Sign in to follow this  
Guest jonthedoors

Mooney Bravo. FS9 vs FUIII. Which is more accurate?

Recommended Posts

I'm a huge fan of flying the default FS9 Mooney Bravo, but it seems a little quirky to me in a few ways. As well as having FS9 on my system, I also have a sim called Flight Unlimited III (far older than FS9), which also includes the Mooney Bravo as a default aircraft.http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i223/jon...ooneyBsplit.jpgWhile both models are almost exactly the same, there are a few differences.The panels are also, very similar. But I did, however, notice that the Artificial Horizon and HSI are different in each model.Take a look at the picture below.http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i223/jon...yHSICompare.jpgOn the FUIII HSI, there is an RMI and ADF indicator all built into the same instrument, while the FS9 HSI only incorporates the VOR1 indicator onto the Directional Giro. Also notice how the flight director on each Artificial Horizon is different.My first question is, which of these two is actually in a real Mooney M20M Bravo, or are there different panel variations on different aircraft?The second thing I noticed were the lights. Take a look at the pictures below to see what I mean.http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i223/jon...yTaxiLights.jpghttp://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i223/jon...ndingLights.jpgI don't know what the real aircraft lights are like, but the lighting setup on the FUIII Bravo seems to make more sense to me.So onto mysecond question - Do any of you happen to know which lighting setup is correct? Thats about it... Thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi uhm ??????,The ADI and HSI are "representative" of the real thing. The FS2004 version look closer to their real world counterparts. The FS HSI is the one that was more common in the Mooney. That said, there are many different options when it comes to avionics, and having the extras on the HSI is certainly one of those options. The lights in FU3 are more realistic. The Mooney in FS is not even close to the real deal. Don't get me wrong, If you just want to "fly something" for a while, then it will serve the purpose however, to say this is a realistic representation of the Mooney Bravo would not be accurate.The Mooney Bravo is a derivative of the Mooney TLS (Turbo Lycoming Sabre), introduced around 1989 if I remember correctly. This plane was an important step in the evolution of the Mooney brand. Previous offerings made the Mooney name by squeezing every bit of performance out of 210 HP mills, attached to slick, squeeky clean airframes. There really weren't alot of tricks left in the bag so the TLS was born. Sporting 270 HP with a 75" three blade Hartzell prop, you can see 223 KTAS at FL250. The engine was a Lycoming TIO-540-AF1A. This is a 350 HP engine (used in the Piper Mirage), derated to 270HP. The TLS had two batteries, two alternators, and a standby vacuum pump. It was also the first Mooney with rudder trim. Thought you might enjoy some history. Sadly, the Mooney line is somewhat underrepresented in the FS world. There is a Payware Mooney M20J (201) by Carenado. Much closer to the real world though lacking in some areas. Carenado' forte' is the visuals and the 201 looks great! You certainly have the feeling that you're sitting in the plane, and the panels are pretty much spot on. Despite a few quirks, it's the best Mooney available.I hope this has helped you out.Best Regards,JeffBTW, you really should sign your name so we know what to call you, otherwise someone might make one up for you :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Carenado 201.I've been looking at that, and it looks mighty fine. Unfortunatly, I'm not a fan of payware, because I'm not really prepared to pay money for an add-on. It's also likely that a Carenado model won't run well at all on my low-end system, so I wouldn't take the chance. Maybe if I upgraded my system I would consider getting payware, but until then, the money stays firmly in my pocket.Thanks for the help, anyway.PS: I was just wondering, would it be possible to fix the lights problem by re-writing the .CFG or .AIR files? thanks,Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are your system specs?I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but if you are looking for realism in fs2004, you need to look at planes other than the defaults. if you are not into payware (the Carenado Mooney is spectacular and the FPS hit is next to nothing on a decent PC), then check out some great freeware aircraft in the library. Search the library and forums and you'll find lots of great aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My system specs are:256mb RAMIntel '3D Extreme' Graphics card (quite old, no memory details specified)Intel Celeron D 325 Processor40GB Hard-drive...I've got over 10GB of freeware, lmao. iFly, RFP, Project Tupolev, etc. You could say, as a benchmark for frame-killers, POSKY is a no-go for my computer.It's a shame there arn't any good freeware Mooneys around, or patches for flight dynamics, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same problem with my ancient system, AMD 700, and only 300mbs of memory, with a halfway good nVida graphics card, and two HD's, 10 & 20 Gbs. I bought the Carando 172, and it flys at 15FPS.Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like -M.Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this