FS2002) each deserved extended discussions—provided by Ian Scott (who's flown them both during his aviation career). Then our 'heavy iron' guru Pardave Lehry looks over the air transports—which are little changed from FS2002—and helicopter pilot James Webb tries his hand with both the Robinson R22 and Bell 206 Jet Ranger. We conclude this Part 2 of our FS2004 review with a look by Steve at Microsoft's Multimedia-based documentation of the aircraft and their histories, and finally his impressions of the COF-themed adventures.
Overview Since the days of FS95, the Game-Simulation team members at Microsoft have been introducing a newer, updated version of their Flight Simulator program approximately every 2 years or so and it was with their introduction of FS98, that the basic foundation of the current version of the simulation was reached. At least as it relates to the basic folder names and general configuration of most primary functions, aircraft, scenery, textures, etc..
With FS2000 they achieved the most visual change, particularly with the way the basic overall appearance of the aircraft as well as the appearance of scenery, sky, and clouds in comparison to the real world, all of which was dramatically improved (specifically the move from polygon blocks to the mesh type scenery base).
Even with the improvements made with FS2000, the performance hits were of great concern to everyone, as FS2000 had several unanswered problems, even on the best systems of that time. With the release of FS2002 (just a bit over 2 years after FS2000), we had the introduction of an amphibious aircraft as well as dynamic virtual panels, an interactive ATC, autogen buildings and trees, improved world ground textures, and most importantly we had a simulation that performed much better on the average computer system, that the majority of us owned. Other items, such as weather and/or clouds, were essentially unchanged from FS2000.
Flight Simulator 2004, Century of Flight promises to offer many new features and advantages over previous versions in several areas; our Review team's job is to look over these improvements, look for any changes we think are new, report on them, and determine if the latest product the MSFS design team is offering is worth the scrapping of your FS2002 program and replacing it with the new one!
When I was a part of the AVSIM Review Team for FS2002, my overall impression, just to remind you, was Wow and I questioned rather the MSFS design team could wow me again with their next version of Flight Simulator. I'm happy to report they have, though where FS2002 was a WOW (as compared to FS2000), FS2004 is more like a Wow in comparison to FS2002, if you understand my meaning. You see, it's a case of how it gets harder and harder to overcome a reviewer with excitement, with each new release, because as each new version includes more and more features, accurate to the real world, there are less dramatic or obvious gains with each improvement for a reviewer to rant and rave about. The improvements with FS2004 are not about some totally new feature, but rather it is a long list of small subtlies, everywhere and with everything, that when experienced together make for an extraordinarily new and fresh package.
The bottom line is, with the exception of some new aircraft, there are really no totally new or never-before-seen features with FS2004, but what the MSFS Team have done is to have improved virtually everything, particularly the clouds, the dynamic weather, scenery visuals, ATC, AI aircraft, and the default aircraft details (including a huge improvement with the airfiles for many).
Other members of the AVSIM review team will be reporting on the many details for each improvement concerning all areas of FS2004, so I will restrict my comments covering those improvements to my summary. What I will be reviewing in detail is the changes or improvements with the default General Aviation aircraft and the new default aircraft included as part of the "Century of Flight" theme. Before I get into the first of the General Aviation aircraft, I should make note that there are 3 default aircraft missing in action from FS2002 and those would be the Cessna 182RG, Sopwith Camel, and the Chance Vought F4U Corsair, the last of which I frankly find kind of surprising. Considering that the main theme of FS2004 is "Century of Flight" the one time you would expect to see the Sopwith Camel (which has been in Flight Simulator for the last 20 years) and a warbird, such as the F4U, would be now, but they're not there. I'm not sure why the 182RG was omitted and I'm sure it will be missed by many, though in reality, it's an easy task just to slide these aircraft over from FS2002, if you happen to have it. The gauges for these missing aircraft are included (as are the gauges for the Concorde, which has been gone since FS2000) in the default gauge folder for FS2004, so no real problem there, you just have to copy the original folders and paste them over in your FS2004 aircraft folder and you should be good to go. If you do this, you will note that the 182RG lacks a virtual cockpit and the Sopwith Camel has several issues (there are some apparent conflicts involving the gauges), but the F4U works perfectly.
Because another member of the AVSIM FS2004 review team, Ian Scott, will be commenting on the RealAir 172 in FS2004, we felt it would be better if Ian also covered the default 172 review as a comparison, so I will be skipping that aircraft. Same goes for the new DC-3, as Ian has had some real world experience in a DC-3, so once again he's the best choice to review that aircraft.
FS2004 General Aviation & Corporate Aircraft In FS2002, we saw the addition of the Cessna 208B/208 Amphibian, plus a Baron 58 light-twin, and like the Cessna 182S, Extra300, or KingAir 350 these aircraft all included a virtual cockpit panel. The Mooney Bravo and the Learjet 45 in FS2002 were unchanged from their FS2000 counterparts, but for FS2004, both the Mooney and the Lear have now been brought up to-date, with new paint schemes, dynamic virtual panel-cockpits, and improved airfiles.
Lets get to the meat of the General Aviation aircraft and I believe everyone will be as pleasantly surprised as I was when they get their hands on the new Flight Simulator General Aviation fleet.
The Cessnas 172 Skyhawk
Because over the years the Cessna 172 has been the aircraft most frequently flown in Microsoft's Flight Simulator series, we asked real-world Cessna pilot Ian Scott to write an extended commentary about the FS2004 version in a separate section (click here).
182S Skylane
The Cessna 182S Skylane has been around for several years and it is still a very popular choice among the general aviation pilots out there. First introduced back in the 1950s, the Cessna Skylane is akin to the family stationwagon, able to carry 4 adults with 200 lbs of baggage along at 140 knots (75% cruise speed @ 5,000 foot elevation), which is not bad. Equipped with a Textron-Lycoming 230 hp engine and a constant speed propeller, the Cessna Skylane is an easy to fly aircraft that's big brother to the Cessna 172 Skyhawk.
The MSFS version of the Cessna 182S for FS2004 is virtually unchanged from its FS2002 counterpart, with the exception that the virtual cockpit-panel is now fully clickable with your mouse or for those with less than average eye-sight, you also have the pop-up windows available as well.
In addition to the clickable VC panel, the other notable improvement is the default airfile, as the MSFS team have refined and improved it greatly, as compared to its FS2002 version. Taking off is no longer a case of setting the trim well back within the T/O indicator, rather it is a simple case of tapping the trim back slightly and then once you've reached flying speed, gently ease back on the control column or your joystick and the FS Cessna 182S flies off the runway in a very realistic fashion. No more of that runway glue that plagued earlier versions of this Cessna or basically all of the default aircraft!
I also evaluated the flight characteristics of the 182S, after setting the realism to maximum or 100%, and I must say I am very pleased with the results of the MSFS team airfile improvements. Stalls are now much better implemented and as you slow your speed you'll notice the stall warning buzzer at 55 knots, then at 51 knots (clean) you'll get a slight wing drop, all true to the real world 182S. I also noted that if you hold the stick back and kick in some rudder, the 182S will now gradually enter a spin, but it never gets into that aerobatic type rotation. The real world Cessna 182s are hard to enter and maintain a spin, just as the FS version is, though with effort you can make it spin certainly more realistically than in prior versions of Flight Simulator.
