longer/wider?...I live in a northern community in Manitoba, Canada which is equiped with a 3000ft gravel strip that is used primairily for medivacs and the occasional Manitoba hydro exec. It is not uncommon to see small jets and turbo props landing and taking off here.The problem I have with FS is that many of these strips are way too short to land even my twin otter, which is definetely a STOL aircraft, let alone a jet. Our runway here is also about 100ft wide - lots of room to turn an a/c around at the end of the strip.Is it possible/or has someone figured out a way to make some of these strips a little wider and longer; a bit more realistic? As it is, I generally have to limit my flying in the north to larger airports with asphalt runways. I've done a fair bit of 'real' flying onto bush strips and they are much larger, or at least appear to be longer and wider, than the ones represented in FS.Thanks,Adam

bump }>

Hey Adam, your best bet is the get FSSC and create an exclude to get rid of the default runway and then place a new one of your liking. It comes with a good tutorial and Derek is great about support.If you have a specific runway maybe I could help, just drop me a line.Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpg

Would you give a couple of the stips you mean. I'm in Sask. and have spent a lot of time going into the small strips with the default Baron and the Dash 7. My real life experience was mostly in Alta but I did get over to Island Lake and Lansdowne House a couple times with a Comanche 250 back in the 70's.Calhover long and prosper

Hi Michael and Cal, I used to teach on a reserve in northern Manitoba. We flew in and out in the twin otters all the time. The place is called Pukatawagan (CZFG). The CalmAir flight was out of Thompson. Now I live in Grand Rapids, MB (CJV8). These are both 3000ft strips. I seem to recall times landing in Pukatawagan and we used the first 1/2 of the strip in the twin otter and turned onto the apron directly. I'm sure this was not always the case, wind depending. But I'm lucky to get the plane on the ground without running off the end of the runway in FS. That's with full flaps down and a headwind.It's impossible to turn it around on the runway.Thanks you guys. I'll look into FSSC.Adam

Adam,I did a flight from Thompson to Pukatawagan in the default Baron. I landed on Rwy 31 and without any hard braking, I had no difficulty slowing enough to make the U-turn just past 2/3. The U turn was easy and stayed on the runway. The stip in FS2002 is EXACTLY the same as real life -- 2850 ft long, by 85 ft wide.I then flew the Dash 7 from The Pas to Grand Rapids. That runway is 3000 ft by 75 ft. Again, no difficulty landing with full flaps. I didn't use reversers, just normal braking -- but I had to use assymetrical thrust while making the U-turn to keep the wheels on the runway.Which rodent were you flying? The only ones I have are the freeware.Calhover long and prosper

I just checked these strips in the Canadian Flight Supplement (airport guide for all of Canada) and in FS2k2; the runway dimensions are exactly right.1500' landing distance sounds reasonable for a Twin Otter, and I know I've done it in 2k2 with a several different Twotters. The real trick to short field landings is to slow down - most 2k2 Twotters won't stall (with full flaps) until ~45 knots, so haul the speed back, drop full flaps, keep the nose up to keep speed low, and use power to control your descent rate. (I don't know a Twotter's real stall speeds, but this is based on handling in 2k2...)On the ground-handling/turning around inside the runway width issue, FS has really bad modelling of ground maneuvering for most aircraft! I mean really bad... In real life I can, with a little concentration, turn a Cessna 172 around in less than twice its wingspan - basically pivot the whole plane on one main tire, using rudder & differential braking. Good luck trying that in FS2k2's default C172 - I don't think it's possible!One wonderful exception to the lousy ground handling is the freeware Dash 7 - if you want an idea of how agile many real a/c are on the ground, play with the 7 for a bit!Good luck with STOL practice,Brian.

Thanks guys, I guess that some of the runways in FS just SEEM really short and narrow to me. It has been a while since I actually flew in in real life. I've been flying the Twotters (Barry Blaisdell's) a lot. Maybe it's also the perspective from the cockpit. It just seems as though your wings would be overhanging the ruway; it seems so narrow - unlike what I remember from the actual landings. Brian, my friends and I fly 172's a few times each summer back in New Brunswick. I know what you mean about their ability to turn on a dime. Can't do that with most FS a/c I've got for sure.I have managed to keep the twotter on the runway and in FS the time from touchdown to full stop seems rather short. In real flights, although we did manage to come to a stop in a short distance, it seemed to take considerably longer.In the final analysis, I'm going to stack it up to the perspective I have from the cockpit. I think I'll try different zoom levels. Maybe that will help.Thanks a lot gents,AdamP.S I do have an old CFS that a friend gave me. I use it for every flight I do in Canada. Is there an IFR equivalent to this published? I also do a fair bit of flying with medium sized jets and would like to have a comprehensive IFR guide that included approach plates. Does such a thing exist?

Hi Cal, Where in Sask are ya?Thanks for trying the flight. I'm gonna pick up a copy of the Dash7 and give it a go.Thanks again, Adam

Adam,In addition to what has been suggested, I would also add that you adjust the zoom factor down to .62 - .59 or so. One of the problems with creating a 3D world and displaying it on a 2D flat screen is that your eyes and brain need to process the viewed information and calculate time to distance. I have found, through a lot of experimenting, that having my panel view (2D or Virtual) set at .59 is about right for me. Having the zoom view set at the default 1.00 creates a situation of your brain not relating the displayed speed to the perceived speed. On your next approach, while viewing from the 2D panel position, try reducing your zoom ("shift" + "-" keys) and notice how your time to distance becomes more realistic and your approach and landings will become much easier, particularily in the bush!Bear!

Hi Bear, Thanks for the great advice. I will try the zoom settings you suggest.Adam

Adam - to answer your question about an IFR equiv of the CFS, there is such a beast. It's called the Canadian Air Pilot (CAP) and it's published in several volumes, divided by region. I can't recall right now what the divisions are exactly though.If you asked around at a local FBO, flying club or flight school for out-of-date CAPs you might strike it lucky. Like the CFS, these are all updated every 54 days.CAPs have IFR approach plates, larger airport diagrams than the CFS (but only for IFR-capable airports, AFAIK), and lots of other information.Also, check VATSIM's Canadian division for chart links - I know the Vancouver VATSIM group has dozens of BC charts available on their website. http://bathursted.ccnb.nb.ca/vatcan/fir/vancouver/index.htmBrian.

Thanks Brian, I will do as you suggest and check with one of the FBO's next time I'm in Winnipeg. There are several there of course.I have d/l ed a few charts. It's great to have sites that allow you to do this.Take care, Adam

Whoa! That's away too much zoom-out -- that get's into "fish-eye". Very disorienting. 0.8 at the VERY MOST. More gives a false sense of motion and totally screws up depth perception that's really bad to start with.Adam... have a look at this http://members.shaw.ca/fltsim/capgen.htm and contact meCalhover long and prosper