Flight1 Mustang ...

[Geofa 108]

Well honestly the price isn't an issue. I guess I just don't appreciate it when I'm sold a bill of goods (missing features). Like I said, I'm realistic about what to expect from a FS release and I would have no problem had I felt that Flight1 was responsive to their customers (not just me). I understand that it takes time to get things right, but I've never seen such a hostile attitude toward the very customers who are trying to provide feedback and ultimately get a better product.

Well I guess this is the way I look at it.Where I live icing is a factor from September to about May. The Mustang does icing visuals that I have never seen on the sim-didn't even think they were possible-was hoping fs11 might have this. I face icing almost every flight I take from September to May-I have faced Stars/Sids 25 times in 20 years-a no brainer which has more value to me. The icing makes me excited-a new reality here... I'll take the icing effects over sids/stars any day.I can't afford the 50 grand or so to put a g1000 on my Baron-but I have flown for 1/2 hour on a Columbia 400 with one-but can't afford the 500k or is it 700 k for one?I can afford the $50 bucks for the Mustang-and though not 100% functional-it is pretty close-real close. The clarity and large number of functions far exceed what fsx comes with-and gives me a pretty good idea of reality for a fraction of the cost.The toilet I could give or take-but there is so much on this package that it strikes me as a very extreme bargain...period.Perhaps my expectations are low-or perhaps they are not. I spent more on a xmas present of a book on tape tonight my wife will listen to one time .I expect to use the Mustang at least a few times-probably many more.

[N400QW 205]

Spaceman wrote with regard to SIDS\STARS: "It just doesn't seem like that big of a deal or an extrodinary request, given that other developers pretty much include those things standard."Sorry Spaceman but you're not correct. As others have already stated, FS DB contains Zero SIDS\STARS. The standard you mention is generally met by third party integration of Navigraph data which is updateable via subscription.At present the only options for FS SID\STAR support are to rely on Navigraph or some "Homebrew DB which can be expensive to the user in the form of subscription fees or time consuming and expensive for the developer which translates into added cost at some point in the update cycle. In either case this is NOT a "plug n play" option where you wave your magic wand and "poof" you have SIDS\STARS. It is noteworthy to remember that the F1 unit supports WAAS approaches which is no small feat in itself.It appears that the F1 guys are looking at possibilities with regard to SIDS\STARS support. Why you continue to rant about SIDS\STARS when by your admission you rarely use in RW Flight is suspect.Give it a rest, the F1 guys will do the right thing...they always have :(

[LAdamson 240]

Larry,That 696 is awfully nice. We are debating trading our 496 in on one. Let us know how it goes. I consider xm weather a go/no go now and look forward to it being simulated on fs at some point.

Trade it! My 496 is for sale... :)I've always been a bit jealous of those Garmin 1000's that seem to have been discussed around here onr time or another; and the 696 is a good step closer. Within our experimental aviation forum, we have a member who works as a flight controller for the space shuttle; and he spent months beta testing the unit. After his writeup and pics, I couldn't resist.For starters, you'll really appraciate the high rez big screen. The twist control makes numerous functions very fast; along with the soft keys on the bottom. I pulled it out of the plane yesterday, and it still picks up the full spectrum of satellites along with XM weather, while sitting here in my office.I would say it's a bit big for any yoke mount, though. Mine is mounted on the left side of the cockpit, and my wife has a cheaper Lowrance 600 with terrain, for her part in navigation. In my setup, the auto-pilot runs off a data feed from the 696. I did seriously think about a new high end cpu or big screen............instead. :) L.Adamson

[vonmar 124]

Spaceman,Please do post your notes over at the http://mustang.flight1.net/forums support forum. We need to make sure all support is moved there and do not want to start any trends that will end up not getting a response.Also, see my note in the FAQ forum at the forum regarding setting FSX up correctly before loading the Mustang.Thanks,SteveFlight One Software

It is good to have an open review on AVSIM of "first flight/first impressions" on the just released products like the Mustang.The statements, questions and answers in this forum are a big help to those who have not purchased the Mustang and thus "cannot" read and respond to the posts in the Mustang's ... for registered customers only forum.

[Guest Ervin]

It is good to have an open review on AVSIM of "first flight/first impressions" on the just released products like the Mustang.The statements, questions and answers in this forum are a big help to those who have not purchased the Mustang and thus "cannot" read and respond to the posts in the Mustang's ... for registered customers only forum.