Another improvement I noted was how the engine reacts to your mixture settings. With previous versions, you would notice a slight increase in rpm, as you leaned the system, but at some point the engine would just quit without warning or any precursor. In the real world, a gasoline powered engine runs its most efficient when the mixture ratio is 14.7 to 1 (for every 14.7 lbs of air you want 1 lb of fuel). As you climb (to a higher altitude), the air becomes thinner, so to maintain maximum available power, you need to also reduce (lean) the amount of fuel to maintain that 14.7 to 1 mixture ratio. If you don't reduce the level of fuel being mixed with air, the mixture becomes oxygen starved or wet and your engine becomes sluggish and reduced power is the result. As you pull your mixture knob out, to balance the mix of fuel and air, you will notice an improvement in available power and the engine rpm will increase, but if you go too far with your adjustment toward a lean condition (reducing the amount of fuel as compared to the air) you should feel, at first, a slight misfire and if you keep adjusting the mixture towards lean the engine will eventually stall or quit. The airfiles with the default aircraft now do this, rather than going from a running condition to simply off, which was not a real world like transition, and now react more realistically in this area.
Overall, I'm very pleased with the default FS2004 182S over the 182S in prior versions of Flight Simulator and I actually found myself enjoying a flight in the Skylane on occasion, despite the reality that I've never really been a big Cessna fan (always had a thing for the low-wing Pipers) I think the 182S in FS2004 is one of their best efforts, so here I would have to give the MSFS team a hardy well done.
208/208B Caravans
Like the 182S, neither of the 2 Caravans are changed from their FS2002 versions, except that the airfile has seen some improvement and the VC panels are now clickable. The Caravans were among my favorite default aircraft to fly in FS2002 and now, with the improvements, my enjoyment of these aircraft have gone up a notch or two.
It was when I was flying the Caravan that I noticed one subtle improvement, which is if you're in the cockpit and open a door (<shift>+<E>), you now will hear the latch release and the door open. Same goes for when you close the door, which is a small detail, but is consistent with what the MSFS Team have done in almost every corner of this version of Flight Simulator.
With the exception of the C208/208B now having a clickable vc panel, there is nothing obviously new, about the Caravans, that is until you fly them. With the amphibian that infamous runway glue, which was very effective at getting the floats to stick to water in FS2002, I'm happy to report is now apparently gone! With the 208 in FS2004, you only have to spool up the engine (1/4 throttle) and this 208 is very easy to maneuver about on water, just remember to drop your rudders (<shift>+<W>) and raise your gear (<G>) first. Once you're moving just reduce the throttle setting gently and you'll find yourself able to move through the water fairly effortlessly. On take-off, this aircraft now gets up on the step and if your trim is set properly, it will simply fly off the water as if it were the real thing! I'm quite impressed and considering that of all the freeware aircraft installed on my harddrive (FS2002), it was the default Caravan Amphibian I put the most hours in over the last year and a half, and now I suspect that will be even more the situation with FS2004. So in effect, what was a good pair of aircraft in FS2002 is now a great pair of aircraft in FS2004.
Beechcraft
Baron58 Light Twin
The Baron58 (Beechcraft) was first introduced with FS2002 and for FS2004 there have been no changes other than the vc panel now being clickable, along with a minor rework of the airfile, as apparently they (MS) have with all the General Aviation aircraft. I still think that the default textures for the Baron look terrible, but after installing my favorite repaint I found the Baron58 to be a pleasing aircraft to fly, particularly because of the airfile tweaking from the boys at Microsoft. For those seeking a light twin with reasonable performance, the Beechcraft Baron has proven itself a worthy addition to the Microsoft fleet and with one of the many repaints available, the ability to customize your aircraft is easy.
I believe that for the most part, those that found themselves flying the Baron, in FS2002, should be pleased with the improvements applied to the FS2004 version, despite that the improvements have been minor.
King Air 350
As an executive class turboprop, the Beechcraft King Air is one of the GA aircraft you would think should be on the top of a lot of people's favorite to fly list, but the truth is the airfile has always left something to be desired. Having been a part of the MS Flight Simulator fleet since FS2000, the King Air continues as a Flight Simulator standard, though the FS2004 version finally receives a much needed updating to its flight modeling. Having a great vc panel, carried over from FS2002, a panel that is like all the FS aircraft now being fully clickable, the one thing that will surprise everyone is what happens on your first take-off! No more will you find yourself sticking to the runway, for what seems like an eternity, then suddenly having the King jump into the air like a homesick rocket. Now it's just a smooth rotation and by gently tapping the trim you can easily set it up for a hands off climb. Also noticeable is the smoothness in both pitch and roll rates as translated from your yoke or joystick (in my case a Saitek 3D Cyborg Gold joystick). it's my contention that the most improved airfile has to be with the FS2004 version of the King Air, with possible exception of the improvements made with the Lear45 and/or the Extra300.
Extra300 I had spent a great deal of time with the Extra300 in FS2002 and for the most part, the FS2004 version is identical in all areas except for one, a very pleasing improvement of which I found quite by accident, and that was when I gave the FS2004 Extra a shot at a spin. Wow, I just about jumped out of my seat, as the new Extra rolled into and then started a textbook spin, but at an ever increasing rate of rotation! This is fantastic, previously I've only had this experience with the RealAir 172, RealAir SF.260, and the Bill Lyons clipped wing Cub, all of which are payware aircraft designed specifically for FS2002. Like the RealAir and Bill Lyons aircraft, you must have your "aircraft realism" set to maximum or 100% and your autorudder disabled, but never has a default aircraft reacted so near the real aircraft it depicts, and even though I believe the King Air and Lear45 show the most marked improvement with their flight modeling, the tweaking of the Extra300 shouldn't be over looked either!
One of the items I haven't mentioned is that I have installed a default version of FS2002 on another system, which is sitting side-by-side with my main computer where I've installed FS2004. My purpose in having done this is so that if I believe I note an improvement or something I think is new, I simply have to jump over to my other system and check it out. I immediately jumped over and tried the same maneuver in the FS2002 and yes, it was exactly as I remembered, the FS2002 Extra will not spin, but it will wallow back and forth, like a drunken maple leaf, until it hits the ground.
Schweizer Soaring The Schweizer glider has been in Flight Simulator for some time and I don't think that many have given it much notice along the way. With FS2004 the basic model has been brought upto date with reflective textures, opening canopy, new component animations, and a first ever (for the default glider) 3D virtual cockpit-panel. If ever there was an FS aircraft that begged for a virtual cockpit, the glider would certainly be it.
The airfile has also been tweaked though the improvements are noticeable by their subtleties rather by any blaring or obvious change. The changes or improvements with the Schweizer now make it a very interesting and delightful aircraft type to experience and flying this aircraft in the weather theme of "major thunderstorm" also yields sufficient updrafts to stay aloft for extended periods. To catch the updrafts, just start from an altitude greater than the cloud base, to get yourself above the rain, and then search around for the thermals.
Mooney Bravo Of the default GA aircraft brought over from FS2002, it has been the Mooney Bravo and Lear45 that have had the most obvious improvements. With the FS2004 Mooney, MS has added a new virtual cockpit/panel, an additional paint scheme, and an improved airfile, all of which adds up to a really nice aircraft to fly now. Back when the Bravo was introduced in FS2000, this aircraft was, at the time, one of my personal favorites, but with FS2002 I kind of lost favor for it because of the same over-responsive airfile and the lack of a virtual cockpit.
After spending just a few minutes with the FS2004 Mooney Bravo, I already found myself rethinking my favorites and I must admit, in addition to the new Lear and the Caravans, I'm speculating that I will be spending a lot more time with the new Mooney as I suspect several others will do as well. I'm going to be having the same problem as a lot of people I imagine, as there are so many fascinating new or redesigned aircraft included with FS2004, so I imagine that time is going to be a problem for getting to fly them all as I would like to!
