King of the LightWeights?

[Guest]

We all know that 767 Pilot in Command is the king of the heavy PC flight simulators. What would consider to be the king of the single engine PC sims? That is, I (and probably a lot of others) am looking for a small light weight (C-172, 182, Mooney...) that acts and has the feeling of a real light weight aircraft. I have been simming using the default C-182 and it just seems too easy to fly and land. It's just a matter of pointing it to the runway and lifting up on the nose a little while reducing power and you will land easily, the only variable seems to be how high you bounce if you don't get it quite right. That seems to be the case with the default heavies as well, but not, of course, of the 767-PIC. I want a light weight, general avaiation aircraft to be just as realistic. Which on should I go for? Which do you recommend?Thanks,Robb

[LAdamson 240]

Best "do nearly everything" aircraft that I've ever run in to, is the RealAir Marchetti SF260. Much time went into the programming to produce believable spins & slips.Other favorites are the Dreamfleet Cardinal & Archer. Also enjoy the default Cessna 172 with Ron Freiumuths air.file, the 182 with RealAir's airfile, & the default Baron with FSD's add-on file. I've been getting back to the basics lately with the defaults. High frame rates & fun with the eyepoint pulled back in the virtual cockpit. Just gives an illusion of real flight, especially the landings.FWIW----- Real Cessna's are quite easy to land, compared to others with heavier wing loadings & high sink rates, where power needs to be manipulated all the way through the flare. Of course FS2002 might not not let you know of the damage from all those bounces & sideways landings! :)L.Adamson

[Guest]

Flight1 Meridian.'nuff said.

[Guest Lobaeux4]

Well, I know you said single-engine, but if you want to stay with an airliner-type, small plane, your best bet is with Oleksiy Frolov's Dash 8. It's freeware and rivals the PIC767 in systems modeling and surpasses it in sounds. The panels are a bit small, but with a higher than normal resolution it's no problem reading, and it's every bit the joy to fly as the PIC767. It's lacking a working FMS, but Oleksiy's working on that, even still it's definetly a joy to fly with charts.Lobaeux

[Guest SlimDady]

>Best "do nearly everything" aircraft that I've ever run in >to, is the RealAir Marchetti SF260. Much time went into the >programming to produce believable spins & slips. >>Other favorites are the Dreamfleet Cardinal & Archer. Also >enjoy the default Cessna 172 with Ron Freiumuths air.file, >the 182 with RealAir's airfile, & the default Baron with >FSD's add-on file. I've been getting back to the basics >lately with the defaults. High frame rates & fun with the >eyepoint pulled back in the virtual cockpit. Just gives an >illusion of real flight, especially the landings. >>FWIW----- Real Cessna's are quite easy to land, compared to >others with heavier wing loadings & high sink rates, where >power needs to be manipulated all the way through the flare. >Of course FS2002 might not not let you know of the damage >from all those bounces & sideways landings! :) >>L.Adamson I totally agree with you on this one. Its a great plane.. pretty much everything its supposed to do it does.But things like the flight 1 meridian have all the fancy gps and things people like, but i think the Marchetti SF260 is more complete then the rest, amzing visualy, and amazing flight performance, MOST REAL PLANE IN MY BOOK!

[Guest]

Meridian.No doubt, no second thoughts, no regrets.G.

[Bearracing 3]

Robb,Not sure what you mean by "realistic", but if its realistic as far as airfile, then the RealAir Simulations SF.260 is the winner hands down.If you're looking for something a little more "civilian" in nature, I've heard good things about both the FSD Commander 115 and the Flight One Meridian, though I don't speak from personal experience, as I have neither of these aircraft. I also understand that the Dreamfleet Archer and Cardinal are both quite well done and fly equally as well as they look.The default 172 is pretty good (the flight modeling was done by the Cessna Factory Engineer-pilots, so I would say the source for the FS Design team have some pretty good credentials on that one).I also like the default 182 with the Rob Young airfile.If you want something a bit more classic, then you might try David Eckert's Boeing Stearman Kaydet or one of Bill Lyon's creations (Waco, Ryan STA, or Globe Swift).Bear!