Agree, AVSIM is and has been a great place to share information for many years. I have enjoyed and gained much information from experienced folks including r/w pilots. But over the years we have seen many, many folks that have their own agenda/s. I would say to those folks including "r/w" pilots that are not happy with the Mustang, get your money back, jump in a r/w acft and have fun. Hello, anyone up there? FSX is a game guys! Come on, what do we expect from a $54 add-on game? It's not real but I feel they have done a great job for us folks that enjoy Flt sim. For those folks complaining about cost, one can not buy a Garmin StreetPilot for under $100 and by the way an upgrade will cost over $200 which is still not perfect. Being an old sim operator from Com 64 days and not a r/w pilot but a somewhat semi-serious on-line flight simmer, I think flight1 (Jim and the guys including bata testers) have pumped out an excellent product for the money.Just my two cents.

[Steve Halpern 176]

Spaceman,Please see it from our perspective also. We always watch what people say, and we do our best to make sure people operate the plane within the design limitations of our product, which are closely built around the designed flight paramaters of the real aircraft, having to take into account adjustments that need to be made because of how the FSX flight modelling engine is designed (such as the way the FSX engine handles glideslopes and intersects).Jim, who as a real-world commercial pilot, is very mindful of how a plane is supposed to be flown, and many people have been using the Mustang clearly outside the way it was designed due to the popular conception that this is a "corporate jet", which it is, but it is in a new family of jet types. The Mustang has a new and unique high lift wing design, no thrust reversers, and is designed to fly slow AND fast, using a single pilot. Maybe patience does get worn thin sometimes and the tone of a post may change when challenged time and time again when posted procedures are not followed (although I would not say we are hostile - as that is a pretty strong word you use).We do not profess to not be human. In fact, this human element is key to Flight1, because we want the customers to be in close contact with the entire team, and we do not want to be robots or pretend to be corporate suit-and-tie people following strict conduct codes. Regardless, many notes are retained, and once trends are found that need adjustment, you will commonly see updates from us in many different areas. Also, you can't simply make an adjustment in a flight model quickly without taking into account everything. Spoiler effectiveness may not simply be an act of lowering or raising a number somewhere. The airfoil may then need to be adjusted, flaps, drag figures, etc, which then change how FSX handles something else, such as stall speed, or how the plane rolls off the runway. So this takes time, and it is imperative that people contribute by flying the plane in a manner that would not get them busted in a checkride (many people who post notes would have been busted in a checkride using the procedures they used). Once we see the trends develop in this "space", we can then decide which way to address things, and how to best do them without causing side effects.The Mustang is kind of a new breed. I think in the end, and with the notes gathered so far, the final tweaked results will be excellent. We are getting good sense of what areas need to be addressed, and always look forward honing our products further.SteveFlight One Software

[jjjallen 37]

I think that F1 did a good job of under-promising and over-delivering. Also, remember that FSX is a GAME after all.jja

[Guest Astradan]

Spaceman3,You lost me when you alluded that the Mustang was broken because it would not climb from FL250 to FL330 in FL CH mode, at 235 kts.Do you realise that 235kts indicated at those altitudes is probably equivalent to a ground speed of way over 300kts ? If you are climbing using FL CH at that sort of altitude you can't expect a general aviation VLJ to climb at those speeds!By not climbing, and 'seeking' the speed, the aircraft is telling you that it has insufficient power to climb at the selected IAS. The fact that the aircraft is not achieving a sufficient VS is a symptom of your asking the aircraft to perform outside of it's limitations.As for the Mustang - it is wonderful, visually stunning and immersive, but it is not perfect; I was extremely disappointed that a Flight 1 product of this quality level, has no keyboard assignments ability. It's almost entirely mouse dependent which really turns me off. The clickpots in the VC (especially for the AP) are extremely small, fiddly and unintuitive to use.Also, whilst Frame Rates aren't too bad, many are finding the overall performance in FSX is rather stuttery and lacking smoothness. (an unfortunate symptom of all the redraws required for the gorgous avioncs).Overall though, it's a cutting edge add-on, a lovely plane to fly. I don't buy the comments about the flight dynamics because people who complain constantly make references to wrong speeds and operating procedures. For me, at most weights tried so far, at a VAPP of 100 and VEF of 91, the plane performs perfectly on the GS.I hope F1 will put some work into trying to optimize it's performance in FSX, to make is smoother, and I hope they will add keyboard assignmens for the AP controls, so this plane can be flown - online and offline - more intuitively and without as much fiddling with the mouse!