Bombardier Learjet 45 Having been a part of Flight Simulator since the earliest days (I'm thinking it was introduced with FS2, though I'm not sure), the Learjet has been a true Flight Simulator Standard, right up there with the Cessna 182 and the Sopwith (which is conspicuously missing in FS2004). Going back to the FS98 version, the Lear has also been one of the worst flyers because of various problems related to its airfile. The FS2000 version was almost unflyable (particularly with its over sensitive pitch), but thanks to the 3rd party gurus most of the Lear's problems were corrected once you installed their freeware airfiles. Unfortunately, all of the problems related to the airfile in the FS2000 version carried over to the FS2002 version as well and once again we had to turn to the 3rd party fellows for help. This just may not be the case with the new Lear in FS2004, as it flies absolutely wonderfully, as it is smooth and deliberate in its roll rate and pitch is now fully undercontrol and under your control I might add. It seems like the MSFS design team has either put their airfile experts to task on this one, or somehow they've secretly sneaked Rob, Steve, or Ron in for some help, either way the new Lear is a real joy to fly and a real beauty to look at.
Besides the obvious help with the airfile, the other new feature of the Lear, and the best part, is the virtual cockpit! Easily the best of the GA aircraft, the virtual panel for the Lear has made the 2D panel (still included) a sign of over-redundancy and frankly the 2D panel in the Lear is now simply in the way. I had logged well over 2 hours in the Lear before I realized that I had not used the 2D panel one single time and I suspect that most of you will agree with me in thinking that on the next version of Flight Simulator, it just might be better if the MSFS team just removed it.
Summary of General Aviation Aircraft: The targeted audience (buyer) for Flight Simulator is the average gamer that is in all likelihood a non-pilot or at the very least an inexperienced new student pilot, so the design of the airfiles (for all aircraft) has tended to be somewhat mundane or generic in feel. Even though the "aircraft realism" slider had settings (FS2000/2002) for "easy", "medium", and "hard", each of the aircraft in FS tended to just get squirrelly as you went from easy up to hard, rather than more realistic. Discussion of the airfiles (default) is a dead horse that has been pretty well beaten to death in the forums, so I won't go into them in detail here, but I will say this. In FS2004, the aircraft I flew (all the GA and historic aircraft) when the aircraft realism slider was set to "easy" each flew in a way that was somewhat reminiscent of that mundane or generic feel, which is okay, because what better way to build the confidence of a non-pilot than to let them successfully fly an aircraft with a minimum of practice or experience. For those of us with real-world or a lot of simulator experience, we can bump up the realism slider to our experience level and unlike before, the aircraft now tend to get more realistic rather than just squirrelly, which is a nice improvement. Don't misunderstand either, the updated airfiles are not perfect, but they're a darn sight better than they've ever been and Microsoft is inching ever closer to their over used slogan of "As Real As It Gets."
Considering there were no new additions (new aircraft) to the General Aviation aircraft included with FS2004—in fact there was one dropped (the C182RG)—and considering that there were the 10 COF aircraft to develop, it is no wonder that the MSFS team spent a minimum of time updating or improving what they had. Even with that thought in mind, the MSFS team still did a bang-up job at bringing the General Aviation flight up to par with the rest of the aircraft included. Hopefully with the next version of Flight Simulator, they will include a couple of new additions, specifically a Maule or similar type bush aircraft and possibly a Piper Archer, but that can wait as there are enough new-old aircraft to fly and enjoy for now that I'm sure we'll all be pretty busy for the next couple of years.
Cessna 172 By Ian Scott
This is the year we celebrate 100 years of flight. A century may not be a lot of time in the grand scheme of things, but when it comes to technology it is. Many of the products that we use every day came into general use in the last 50 years or so. The TV we use to keep our kids busy while we fly, the electric toaster we use to burn a piece of bread so we can keep flying without passing out from hunger, the electric coffee pot we make our coffee in so we can stay awake while our 747 whispers above the Atlantic Ocean and our spouse sits in the kitchen filling out the divorce papers citing "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004" as the "other woman"—all are relatively new. Much newer than the airplane itself—and especially newer than the personal computer that most of us use to give ourselves a taste of the experience of actually piloting an airplane. So let's hear it for the powered, heavier than air flying machine as it celebrates a 100th birthday this December!
If we look back at a century of flight, which airplanes really stand out? It would be fun to make a list of the "top one hundred" and see how many of that list we could all agree on. No matter how you argue it, one airplane that would have to be on the list would be the Cessna 172. The amazing longevity of this design, found virtually anywhere on the planet and kept in production for over 40 years, or the fact that a huge percentage of general aviation pilots in the western world learned to fly on it or its baby brother the C150/152 alone would qualify it for the list of great planes of the first century of flight. But there's another reason as well. It is a superb machine that almost perfectly fulfills the purpose for which it was designed. It is a delight to fly, being safe and stable with virtually no vices. It is pleasant to ride in as a passenger and it does the job it was designed to do reliably and economically. It is like the "Energy Bunny"—it just keeps going and going.
Given this, it's not surprising that the Cessna 172 and its more powerful and slightly larger cousin the 182 has become a traditional member of the Microsoft Flight Simulator family. (FS2004 dropped the 182RG for some reason). But how good a job have Microsoft done in giving us a chance to experience this aviation classic? I would like to say something nice about it, but it isn't easy. The truth is that the Cessna 172 presented by Microsoft is profoundly inferior to many freeware GA designs that are readily available on AVSIM and does not come close to simulating the experience of flying a stable, safe and reliable real-world airplane like the Cessna 172.
Like most of you, my first experience of MS Flight Simulator (the 95 version in my case) was the default flight at Meigs, lined up for take-off in the C172. But I have to tell you that within a few minutes I was ready to conclude that it was a waste of time and nearly quit civilian flight sims entirely. I found the airplane so unstable that I thought there was something wrong with my joystick. After calibrating it several times, and even disabling it and flying from the keyboard, I concluded that I had much better things to do with my time. With great military flight sims that were then available like Falcon 3.0 and Tornado, Fleet Defender and Apache (ah, the golden age of combat flight sims!) I was ready to ditch the sim entirely. Fortunately (my wife would say "unfortunately!") I tried out the 737 and was intrigued. Then I found out about add-ons, discovered AVSIM.COM and I got hooked! But I never bothered trying to fly any of the default GA aircraft, except when a new version of MSFS would be released, and then only to find out that they still hadn't been fixed.
I am fortunate enough to have amassed several thousand hours on real Cessna airplanes of various kinds in my career as a professional pilot. I've flown almost every Cessna single from the little 150/152 to the 206, (wheels and floats) including about 500 hours on the 172 and the essentially similar 177. I was excited about reliving some happy days from many years ago when I flew Cessna singles as an instructor, charter and "bush" pilot before moving onto other things. But the FS95/98/2000/2002 versions of this classic airplane did not come remotely close to simulating the real world aircraft. To put it succinctly if not elegantly, it stunk! And now we have FS2004 or FS9 or COF—whatever you want to call it as all of these titles have been used by various people (and even Microsoft) over the past few months. Is it finally fixed? Is it now a "believable" simulation of the real thing? The good news is that the flight model seems better and it is now quite controllable. The bad news is that nothing much else has changed.
The nearest it comes to being "good" is the external model. Like all of the default airplanes in FS2002, it is not bad. It looks pretty much like the real thing and although it lacks the wonderful details, effects and textures of many of the latest add-ons, it does resemble a C172. When used as an AI aircraft, it looks just fine, though in FS2002 it had an odd habit of taxiing on its nose with the tail in the air whenever there was much wind! I haven't seen it doing this in FS2004 yet so that particular comedy act may now be a relic of the past though I haven't given up looking!
The 2D panel is as it always has been—quite good though not spectacular. The virtual cockpit seems unchanged—a good example of the "first generation" airplanes that introduced this increasingly important feature. Not spectacular, but not bad either. (Like all the FS2004 default airplanes, it now has "clickable" controls in VC) If you have never seen a real world 172 panel, or if there was no add-on to compare it to, you (and I) would probably even say it is very good. But in reality, it neither compares with the real world cockpit nor some alternative FS products that are readily available as either freeware or payware.
