Although cruising about with my tailwheel brushing the pine trees is a big part of what FS2K2 is about for me, there are days when I just want to turn all the nasty stuff up full and try to find my way home in the worst weather and visibility FS2K2 can cook up. OK, I know, if it's that bad I shouldn't be up there but let's not split hairs here ... all I would like to know is your view on what's the best aircraft for some serious IFR flying. There's nothing worse than picking something interesting out of the hangar only to find at the last moment that the airfile causes the aircraft to behave like an epileptic elephant on roller skates. Or that some critical thingamajig is missing from the panel.Over to you, me hearties, and thank you in advance for your opinions. GA or "heavy", it's all of interest.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitak.htmlhttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitakv3.jpg

The Dreamfleet Archer II is a dream for IFR. Not only are the panel and airfile extremely accurate, but the gauges have covers for them. That way, you can simulate partial panel IFR work. You just click on the gauge and a black cover will appear over it. It's a remarkable little extra that the Dreamfleet Team added. It isn't something that most people would use, but is there for those of us who appreciate those little additions. I'm currently working on my instrument rating and have found the Archer to be a great aid. While I'm not flying a PA28-181 in my training, I am using a somewhat similar PA28-140.

Thanks, Ken, good comments. Now to see whether anyone else agrees or differs ...Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitak.htmlhttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitakv2.jpg

Before reading Ken's comments, the Dreamfleet Archer was exactly what I was thinking of. Just for the same reasons!L.Adamson

I would think this would be specific to what you fly/train in, in the real world.The whole reason I made the B33 Debonair was so I could practice my ifr flying. I found in my ifr training 11 years ago when I was using IFT pro at home to practice, that at a certain point, instruments on the screen that did not match the real world position,function, or look, and an aircraft that did not fly by the same numbers you memorize, became a far less useful training tool than I would have liked.Because my plane is now available in complete accuracy down to instruments made from actual photos the Deb is a 100% accurate ifr training platform for me. For anyone else who hasn't flown my plane, this would not have the same usefulness.In Ken's case-if he is flying an archer/arrow/cherokee then the dreamfleet is going to be the way to go. Besides clear, easily accesable instruments, the plane needs to fly by correct combinations of power settings and corresponding airspeeds, and have at least similar instrumentation (and correct placement is ideal for your scan).At least imho.http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/geofanim2.gif

GeofCan I also add to yours that the aircraft needs to also have the correct flavour of control response and trim response otherwise you are better selecting autopilot on.Chasing all over the place with an overly twitchy model isnt going to help anyone.Instrument flying involves more than just a scan. It involves operating the radio and navigation and the aircraft and systems as well as a pure instrument scan.Its strange when you start instrument flying it takes all your concentration just to monitor the instruments.You think you will never handle the radios as well as the aircraft systems and navigation, but scanning becomes second nature and a quick glance every few seconds is all that is required to keep the ship sunny side up and pointing in the right direction.Peter

Thanks Larry, Geof and Peter ... I'm in esteemed company and appreciate your views. Peter raises a good point about twitchiness distracting from the job in hand. Maybe I should expand my question to ask "the team" whether there is any particular airport/routing combination in FS2002 that they have have found particularly satisfying in terms of everything working at the ground level. All too often I find VORs that don't transmit and other stuff that doesn't work, despite rebuilding my FSNav database regularly. To have occasional failures is, presumably, par for the course and acceptable, but all too often there's some pretty critical stuff missing. May just be me .... my mother warned me about hard liquor and my remaining brain cells ARE starting to rattle ...Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitak.htmlhttp://www.swiremariners.com/cxkaitakv3.jpg

Hi Mark, although not being an aircraft, the Reality XP Radio Stack and GPS is also what miss the most in any single aircraft brought so far to the FS world. I recommend you follow the following thread:http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/DCForumID8/4744.htmlHope it helps!