[Guest Douglas K]

>The default 172 is pretty good (the flight modeling was done by the Cessna Factory Engineer-pilots, so I would say the source for the FS Design team have some pretty good credentials on that one).< That must explain why it cruises 10 knots too slow in FS2002. I never could get the real airplanes to exactly match the book figures either -although none of them were 10 knots off- but then I've never had the pleasure of flying a new one and always figured it was because the airplanes were well worn from flight training. Now I know who to blame, it's those Cessna Factory Engineer-pilots. Flight school owner to perplexed mechanic- "I guess this thing doesn't need a top overhaul after all, despite what the differential pressure check is showing, according to those Cessna Factory Engineer-pilots its ok for it to cruise that slow, just throw another 4 qts of AeroShell in and it's good to go". And then there are some other extremely odd flight dynamics that are exhibited by the FS2002 C-172SP, most of which have been well documented here and elsewhere, and I sincerely doubt anyone at Cessna is responsible for them. >I also like the default 182 with the Rob Young airfile< I hope those same Cessna Factory Engineer-pilots don't get wind of Rob Young's upcoming C-172 flight dynamics mod, there's nothing worse than than a pouting Cessna Factory Engineer-pilot.>If you want something a bit more classic, then you might try David Eckert's Boeing Stearman Kaydet or one of Bill Lyon's creations (Waco, Ryan STA, or Globe Swift).80 freeware release by the same author. A great aircraft to fly from the VC with Active Camera Pro.

[LAdamson 240]

>And then there are some other extremely odd flight dynamics >that are exhibited by the FS2002 C-172SP, most of which have >been well documented here and elsewhere, and I sincerely >doubt anyone at Cessna is responsible for them. >IMO------ these extremely odd flight dynamics are "overblown". My own "main" complaint was a stiffness in roll and pitch that seems like flight in wet soupy cement when it comes to dampening & boyancy. Some third party files improve on that. But from getting from point A to B, the default controls do close to whats required. I think I can find enough faults in most third party files to make those aircraft also seem poor compared to the real one............if that's my objective. As an example, now that we have the SF260 doing spins...........what about all the rest? :)L.Adamson

[Guest Josve]

Larry got it on the spot :) Totally agree! Go for the 260 if you like to fly! Johnny"I'LL BE BACK"[div align=center]http://www.avsim.com/hangar/fly/josve/zone.jpg ][/div

[Guest]

I have about 10 hours of flying experience as a student pilot. I never soloed but got close to it when the money ran out, or I simply had to focus on other financial goals. I was a student in a C-172 back in 1984. Even though I had only 10 hours of experience, I do remember the general feel of the aircraft. Landing the real thing was a bit more complicated and difficult than the FS2002 C-172 for obvious reasons. I flight controls feel stiffer in the real plane, and there just seems to be a lot more going on in the real plane. I am sure I am not telling you anything you don't know. Anyway, I really would like to find something that is not as responsive as the sim. Maybe my memory is not serving me well. Anyway, thanks for the input. Are these Dreamfleet aircraft free or do they cost $$? Either way, I probably should check them out at the Dreamfleet website.Thanks,Robb

[Bearracing 3]

>I hope those same Cessna Factory Engineer-pilots don't get wind of Rob Young's upcoming C-172 flight dynamics mod, there's nothing worse than than a pouting Cessna Factory Engineer-pilot.

[Guest Douglas K]

>I once had a run-in with 4 or 5 engineers from the Ford Aeronewtronics Division (Ford Motor Company) that had been working on a solution for a problem on a new car of theirs once. They had spent thousands of dollars and over 2 weeks researching the problem to no avail, but I found the problem for them in the first 90 seconds I was asked to look at it. Really p***** them off, but what the hey, the lcoal Ford guys that had called me in thought it was pretty funny and in a way I too got a kick out of it. Sometimes the over-educated tend to look for the complex solution, when the answer is most often very basic and right in front of them...hehehehe!

[briansommers 74]

im not a r/w pilot, and i dont have the 260 (which after reading this thread, i think i will get it)i have the meridian and dont like it, NOT BECAUSE OF HOW IT FLIES, its just NOT MY STYLE - i dont care for all the fancy shmancy instrumentsi recomend Carendado's Piper Dakota (very smooth)also DF C177RGand Globe Swift - Bill Lyonciao!Brian S

[Guest]

I too would say that Flight1's Meridian is the best aircraft overall I have ever flown in Flight Simulator. But your are looking for a "small light weight" I am not sure if you consider this in the category. If you decide to try this you will not me displeased. The flight model alone is worth the price and the Garmin GPS with moving map is a huge bonus.Jon