The default sound set is awful. The C172 doesn't rattle and snort like some more muscular piston engines do, but neither does it sound like a kitchen blender or a sewing machine. There is very little to say about the sound set other than to say that it is far from realistic and is bland and boring.
And now we get to what matters most to the average flight simulator pilot. After all, our goal is to fly and not merely to watch and listen. If that's what we want, the Wings Channel on cable TV can deliver far better entertainment for far less money or we could amuse ourselves by hanging out in the AVSIM forums insulting one another. Simulating flying is what the hobby is really all about.
This is where the C172 in FS2004 (as in all previous versions) sadly misses the mark. It amazes me that Microsoft has never addressed this issue in all the versions I am familiar with since FS95. It would be fascinating (and probably depressing) to find out how many people have innocently purchased a copy of MS Flight Simulator, tried flying the Cessna or any of the other default GA products and concluded that they "don't have what it takes to be a pilot" and returned the sim to the store. If the real world C172 handled like the FS2000/2002 default MS version, it would have had a short and spectacular career. Very short as it would never have achieved production! Very spectacular as it would have killed most of the test pilots who tried to fly it! Okay, so maybe I am exaggerating a little, but not much. The truth is that no aircraft would ever be certified for civil operation that had elevator control that was so "twitchy." Yes, a C172 is "lighter" on the controls than a 737, but the contrast is relative. If the 737 didn't have power-boosted controls, then the difference would be huge, but then it wouldn't be certified for flight operations either!
In fairness, I have to say that the 172 in FS2004 does have an improved flight model and seems less "twitchy" than it did in FS2002, but it is still difficult to tame the beast and achieve smooth transitions from climb or descent to level flight. Please trust me when I say that I do know how to level off from a climb and trim an airplane for straight and level flight. But you would have every reason to doubt that statement if you watched me trying to do the introductory lesson in FS2004! The "instructor" (more on this in my upcoming contribution to AVSIM'S review of the flight training aspects of FS2004) was as unimpressed by my efforts as I would have been back when I was a flight instructor 30 years ago.
So how do I rate the default C172 that has been carried over from FS2000 into FS2004? If it were a pay-ware add-on I would rate it as I have in the past—a failure. In reality, most readers of AVSIM will quickly replace it with far better freeware and payware products and rarely if ever use it. But it would have been wonderful if the new "Century of Flight" (FS2004) had given us a completely new version of this classic airplane with a great panel, a rich sound set and realistic flight dynamics. After all, it might be another hundred years before another GA aircraft of this caliber is seen again.
This concludes our description of General Aviation Aircraft in FS2004. To return to Steve Cartwright's Cessna 182 Skylane description click here, or continue with Steves "Historical Aircraft" section which follows; Ian Scott's discussion of the Douglas DC-3 appears at the conclusion of the "Historical Aircraft" section.
Historical Aircraft in FS2004 With the release of FS2004 being centered on the theme of "Century of Flight", it's quite appropriate that the MSFS design team would include a collection of historic aircraft representing a cross section from the many hundreds of available choices and this, I believe, they have done very well.
The first item on their (MSFS design team) agenda was which aircraft would they include and this certainly would be a formidable task, to say the least! What do I think of their choices? Well, I certainly cannot fault the MSFS team for a single one of them, with maybe one minor suggestion and that having two Lockheed Vegas (Wiley Post's "Winnie Mae" 5B Vega & Amelia Earhart's red 5C Vega) is a bit redundant, where maybe I possibly would have chosen Amelia Earhart's Lockheed 10E Electra rather that the Vega. Despite the fact that Amelia flew the Vega to most of her record flights, it's with the Electra that I believe she's best remembered.
I do know that the choices made by the MSFS team were based more on availability of real-world versions that could be flown, rather than each aircraft's individual significance to aviation history, so this basic requirement did limit down the number of choices available to them and it also indicates their intent on maintaining accuracy. In some instances, availability of a real-world example was based on flying replicas (the Wright Flyer & Ryan NYP would be the two examples of this situation) and I'm sure that Microsoft's relationship with the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) allowed them to get their hands on the many reasonable facsimiles out there.
The only aircraft that I might have suggested be included, that weren't, are possibly the 1909 Bleriot XI (first aircraft to cross the English Channel), an example of either the Sikorsky S-38 or S-39 (similar to what Martin and Osa Johnson used during their exploration of Africa in the 1930s), and maybe the Howard Hughes' H1 racer.
Fortunately, all of these aircraft (mentioned above) have been or are available for previous versions of Flight Simulator (as freeware), though a couple of them desperately need updating so that they will function satisfactorily in FS2004.
Enough about why or what should have been included, the real question is what can you expect with the historical aircraft that the MSFS team did provide? I'm going to tell you right up front, the MSFS design team has performed an outstanding job with each and every one of the historical aircraft in FS2004, on every level, and on every detail. The Century of Flight Historical aircraft are about as good as it gets, rather you're talking about their external appearance, their virtual cockpits, sounds, or their airfiles, Flight Simulator 2004 "Century of Flight" is well worth the entry price (about $55) for these aircraft alone, regardless of the other improvements with FS2004. I would also say that the 3rd party developers are going to have a tough time besting the MSFS team on this one, with the possible exception of the scenery designers developing period scenery to go with these aircraft (I was a bit surprised that MS did not include time-based period scenery to add to the ambiance of flying these aircraft, but I suppose development time was a factor).
While in the process of flying each of the aircraft, included as part of the "Century of Flight" theme, I've naturally developed a couple of favorites, I'm speaking of the Jenny or Piper Cub which are both a real joy to fly, but it is particularly the Ford Tri-Motor that I just can't keep from returning to time and again. I really like this aircraft and I'm sure a number of those that try it will like it too. I suspect that these aircraft are a one time thing and in all likelihood will not be included in the next version of Flight Simulator, though I would like to think that the Ford, the Cub or Jenny, and the DC-3 would continue as a part of future editions of FS.
So, starting with the Wright Flyer, I'm going to briefly discuss the history of each aircraft and then review what I found with each of the Century of Flight aircraft. [Editor's Note: So as to keep the length of this web page within reasonable bounds, we've opted to provide a link to the historical text for each aircraft; there you'll find a link back to the corresponding FS2004 aircraft description.]
Wright Flyer
In the telling of any story, there must be a beginning, and with the story of aviation what better place to start than with the Wright Flyer! Considering that Microsoft Flight Simulator (along with Ford Motor Company, the Experimental Aircraft Association, and Eclipse Aviation) are all sponsors of the "Countdown to Kittyhawk" (Countdown to Kittyhawk website), it is only natural that the MSFS team would be in a position to provide the best version ever of the Wright Flyer for Flight Simulator.
Despite the claim by others, others that claimed they had flown prior to the Wright Brothers flight on December 17th, 1903, the unarguable fact is Wilbur and Orville were the first to demonstrate a controlled, powered, and sustained flight, and that seemingly simple achievement had eluded countless others for decades before these two Ohio brothers finally did it. There is no doubt, had the Wright Brothers not become interested in aviation, someone surely would have eventually and successfully accomplished a controlled and sustained powered flight, but aviation today would have been quite different than what we know of it.
The Wright Brothers story continues here.
The Wright Flyer included with Microsoft's "Century of Flight" is a virtual depiction of the first Wright Flyer with the Wright/Taylor designed 8 horsepower engine and you'll find that your top speed is about 30 to 35 mph. Fortunately, the MSFS design team have kindly dampened the airfile, to make the MS Flyer more flyable, which is a welcome deviation from the original aircraft, as it was all but unflyable due to its inherent pitch instability. Even so, I found my first attempt at the "First Flight" adventure, supplied by MS, to be a challenge regardless.