[zfehr 1]

235 knots for climb? You wouldn't use that speed in real world usage. 150 knots is a very realistic climb number, you want to get to altitude quickly in this aircraft so you can take advantage of the cruise speeds and lower fuel burn. One of the performance figures frequently talked about in turboprop and jet aircraft is "time to climb" since that is a flight planning figure that means something, the quicker you're on step the sooner your taking advantage of the jet's speed and lower fuel burn.

[digitalmarks 0]

Let's not overlook the fact this Mustang was developed out of an official partnership between Flight1 and Cessna.The only other aircraft that I know of that has the approval of the real developer is the ATR. Do you critics out there really believe Cessna would sign off on a product that did not accurately represent their product?Cessna/Flight1 Mustang Partnership LetterAlthough I was part of the beta, I have no stake in the success of this airplane. That being said as a real world Private Pilot and simmer for over 20 years this airplane could easily be my favorite add-on aircraft ever produced./Dave

[Spaceman3 1]

Spaceman,Please see it from our perspective also. We always watch what people say, and we do our best to make sure people operate the plane within the design limitations of our product, which are closely built around the designed flight paramaters of the real aircraft, having to take into account adjustments that need to be made because of how the FSX flight modelling engine is designed (such as the way the FSX engine handles glideslopes and intersects).Jim, who as a real-world commercial pilot, is very mindful of how a plane is supposed to be flown, and many people have been using the Mustang clearly outside the way it was designed due to the popular conception that this is a "corporate jet", which it is, but it is in a new family of jet types. The Mustang has a new and unique high lift wing design, no thrust reversers, and is designed to fly slow AND fast, using a single pilot. Maybe patience does get worn thin sometimes and the tone of a post may change when challenged time and time again when posted procedures are not followed (although I would not say we are hostile - as that is a pretty strong word you use).We do not profess to not be human. In fact, this human element is key to Flight1, because we want the customers to be in close contact with the entire team, and we do not want to be robots or pretend to be corporate suit-and-tie people following strict conduct codes. Regardless, many notes are retained, and once trends are found that need adjustment, you will commonly see updates from us in many different areas. Also, you can't simply make an adjustment in a flight model quickly without taking into account everything. Spoiler effectiveness may not simply be an act of lowering or raising a number somewhere. The airfoil may then need to be adjusted, flaps, drag figures, etc, which then change how FSX handles something else, such as stall speed, or how the plane rolls off the runway. So this takes time, and it is imperative that people contribute by flying the plane in a manner that would not get them busted in a checkride (many people who post notes would have been busted in a checkride using the procedures they used). Once we see the trends develop in this "space", we can then decide which way to address things, and how to best do them without causing side effects.The Mustang is kind of a new breed. I think in the end, and with the notes gathered so far, the final tweaked results will be excellent. We are getting good sense of what areas need to be addressed, and always look forward honing our products further.SteveFlight One Software

Steve,Thank you for this professional response. That is more in line of what I would've expected from the get go.I know how frustrating software development can get sometimes as that is my profession, however I think a little more willingness to acknowledge that the customer may have valid concerns would go a long way toward engendering good will.I now read on the support forums that the speed brake drag issue will be fixed. Wonderful! But was it neccessary to accuse myself and several others of not operating the airplane correctly when we reported the issue, even while the problem was being looked at and corrected? That of course is a rhetorical question. If Jim and others on your team would adopt an point of view that user feedback is a good thing, to be valued, I think a lot of the friction would cease.Thanks for your time responding here.

[Spaceman3 1]

Spaceman3,You lost me when you alluded that the Mustang was broken because it would not climb from FL250 to FL330 in FL CH mode, at 235 kts.Do you realise that 235kts indicated at those altitudes is probably equivalent to a ground speed of way over 300kts ? If you are climbing using FL CH at that sort of altitude you can't expect a general aviation VLJ to climb at those speeds!

Actually it climbs just fine at those speeds if hand flown or if the autopilot is used in vertical speed mode. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

By not climbing, and 'seeking' the speed, the aircraft is telling you that it has insufficient power to climb at the selected IAS. The fact that the aircraft is not achieving a sufficient VS is a symptom of your asking the aircraft to perform outside of it's limitations.

All the AP need do in that mode is use the elevator to maintain a speed. Simple. Whatever climb rate comes out, that's what you get. As I just pointed out, the airplane has sufficient power in the climb power detent setting to do it, so that argument is not valid. I'll also add, that I do have a fair bit of experience, and attempting to use the flight change functionality at a slower speed was one of the first things I tried, to no avail.

