do you fly the same plane on the computer as you do in

[Guest]

hello allnow this one is for those who have some real plane time on any plane,on any license from recreational to the altp,fixed wing or rotary ,land or sea plane,jet or prop,turbine or piston, and are also flying the

[Guest Twister]

Hi,Well, I wouldn't know about other aircraft, I only have experience with the 152 and 172...First, I am more than willing to admit that great progress has been achieved in flight simulation in general.True, the flight dynamics of the Cessna aircraft in FS2K2 (and probably all the other as well...) still need a lot of improvement.The Real Air Simulations SM 260 is a gem that stands apart with pretty convincing stall/spin characteristics...There are other issues that are limiting the immersion factor as well..The VC is an improvement over the 2D panel (I didn't like them at first)- especially when used in conjonction with an eye-tracking device.Still, the lack of peripheral vision, the lack of vibrations and G forces, the lack of airflow forces on the yoke and rudder (impossible to "feel" a mushy airplane or a go-around with full flaps and landing trim without a decent force feedback model)I guess that only a full motion, 16 million $ simulator can do the trick...Twister

[brucek 38]

I would agree with "Twister".Desktop flight simulation has come a long way. I'm sure that scenery development will continue, as will flight models. But between simming and real flight (I fly a C172), there are differences. These are mainly in the VFR flight mode, the same mode that student pilots are in when learning to fly (one of the reasons that simming can be bad for this mode of real flight). In real VFR flight, it's all the "seat of the pants" feeling, togther with the visual awareness and perception- known by CFI's as "getting your head out of the cockpit". I'm a VFR pilot (private pilot), when I come home from real flight and try the same route in FS, it's like a "toy".However, I'm also doing my instrument rating, which is less about "flying" (as it's assumed you've learnt that), and more about instrument interpretation. This is where desktop sims really shine, although the absence of lateral or vertical movement makes things like vertigo impossible, which is a major element of flying safe on instruments.I expect that FS is also rather realistic in the emulation of large transport jet simulation too. Big jets with glass cockpits are a lot of big flying computers, so it's natural for a computer-based sim to be emulate a lot of this natually (FMC, etc.).Bruce.KBJC, Jeffco, CO.

[Guest]

Kunal,Most of my flight time is in a 152, some in a 172, but lots of riding time in a Seneca, Grumman Tiger, and Malibu. I use the Dreamfleet Archer to practice almost all of my flight lessons from the 152, despite what the developer recommends. The feel is similar and the numbers are very close down in the critical range (cruise is obviously faster though). As others have correctly pointed out, only the SF260 does a good job of simulating stalls/spins but it is much less forgiving than a 152. If you can push the 260 to the limit and survive, you should be fine in the 152 (well, except the fact that any crash to the contrary in the 152 would be real and hence fatal! ;-))David

[Guest RiddlePilot]

As Bruce said, FS is a great instrument training platform. At school, we use PCATDs with some crappy rendition of an FAA "approved" flight simulator. I find it hard to believe that the FAA won't approve FS2k2 for use to replace the current software. The current software models the runway as a few dots on the ground (like the early versions of FS). Makes the transition to visual a bit difficult, seeing as how the runway cannot be differentiated from the "roads". The transition from clear sky to the clouds is rather sudden as well. FS actually does a pretty good job at this. There's that split second of "I THINK we're coming out of it now" feeling.Now that I'm in the commercial course though, its gonna be less FS for me, as I've still got the bad habits of looking at the gauges. We did an instrument flying refresher the other day, and I was right on...take the hood off, and it was a mess.

[Guest]

I have Gulfstream (200 hrs), Citation,(700 hrs) Westwind (4,000+ hrs) and Bell Jetranger (900 hrs) time. I have yet to correlate the Jetranger with anything close to the real thing. I agree with the one who questions 2k2 not being approved by FAA for training. I did get my G2 type rating in the full motion simulator (first time in the cockpit of the real a/c was when I flew it home from Savannah)with my type rating on my ATP.Most of the jets in 2k2 do not offer very realistic climb performance or fuel burn, however it is great to practice enroute descents, I use the same methods in 2k2 that I used in the RW and it works as advertised.Like the man says, it isn't a $16 million sim but it does have some outstanding qualities in instrument training. However, thumbs down to M$oft for screwing up the video in fs2000 and even worse in 2k2. FS 98 was a winner, could use it to grade a sim pilot. fs2000 did not indicate proper engine readings, sound, gear operation, etc. etc.Then along comes fs2002 and a 15 minute video is over 5Mb....give me a break.

[Guest Sabadin]

I use the 172 in VC mode quite a bit. Just adjust to view point to get what I normally see out the window(minus the cowling of course). Using the active camera add-on really helps compensate not having a feel for the controls as well. Also using the Carenado F33A to practice procedures and checklists to ease the transition when the time comes.

[Guest]

hello gentlemen thnk u very much for ur opinionswhile i will be the first to agree that fs is truly a wonderful ifr practice package ,and with literally the whole world available ,great value for 70 odd dollars..i still wanna ask at least those who fly bigger planes how accurate they feel are the air files. and this is basically is on the topic of over or underpowered or the fuel flows.i am not debating the usefulness of the package as a great home tool for fun,but how real is to telling u what the real world practical flying is all about.when i fly fs2k2 adventures or any other downloaded adventure ,i change the fuel quantity i take off with ,with allowances for taxi ,take off ,climb .crz ,descent ,approach and to all that i add another 5 % as contingency fuel (for radar vectoring ,early descent and stuff)and i am off .this makes it way more challenging as u need to fly real accurate with respect to speed and altitudes ,as any wrong figures on jets can make u prepare for ur worst night mare ..and when i land with a my contingency fuel or a little more remaining ,it is indeed very satisfying as u gotta constantly watch the fuel gauges. yes someone may say in the real world u carry diversion fuel etc etc..but i dont in fs at least so i gotta get it right as far as my figures go.. also it tells me how well i know the pulse of the plane.now i downloaded lotsa 727s ... none matched what u get in the real world... they climb too quick ,sniff at fuel ,rather that drink it, and descent is real weird ,i mean at 4000 to 5000 feet per minute down,it would take u way past the barber pole...but here and even in default 737 or 777 it just gives u 300 odd knots ,exception is the 747 which glides on for ever...and with a plane load of 100 % fuel ,man u never seem to run out of gas.bob ,the westwind ,citation u downloaded ,do the give u similar descentt rates as the real plane lets say from higher 30000s??so my query remains - how accurate are the air files compared to the real world plane u fly..and also when someone does design air files ,does he refer to aircraft manuals ,maybe get someone who has flown the equipment come along and give it a good test flight??and yes i agree ,for the smaller 152s and 172s ,for all practical purposes ,the planes are fairly accurate.and so are the mooney and baron.Bi bi all kunal

[Guest]

Sorry, have not d/l either the Westwind (don't know of one) or the Citation. as far as your descents you should not be trying 4k to 5k fpm, jets are too clean for that unless you use speed brakes.Speed brake usage means that you have not planned your descent correctly, used fuel to get the speed and then brakes to slow down, wasting fuel that way. Try to figure out your descent for about 2500 fpm.Most of the air files that I have seen are not very realistic, I usually will fly on, take some fuel burn figures and then flight plan from what the sim will do.bobg