Once the "First Flight" adventure is chosen from the list of selectable flights, you'll find yourself at a very accurate and very beautifully designed FS scenery version of how Kill Devil Hills (Kitty Hawk) looks today as a National Park/Monument, but your "First Flight" is under the weather conditions of December 17, 1903. After viewing the Electronic Kneeboard, with the last minute pilot's briefing, you're ready for an attempt at reenacting that fateful day back in 1903 and I must admit, I stalled and buried the left wing tip on my first try! My second try was more successful and I managed to make it well past the 852 foot monument stone, marking Wilbur's distance on their final flight on the 17th. If you allow the Flyer to gain speed, while keeping the aircraft well in the ground cushion, the MS version Flyer works pretty well, though it takes a gentle hand on the controls and a lot of patience to learn how to successfully turn this aircraft without stalling or crashing. Like all of the new aircraft for FS2004, the virtual panel for the Wright Flyer is fully clickable (haha, just checking to see if you're awake) and though the original lacked any instrumentation, MS has provided a couple of gauges to assist you at controlling your speed.
From the spot view, it's easy to recognize Orville at the controls because of his large handlebar mustache and the animation the MSFS team has designed into the Flyer is quite entertaining. From Orville's left hand moving the controls in concert to you moving your yoke or joystick to the movement of all the working pulleys and cables, this is an FS aircraft worthy of being included with FS2004 "Century of Flight". Hopefully one of our hobby's 3rd party designers will be able to design up an FS add-on version of the Wright Flyer EX (1911) with a 35 hp engine, like the one that Cal Rogers flew across America, as this would be a fun addition to the Wright Flyer provided by the MSFS design team.
Vickers Vimy
Read the Vickers Vimy story here.
To be completely honest, when I first looked over the list of aircraft included with Century of Flight, I wasn't all that sure what the Vickers Vimy was and even though I was aware of Alcock & Brown's flight in 1919, I had no clue as what aircraft they used.
My first experience at flying the FS Vimy lead to my first complaint (unwarranted I might add) about FS2004, as I found the Vimy unflyable. After several attempts, it finally dawned on me what the problem was, it was me. I had set my default airport (in FS2004) as Reno/Tahoe International (elev. 4,734 ft) and because I was using real weather (which just happened to be 97º F on that day) my density altitude was approaching 9,500 feet or higher ASL. This combined with an aircraft having a service ceiling of 8,000 feet just may have lead to why I was having some difficulty in taking off and maintaining altitude, ya think? I changed my default starting airport to Mahlon Sweet Airport (Eugene, Oregon) and now all was well.
Once I had corrected my earlier mistake and had moved to Mahlon Sweet Airport (the MSFS team paid attention when they developed the airfile for the Vimy, as it is apparently right on the money), I finally took to the air in the Smith Brother's Vimy and getting started with this aircraft is rather interesting.
Not known as a powerhouse, the Vickers Vimy, despite having two engines of about 360 hp each, this aircraft takes a bit before it begins moving, even with full power. As you make you way down the runway and your speed finally builds up, you can use the trim to rotate with. Just remember to keep your rate of climb at or below 300 fpm, until you've built up 80 to 85 knots or so (best cruise speed is about 100 knots or less). By no means a highly responsive aircraft, the Vickers Vimy (especially when full of fuel) moves slow in all respects, rather you're referring to the roll rate, its speed, or in rate of climb. Just be patient, it will eventually get there and just imagine, the first England to Australia race winner was flying a Vickers Vimy!
Not particularly an aircraft I will be spending a great deal of time with, but it is still a worthy aircraft to have included with Century of Flight and for long distance traveling its record stands on its own.
Curtiss Jenny
Read the Curtiss Jenny story here.
The Curtiss JN-4 "Jenny," included with Microsoft's "Century of Flight," is typical of the latest from the MSFS team, with a classic 2D and 3D virtual cockpit, clickable VC (such as it is), excellent visuals, authentic sounds, and a wonderfully accurate airfile.
The COF Curtiss JN-4 Jenny comes in 3 paint schemes, US Army Signal Corps, Curtiss factory colors, and a period "barnstormer" red paint scheme. Though I like the Curtiss factory colors, the barnstormer red is easily my favorite. I mentioned earlier that I would have liked to have seen some period (default) scenery, but it is not like the MSFS team did not provide anything, because there is a really neat little "KIOSK" flight where you start off already flying and then have the opportunity to fly through an open barn with a small grandstand (with spectators) nearby.
Not fast yet still a joy to fly and like many of the new aircraft, the MSFS Curtiss Jenny will spin and you can perform some of the very basic aerobatic maneuvers, but remember, you've only got about 90 horsepower, so some of the maneuvers (like loops for example) take a lot of practice. The Jenny was the classic "barnstorming" aircraft of the 1920s and the MSFS version is truly outstanding, right down to the littlest of details. From the virtual cockpit you can even see the animated external valve rockers moving on your OX engine, so this level of attention to the smallest of details has a really pleasing effect on flying this aircraft. Because of the improved scenery in FS2004, flying a low level VFR trip in this aircraft is a real blast and it makes for an interesting afternoon to fly along the Midwestern countryside, much like the barnstormers did nearly 80 years ago, and flying on-line with your friends in their Jennys is something to look forward to.
Considering that the majority of the "Century of Flight" aircraft are, in all likelihood, a one time thing, I do believe that 3 or 4 of them should continue as a default standard and of these 3 or 4, the Curtiss Jenny in my opinion should certainly be one of those aircraft. With the obvious loss of the Sopwith Camel, we now have a very beautiful and authentic period biplane to fill the gap and I for one am hopeful that the MSFS team feels the same.
Ryan NYP Read the Ryan NYP story here.
Despite Microsoft's inability to test fly the original Ryan NYP, the existence of so many replicas (including a 2 seat version owned by the EAA) certainly gave the MSFS team several options to draw from. To date, there have been at least 3 excellent examples of the Ryan NYP for FS2002 (2 freeware versions, one from Alan Kaiser and another from Flight 1, plus a payware model from LAGO), so how did the MSFS team do with their version of the Ryan NYP for FS2004? Well, the term "state of the art" comes to mind after only spending a few minutes with the MSFS team's Ryan NYP!
Based on all that I've researched, it would seem that the FS COF version of the Ryan NYP has a fairly accurate flight model (with full tanks the FS Ryan is a real pig to fly, paralleling Lindbergh's comments about the real thing from his book "We"). I did find that having the "aircraft realism" settings at medium or 50% worked better for me with my Saitek 3D Cyborg Gold joystick, which has a twist grip for rudder control. I found that the twist rudder control, on my joystick, to be somewhat over sensitive to yaw with the COF Ryan, a condition that those of you with rudder pedals may not experience. With the possible exception of those they may attempt to fly Lindbergh's original Atlantic crossing, I highly recommend reducing the fuel load to only 40 or 50 percent (through the new FS aircraft fuel loading menu) of capacity, as this will greatly improve the NYP's flight characteristics, once the fuel load is under 225 gallons or so (full fuel capacity is 450 US Gallons).