As for the Mustang - it is wonderful, visually stunning and immersive, but it is not perfect; I was extremely disappointed that a Flight 1 product of this quality level, has no keyboard assignments ability. It's almost entirely mouse dependent which really turns me off. The clickpots in the VC (especially for the AP) are extremely small, fiddly and unintuitive to use.

I've said many times in this thread that it is visually stunning and that I don't expect it to be perfect. Sure, I agree that VC clickspots are too small, but I haven't even brought that up because in my opinion there are bigger issues with the airplane. You point out an excellent fact of flight simulation, everyone has their own pet peeves. For you it's the keyboard. For me it's the autopilot/navigational tools functionality. That's the beauty of a forum like this as other users can look at a potential add-on and see if it fits their preferences.

Also, whilst Frame Rates aren't too bad, many are finding the overall performance in FSX is rather stuttery and lacking smoothness. (an unfortunate symptom of all the redraws required for the gorgous avioncs).Overall though, it's a cutting edge add-on, a lovely plane to fly. I don't buy the comments about the flight dynamics because people who complain constantly make references to wrong speeds and operating procedures. For me, at most weights tried so far, at a VAPP of 100 and VEF of 91, the plane performs perfectly on the GS.I hope F1 will put some work into trying to optimize it's performance in FSX, to make is smoother, and I hope they will add keyboard assignmens for the AP controls, so this plane can be flown - online and offline - more intuitively and without as much fiddling with the mouse!

I'm glad you're having a good experience with the airplane. I sure wish I could get it to fly the GS as reliably as you have.

[Spaceman3 1]

235 knots for climb? You wouldn't use that speed in real world usage. 150 knots is a very realistic climb number, you want to get to altitude quickly in this aircraft so you can take advantage of the cruise speeds and lower fuel burn. One of the performance figures frequently talked about in turboprop and jet aircraft is "time to climb" since that is a flight planning figure that means something, the quicker you're on step the sooner your taking advantage of the jet's speed and lower fuel burn.

If you read my initial review carefully, I stated that I did not read the manual and I just used numbers that I figured were in the ballpark based on past experience with the CJ1. It actually does turn out that the Mustang is capabable of that speed as I pointed out in my previous response. It may not be optimum, but it can be done and maintain at least a 1000fpm climb.So please stop nitpicking that I'm not flying the airplane by the book on my first flight 2 minutes after installing. Most airplanes in the real world aren't always flown by the book and they still perform just fine. Anyway, the bottom line is that even if you fly it by the book, the problem still exists.

Let's not overlook the fact this Mustang was developed out of an official partnership between Flight1 and Cessna.The only other aircraft that I know of that has the approval of the real developer is the ATR. Do you critics out there really believe Cessna would sign off on a product that did not accurately represent their product?Cessna/Flight1 Mustang Partnership LetterAlthough I was part of the beta, I have no stake in the success of this airplane. That being said as a real world Private Pilot and simmer for over 20 years this airplane could easily be my favorite add-on aircraft ever produced./Dave

Actually, no, I don't put a lot of faith in marketing gimmicks. Just like the Ariane 737 is developed in partnership with Boeing is pretty meaningless.

[n4gix 4,955]

235 knots for climb? You wouldn't use that speed in real world usage. 150 knots is a very realistic climb number, you want to get to altitude quickly in this aircraft so you can take advantage of the cruise speeds and lower fuel burn. One of the performance figures frequently talked about in turboprop and jet aircraft is "time to climb" since that is a flight planning figure that means something, the quicker you're on step the sooner your taking advantage of the jet's speed and lower fuel burn.

Indeed, Zane! Thinking that one can maintain 235 kias during a climb is totally unrealistic. Just referring to the tables in the manual would quickly dispel that mistaken notion. On page 77 is a table titled "Cruise Climb Speed - KIAS". In this table it is clearly shown that at FL350 the climb speed will be around 143 kias... ;)In terms of fps, atmax weight, FL350, ISA +20C

[Spaceman3 1]

Indeed, Zane! Thinking that one can maintain 235 kias during a climb is totally unrealistic. Just referring to the tables in the manual would quickly dispel that mistaken notion. On page 77 is a table titled "Cruise Climb Speed - KIAS". In this table it is clearly shown that at FL350 the climb speed will be around 143 kias... ;)In terms of fps, atmax weight, FL350, ISA +20C