The general appearance (exterior) of the COF Ryan NYP is really quite excellent and certainly is about the best I've seen yet for any example of the Ryan NYP designed for Flight Simulator. As with all the COF aircraft from the MSFS team, the Ryan NYP has a truly beautiful 2D panel, but it is the 3D virtual panel/cockpit that is the real standout, right down to the very useable sliding periscope and the functioning Earth Inductor Compass (Pioneer Instruments). I did search through the new "Learning Center" for details on operating the Pioneer Earth Inductor Compass, but was only able to find sections on using the modern gauges and/or basic navigational techniques, such as "dead reckoning," nothing specific to the EIC. No matter though, an EIC is actually very easy to use, just set the dial indicator (<shift>+<3>) to your desired heading then use the Pioneer gauge needle to keep the aircraft on course. To assist those less experienced at flight or particularly navigation as it was conducted during the Golden Age of aviation, there is a Garman 295 GPS available as well (<shift>+<2>).
Like the Wright Flyer, I don't see many purchasers of FS2004 using the Ryan NYP on a daily basis, but for those wishing to experience a few of the most important events during aviation's earliest days the MSFS version of the "Spirit" is a very worthy addition to Flight Simulator and the Century of Flight theme.
Piper J3 Cub
Read the Piper J3 Cub story here.
Starting with FS98 there have been several examples of the "Cub" made available for download from the 3rd party designers, most designed after the "SuperCub" version. There has even been a recent payware Cub (Bill Lyons), which included a clipped wing and float version. So how did the MSFS team do with their version of the Piper Cub? Like all the COF aircraft, they hit the proverbial nail on the head once again and the COF default Cub is right on par with anything I've seen from the 3rd party guys, including Bill Lyons! Hopefully the 3rd party designers will be able to update the COF version of the Cub with maybe a Supercub and float version, but for now I am quite content flying the J-3 supplied with FS2004.
Having reflective gauges, custom sounds (opening the side door will reveal the sound of the latch releasing), and even the overhead aileron control cable is animated, this is one really terrific FS aircraft. Just sitting, looking at this FS aircraft and then flying it will demonstrate just how far the MSFS team and Flight Simulator has come along over the last 4 to 6 years and I don't know what can be done to improve on the COF Piper Cub, other than maybe having a float version available.
Lockheed Vega
Read the Lockheed Vega story here.
I'm beginning to feel like a broken-record, commending the MSFS team for their COF aircraft, but frankly everything I've said is true, the COF Lockheed Vegas, like all the other COF aircraft, are simply beautiful and I don't think there is any room for improvement over what you get as default with Century of Flight, rather that be their external appearance, their airfiles, or their panel-cockpits (especially the virtual cockpit).
Including two models of the same aircraft, as part of the Century of Flight theme, may seem a bit redundant, but it would have been odd to have included one without the other in my opinion. I'm of course speaking of Wiley Post's white & blue Vega 5B "Winnie Mae" and Amelia Earhart's bright red Vega 5C. The first thing you'll notice about these aircraft are how BIG they are, being just over 27 feet tall (top of propeller arc) and having a maximum takeoff weight of 4,200 pounds, all you have to do is taxi up next to one of the AI Cessna 182s or AI Piper Archers and you will see what I mean!
With FS2002, I set my default startup with the Cessna 182S and though I originally intended on the same setup with FS2004, I have since changed that to be the Lockheed Vega, Winnie Mae. Despite my enjoyment of the COF aircraft, there are 4 of the 9 that I prefer to fly, I'm speaking of the Jenny, the Cub, the Ford Tri-motor, and of course the Lockheed Vegas, being a better performer than the Cessna (182) and having a certain nostalgic aura that I like, over either the Bravo or the Baron, it is the Vega that is among my top favorites of all the aircraft included with FS2004.
In addition to their authentic sounds, the COF Vegas have a very accurate airfile, making flying such a heavy tail dragger a bit of a challenge to fly even in Flight Simulator. I did find that using the 2D panel rather difficult (over the virtual panel) and like most of the COF aircraft, taxi or takeoff (with the 2D panel) is all but impossible due to lack of visibility, remember, most are tail draggers. The MSFS team has kindly included a 3rd minimum panel (primary gauges only) that you can activate by striking the "W" key from the 2D panel mode (all Century of Flight aircraft). I'm sure that over the next few months, most flight simmers will develop a favorite among the COF aircraft, and I'm sure that many of you, like me, will somehow make the time to fly one of the two Vegas included.
deHavilland "Comet" air racer
Read the deHavilland air racer story here.
In total there are 9 COF aircraft included with FS2004, each model intended to provide a cross-section of aviation's earliest record breakers or a glimpse into aircraft that were key to the overall history of the airplane.
For nearly 30 years (1910 - 1940), air racing was more than just another motor sport, but in fact was almost a world obsession, particularly during the '20s and '30s when air racing aircraft and their pilots were more than household names and were certainly more famous than any movie actor or actress of the era. Microsoft's available choices for an air racing aircraft to include with COF are many, but I think their selection of the deHavilland DH88 Comet to be a very good representative of that aircraft type. There are several pylon racer replicas around, but it's the long-distance racers that are perhaps more interesting in the long the run.
The COF DH-88 Comet comes in two liveries, the "Grosvenor House" model and the Jim and Amy Mollison "Black Magic" version. In every detail, the MS COF DH-88s are beautiful to look at, having reflective exterior textures, opening canopy, a great looking 2D panel, a very useable 3D virtual cockpit-panel, and the sounds, oh those sounds! The sound file for the Comets is absolutely terrific and even though I believe the sounds are based on the deHavilland Gypsy Queen engines rather than the Gypsy R engines, they're absolutely outstanding regardless.
Taxiing and taking off is not just a simple matter of applying power then using your rudder to turn, which will not work with the deHavilland. The deHavilland DH-88, like most aircraft of this era, lack a rear tail-wheel, having a simple skid instead, which means that steering at low speeds is by applying differential braking or throttles (with twin engine aircraft). You'll find that to successfully taxi this FS aircraft you'll need to learn how to tap the individual main-gear brakes (key "F11" or "F12") to keep everything pointed in the right direction, all the while keeping your paws off the throttle/s. I found that it takes a bit of practice to taxi this aircraft, but it is its takeoff that is the most difficult.
For takeoff, to just apply full throttle and then attempt to use your rudder to keep this monster straight will not work, unless you have a throttle quadrant allowing you to apply differential power. I use a Saitek 3D cyborg joystick with a single throttle lever, so applying differential power is not possible, but I found that if I apply partial power (40% or so at first) and then gently tap the left or right brake, I can keep the aircraft under control until I've gained sufficient speed for my rudder to have some effect.
Once you've hit 45 mph or more, the torque of the engines can be effectively countered with the rudder, so after you've 45 or more, applying full power is okay. Once airborne you then have to start getting the gear up and on the real aircraft, you had to handcrank the gear up with a handle, but in Flight Simulator you just hit the <G> key and the gear begins its slow, slow, and seemly even slower retraction. I didn't clock them, but I would guess that the gear takes approximately 30 to 45 seconds to fully retract. Same goes for when extending the gear, so you had better think ahead before landing!
Once you have some speed built up, the deHavilland DH88 handles pretty good in general, but there are still some oddities to the way this aircraft flys. Specifically when you fly into moderate or heavy turbulence you'll notice some difficulty trying to maintain your rate of climb, as this aircraft will tend to over-drive your trim, relative to the severity of the rough air. With the tanks full of fuel, you are pushing 5,500 pounds in gross weight and this combined with an overall length of 29 feet makes for an aircraft that requires constant attention to the pitch trim, particularly if you attempt a landing at or near full gross weight.
On landing, a long approach is a wise choice, just get the aircraft speed down to 115 knots or less, get the gear down, keep adjusting your power and trim to maintain a 150 to 300 foot per minute descent while trimming your nose to reduce speed. Step your flaps out, beginning at 115 knots and as you cross the threshold you should have 90 to 95 knots and full flaps (recommended landing speed is 85-90 knots). From there you use power to fly to the runway and remember, when your speed drops to below 60 mph or so, after touchdown, your rudder is going to become ineffective for directional control, so you will have to go back to the differential braking (F11 or F12 keys) mode to keep this beast straight. Also, abrupt power changes at slow speeds upsets the directional balance of this aircraft, so you want to slowly increase or decrease your power settings whenever you're at slow flying speeds or on the ground trying to taxi.
With the long (44 feet) and tapered wings of the DH88, I also noted that this aircraft will tend to drop a wing once you're in the ground cushion (apparently so did the real aircraft), but I was able to correct this by increasing my touchdown speed from the recommended 85-90 knots up to about 95-100 knots or so.
Considering that one of the criteria for which aircraft would be rendered for COF was the availability of a real-world example and being as there are several (all of which are replicas) Golden Age racer aircraft out there, including a GeeBee R-2, a Mystery Ship, and the DH88 Comet, just to name three, I believe that Microsoft's choice of the DH88 was probably the best.
Ford Tri-Motor
Read the Ford Tri-Motor story here.
Of the 9 COF aircraft, it's the Ford that has sparked my interest the most. I really enjoy the Jenny, the Vegas, and the Piper J3 Cub, but it's the Tri-motor that I most prefer to fly on a regular basis and to date I have logged more hours in the Ford than all the other COF aircraft combined.
Simply put, this is the most accurate FS model of the Ford Tri-motor ever for Flight Simulator, rather you're speaking of their exterior appearance, the paint scheme textures, the 2D panel, the 3D virtual panel, the sounds, or the flight modeling (airfile). I do hope the FS aircraft repainters get busy and offer up some additional (authentic) repaints soon and that's not to say I'm unhappy in anyway with the 3 livery choices from Microsoft either (the 3 paint schemes are the EAA colors, Emerald Harbor, and World Travel Airways with the latter two being fictional).
Flying this or any of the new COF aircraft, particularly in stormy weather, yields a new feel for turbulence, by new I do mean better and much more realistic, plus I noticed the existence of updrafts when flying near or under thunderstorms. This new way that turbulence feels in FS2004 is much appreciated and particularly noted the Ford responding to this very real-world like. I could almost hear the creaking and groaning of the corrugated metal skin each time I hit an air pocket, plus I also noted a tendency of the nose to yaw while the aircraft bounced up and down. Flying this aircraft in the new weather feature of FS2004 is really terrific and Microsoft is getting ever closer to that "As Real As it Gets" slogan of theirs.
Summary of Century of Flight Aircraft
The significance that aviation has had on the world and to society in general can not be measured nor can its true impact imagined, but because we have this software program called Flight Simulator, a small piece of history and the roll that aviation has played can be experienced in the virtual world of the PC computer. The simulation team at Microsoft have obviously spent a great deal of time with their designing of the Century of Flight aircraft and the end result cannot be described with anything short of astonishing.
History or the study of history is an important part of the human culture, after all, how do we know where we might go if we don't know were we've been. The study of history is also a lot more important than just learning the dates of specific events and what happened or occurred, but it is about the study and learning of the people that did more than just set back and watch time pass. Man had been watching the birds for centuries, but there were a few individual people that watched the birds and dreamed that someday they too would do this, after all it's only human nature to carry out our dreams. I feel it's amazing that it has only been 100 years since man first took to the air and just look what we've accomplished in a single century of time? From that little 600 pound wood and cloth airplane to an aircraft that flies into space and back, pretty amazing thing if you think about it!
Of course we can't travel back in time and experience what it was like for the Wright brothers the day they made that first flight, or maybe having been at the Paris Le Bourget Field on the evening of May 21st, 1927 when Charles Lindbergh arrived out of the darkness in the "Spirit of St Louis", but maybe, just maybe, if even for a moment, we can experience the feeling of a Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, or a Wiley Post when they fulfilled their dream in this new fangled contraption called an "airplane". Even if we only try one of the included adventures with one of these amazing aircraft once, then I would say Flight Simulator Century of Flight is well worth the effort!
In total, there are 9 aircraft included with FS2004, that are part of the Century of flight theme, and each and every one of these aircraft are magnificent in every way, either by their appearance, their sound, or in the way they feel in virtual flight. I really can't find fault with any of them and frankly, I sincerely believe that Microsoft could have just as easily sold the Century of Flight portion of FS2004 as an addon for an additional $50, independent of FS2004 itself (I know, I know don't give them any ideas). Bottom line is that regardless of the other improvements of Flight Simulator with the release of FS2004, this package scores a direct hit or a perfect 5 stars based on the Century of Flight aircraft alone in my opinion.
In the final examination of the Century of Flight aircraft, the choices made by the MS simulation team, rather by design or by accident, could hardly be better. For the first half a century, the two most significant aircraft are certainly the Wright Flyer and the Ryan NYP, then you have to think of the aircraft that influenced the public into flying, for that you've got the two training aircraft (or at least the aircraft most pilots learned to fly with) in the Curtiss Jenny and Piper J3 Cub. For the early long distance runs, the Vickers Vimy fits quite nicely and for the Golden Age air racer, in my mind, the deHavilland Comet is a much better choice for Flight Simulator than any of the pylon racers from that era. Covering for the early airliners, you have the Ford Tri-motor 4-AT (the first practical American airliner) and the legendary Douglas DC-3 (see Ian Scott's commentary below), then rounding out the 9 COF aircraft are the two record breaking Lockheed Vegas of Wiley Post and Amelia Earhart.
Between the COF aircraft and the modern GA and Jetliners in FS2004, we have the century pretty well covered, save for one very noticeable gap! The COF aircraft cover the years 1903 to 1950 quite well and the General Aviation along with the Jetliners have the years 1970 through to today, but what about that period between 1950 and 1970? Which aircraft should have been included that best represents this 20 year period? I know many have indicated that maybe an early jetliner, like the deHavilland DH-106 Comet or Boeing 707, but I contend that the best aircraft to represent that 20 year period to be the Lockheed Super Constellation or "Super Connie". This period of history was about propliners, not jetliners, and what better aircraft to have included than the Connie, the fastest, the most beautiful, and certainly the most romantic of the land-based propliners. There are a number of 3rd party Connies for FS2002, so I'm sure someone will get one up and going for FS2004, but it would have been great to have had the MSFS team put their magic to work, as they did so well with the 9 COF aircraft.
Douglas DC-3
By Ian Scott
Introduction
The first airplane I ever flew in was a DC-3 of New Zealand National Airways (NAC) from Wellington to Blenheim in the South Island for the ultimate elementary school trip. I was a kid in short pants and I fell in love. It must have been true love because forty-something years later I am still in love with Mr. Douglas' masterpiece, the DC-3. The sound of those Pratt and Whitney engines, that stocky yet still graceful shape steadily droning through the air or sitting purposefully on a tarmac ready to fly is all it takes to put a smile on my face—surely that is a mark of true love.
When that kid was no longer in short pants and became a pilot, he got to fly that "dream machine" from the right hand seat for an all too short time. Now I have to confess that I am not a "grizzled veteran DC-3 pilot" but I did get a type rating in preparation for flying as First Officer for a "start-up" charter airline called South Pacific Airways. Our first plane was a veteran that had once been the VIP transport for Lord Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Allied Commander for South East Asia Command in World War II. ZK-CAW was a dream come true for a 26 year old "Dakota" lover that sadly ended all too-soon when South Pacific Airways went broke trying to compete in the pre-deregulation days when "the system" was controlled by established airlines with political "connections" and deep pockets. But for a short time I did get to sit in the front office, peering over the nose or out the side windows as we taxied that huge old tail-dragger after walking uphill to the cockpit and settling into those old seats. Listening to the sweet grumble of those big old radials changing to a roar as CAW began rumbling forward on take-off and feeling the tail lift as she got ready to once again, faithfully, reliably fly from A to B was a thrill I will never forget.
And so when I found out that the DC-3 would be a feature of the new Century of Flight and was asked to be part of the AVSIM review team, I begged for the chance to relive something of those "good old days." (I also had to remind at least one member of the team that having a DC-3 rating didn't necessarily make me eligible for a retirement home—she was quite a bit older than I was when we began "dating.")
So just how good is the DC-3 that is one of the default aircraft in FS2004? The answer is very good, as good as you would expect from such a grand old lady, though I suspect that when the MAAM Gmax R4D becomes available, a lot of us will be retiring the default DC-3 in favor of a newer, more glamorous version. (R4D was the US Navy designation for the C47, which in turn was the military version of the DC-3. The C-47 was called Dakota by the British and has also been called "the Gooney Bird" by several generations of pilots. There were also copies produced by the Russians (LI-2) and even the Japanese in WWII flew a copy they called the Showa L2D)
The Douglas DC-3 story continues here.
Panel
In spite of the rumors to the contrary, FS2004 has not done away with 2D panels and so this is where your experience of the DC-3 is going to start. But before you hit the "Fly now" button, there is something you need to do first. Go and get a large brown paper bag. Insert some sweaty socks or old sneakers. (Tennis shoes for the Brits among us) Add some sweaty old leather gloves. (For this experiment, you can never have too much sweat!) Dribble in some curdled milk to simulate vomit from overflowing airsickness bags then add a few drops of disinfectant to simulate unsuccessful efforts to get rid of the smell of vomit. Mix vigorously with the odor of boredom, the scent of fear, the perfume of long conversations and a hint of 'eau de pregnant silences' and voila! Now press the "Fly Now" button and as the panel appears open the bag and breath deeply. Welcome to the DC-3 experience!
Okay, so I am not entirely serious, but it is the truth that "seeing" is not all there is to experiencing the flight deck of a DC-3 or any other old airplane for that matter. There is a smell to it that says "I have been around for a really long time, I have been a lot of places, and though pilots have come and go, I remain what I have always been—the true hero of this story and the master of your fate. Fly me if you dare!" It is a smell made up of ingrained dirt, sweat, old leather and canvas, oil and not a little mystery that could never be analyzed in a laboratory but is there nonetheless. The DC-3 has it in abundance!
Did I say "scent of fear?" Surely no "real pilot" is ever afraid? Yes Virginia, there really was "fear" in flying an airplane that flew in the weather and not over it and in which serious icing or an engine failure over anything but flat terrain at sea level could be a profoundly religious experience.
So how good is the 2D panel? Very good is my answer, though in its own unique way. Let me begin by getting one question out of the way here—it is not the same as the famous MAAM panel that has been with us in various manifestations since FS98. It seems unfair to me to compare the two, though if I must then I will say that the MAAM panel is better. But whereas the MAAM panel faithfully reproduces a particular aircraft that has been modernized, the default FS2004 DC-3 panel takes us back to another era. And take us back it does, and very well indeed.
What you will find yourself looking at in the FS2004 DC-3 2D panel(s) is a careful, historically correct attempt to simulate a DC-3 of the late 1930s era. Now I know that Dilbert the Forum Poster is going to challenge my statement here, but we all know that Dilbert is like that smell of old vomit in the DC-3—you can disinfect him but he never really goes away. But for the vast majority of sane, relatively normal FS addicts, the 2D panels will quite correctly give an authentic experience of what an airline pilot of the 1930s looked at when they were "at the office."
As always the designers have had to make a compromise between realism and practicality within the FS environment. They have broken the panel up into sub panels such as radios, throttle quadrant, landing gear panel etc. The main panel is very big, with authentic looking and very readable instruments but I would have liked to have a clickable "landing view" panel, especially as the VC is not particularly readable except in certain lighting conditions. (More on this in a moment)
One minor "peeve" is that the "Parking Brake On" message hides panel icons that you need when on the ground—but if you select parking brakes off so the message doesn't show the aircraft will begin creeping forward even with the throttles in the idle position. Until someone shows us how to get rid of this annoying message you will just have to put up with it unless you want to modify the panel.cfg file to move the icons. (My dream version of FS would get rid of this and those other text messages like "stall" and "over-speed" and be replaced by real world aircraft behavior and not a dumb and unrealistic text message intruding into the fantasy that I am really flying this thing…)
The gear panel brought back memories, though in reality gear retraction and extension for the DC-3 are not modeled realistically. In the real DC-3 lowering and raising the gear was more complicated than programming a VCR and you didn't have a clock that blinked to tell you that you did it wrong. (The Captain would inform you however—and this was often the cause of one of those "pregnant silences" I spoke of in the "smell section" above)
Most people are going to thoroughly enjoy the default 2D panels and will be quite happy with this until the MAAM Gmax version of the R4D becomes available. After that, I suspect that most hard-core users will gravitate to the MAAM panels though I also think that the default panels will produce some nice "tweaks" from the freeware community including, I hope, the "landing view" I spoke of above.
Virtual Cockpit (VC)
This was the only really disappointing part of the DC-3 for me. In many light conditions it is way too dark and the instruments are almost unreadable because there is no back-lighting. The cockpit walls/roof are also graphically somewhat crude and closer in quality to the older MS default VC graphics than the other new historic aircraft, most of which I feel have excellent VCs. This was a significant disappointment for me, especially as taxiing with the 2D panel is almost impossible and it isn't the greatest for approaches either. As the VC is fully dynamic I was expecting to do almost all of my flying from it, and in fact most people will do so, but if it was more visually appealing the overall package would be far superior. I felt the VC lets the other aspects down.
Visual Model
The visual model is very good and at times is quite stunning. I can't wait to see the host of repaints this aircraft will inspire. Like all of the historic aircraft in the default package, there is tremendous detail and you can spend a lot of time admiring this grand old lady from outside. (The only thing missing is the dripping of oil onto the ground that was the DC3's way of saying "Kilroy was here!")
Sound
The sound set is quite realistic though the external sound seemed too quiet and the internal sound lacked the occasional "harmonic" of not perfectly synchronized props. In reality the props of any piston multi-engine aircraft need constant attention and it is rare that they stay perfectly synchronized. When they are not, the "umm-umm-umm" sound tells you that you need to tweak the pitch levers a little. As you come closer to synchronization the pitch goes up and the "umm-umm" merges into a single sound—the further you go from synchronized props the more extended the sounds become. When you are droning along at 130 knots it gives you something to do and as a young First Officer, appearing to be busy and conscientious is always a good thing. The flap sound seems a little too loud and there is no "plinking" sound when throttling back two hot engines and not much of a ground "rumble." Not perfect perhaps, but still very good compared to past MS default piston sound sets that were downright pathetic.
Flight Model
Taxiing a DC-3 is an art form and the same challenge will be there when you first get the old girl moving. Not being able to readily simulate asymmetric use of the throttles perhaps makes the simulation harder than the real world but in general you will get some sense of what it felt like. (If you are a shortie like me, some extra cushions or a couple of old telephone books are an absolute must to see out, and even then you steer as much looking out the sides (and swinging the nose from side to side) as you do looking ahead. But the VC will let you cheat if you need to—I did! There is a tail wheel lock but using it didn't seem to make any difference that I could see—but if I'm wrong Dilbert will be eager as ever to tell me.
Control harmonization seems "right on" though a PC simulation cannot give the sense of "heaviness" that made flying a DC-3 a good substitute for an upper body exercise program. Speeds and general performance seemed about right to me based on memories of an airplane I haven't flown in the real world since 1972. As a tool by which people can experience a simulation of what flying a DC-3 was (and is) like, it is as good as can be expected given that it is part of a collection of new airplanes. I am sure some issues will arise and t |
