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.

Re-read the last paragraph more closely..."...being able to offer our Mustang customers..."Clearly, Textron/Cessna's intentions are to use this F1 release as a promotional tool for their own real world customers.

Re-read the last paragraph more closely..."...being able to offer our Mustang customers..."Clearly, Textron/Cessna's intentions are to use this F1 release as a promotional tool for their own real world customers.

Yes? And how is that any different from what I suggested? It's a marketing gimmick. Nothing wrong with that, but it just doesn't carry a lot of weight in my opinion.

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.

Good point. Clearly those "partner" companies have no time or desire to micromanage development of some simulation product geared for the gaming market or approve/prevent its release based on some quality criteria they set. So one of the key components is quality and technical competence of the people that ultimately test this product. If you look for example at PMDG test team you see the whole array of testers with impressive credentials - a few are usually rated on the aircraft and fly it daily, many of them hang around forums after the product is released to offer you tips and answer questions.

Good point. Clearly those "partner" companies have no time or desire to micromanage development of some simulation product geared for the gaming market or approve/prevent its release based on some quality criteria they set.

Not too many months ago that would have been true. However, times change. Textron/Cessna now require a licensing fee to be paid via their agents at EMI* just for use of their corporate name and/or logo's. EMI does have the time and resources to handle this bit of oversight.Not too many weeks ago I was contracted by another developer to produce some custom gauges for an upcoming release, because EMI had flatly refused their application for a license. Knowing this, I would be astonished if Flight1 was not even more closely overseen... :( Honestly, I find it somewhat ironic that thus far, no less than three people from Flight1's "competition" have expressed their support in this thread... :(* http://www.equitymanagementinc.com/ReviewStyle/AboutEMI.htmAnother example is Lockheed-Martin's licenseing scam... er, scheme :( http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/Lice...nformation.html

Honestly, I find it somewhat ironic that thus far, no less than three people from Flight1's "competition" have expressed their support in this thread... :(

Father Bill, I would not expect anything else, this is simply a very prudent business practice, you are in the same boat so to speak .. too bad I can't come up with a proper quote from St.Augustine :(

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

I would go along with a good representation of the Mustang, but I think an accurate one in terms of functionality is a stretch here. Not when it's missing some key functionality of the aircrafts systems like VNAV and one of the Mustangs signature features SafeTaxi!

Ah oh. Maybe you should report your findings to flight1, because if you are correct, they overmodeled the thrust on the Mustang as it's easily capable of a 235kts climb at FL250 in the sim.

Whenever I see this written this way.......I must question for farther facts...Is that yank back on the yoke climb...............or a sustained climb for a specific amount of time?L.Adamson

Honestly, I find it somewhat ironic that thus far, no less than three people from Flight1's "competition" have expressed their support in this thread... :(

Yeah, no wonder as another thread started by Tabs from PMDG concerning the Mustang and which was not positive enough was simply deleted yesterday morning...Jean-Paul

I would go along with a good representation of the Mustang, but I think an accurate one in terms of functionality is a stretch here. Not when it's missing some key functionality of the aircrafts systems like VNAV and one of the Mustangs signature features SafeTaxi!

Some rececently asked on an X-Plane forum, if Austin (the creator) could just spend a bit of time programming a functional Garmin 1000 instead of the simple representation it has.And I'm thinking...................sure thing................in three or four years, if he does nothing else! :( Because in reality, the Garmin itself is an intense programming of a simulation, let alone the rest of the aircraft.So when I read "Mustang specific functionality for the Garmin 1000", I do not expect the product to be fully functional in every way, as a Garmin 1000. I don't even read the statement as saying it's fully functional. Afterall, I'm very realistically minded when it comes to the cost of real aircraft avionics and databases. I know there is no way in ####, that a software producer is going to give me a full blown repoduction of the aircraft for $55! And at the same time, what if I did get a fully functional Garmin? Heck..............I'd just complain that the plane doesn't really fly, and so much for realism! :)But back to the important things of life........... Mustangs are fun to fly.........P51's that is...:) tf51d and I think so!L.Adamson

I would go along with a good representation of the Mustang, but I think an accurate one in terms of functionality is a stretch here. Not when it's missing some key functionality of the aircrafts systems like VNAV and one of the Mustangs signature features SafeTaxi!

Safe Taxi... you're joking right? The cost of data to support that display would exceed your wallet's abilities.You think that's a cheap database? Go to Jeppesen's web site and see how much they charge for airport plates in digital format.

Some rececently asked on an X-Plane forum, if Austin (the creator) could just spend a bit of time programming a functional Garmin 1000 instead of the simple representation it has.And I'm thinking...................sure thing................in three or four years, if he does nothing else! :( Because in reality, the Garmin itself is an intense programming of a simulation, let alone the rest of the aircraft.So when I read "Mustang specific functionality for the Garmin 1000", I do not expect the product to be fully functional in every way, as a Garmin 1000. I don't even read the statement as saying it's fully functional. Afterall, I'm very realistically minded when it comes to the cost of real aircraft avionics and databases. I know there is no way in ####, that a software producer is going to give me a full blown repoduction of the aircraft for $55! And at the same time, what if I did get a fully functional Garmin? Heck..............I'd just complain that the plane doesn't really fly, and so much for realism! :)But back to the important things of life........... Mustangs are fun to fly.........P51's that is...:) tf51d and I think so!L.Adamson

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I expect these things in a $55.00 product, but the statement I was challenging stated it was an "Accurate" representation, unless it simulates all of the aircraft's functions, accurate is a little too strong of a term to describe it. Only multi million dollar sims that simulate every system, and performs by the numbers as the real aircraft, can truly be called an accurate representation.PS: And yes, as you and I know P-51 Mustangs are really fun to fly!!! :( I hope (wish) I get a chance to do it again!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I expect these things in a $55.00 product, but the statement I was challenging stated it was an "Accurate" representation, unless it simulates all of the aircraft's functions, accurate is a little too strong of a term to describe it. Only multi million dollar sims that simulate every system, and performs by the numbers as the real aircraft, can truly be called an accurate representation.PS: And yes, as you and I know P-51 Mustangs are really fun to fly!!! :( I hope (wish) I get a chance to do it again!!!

So what are they supposed to say? Inaccurate representation? If the claim had been fully simulated G1000, or advanced technical trainer I could see starting this witch hunt for missing features but this is an entertainment title, with the modeled features accurately modeled. The nav database has been acknowledged as not being complete and will be updated. I'm surprised and disappointed by all the negativity when if you all were out enjoying what the Mustang does do rather than nit picking for any possible perceived shortcoming. I find it a really neat plane and very enjoyable to use, I didn't expect to like this little jet this much but I do.

So what are they supposed to say? Inaccurate representation? If the claim had been fully simulated G1000, or advanced technical trainer I could see starting this witch hunt for missing features but this is an entertainment title, with the modeled features accurately modeled. The nav database has been acknowledged as not being complete and will be updated. I'm surprised and disappointed by all the negativity when if you all were out enjoying what the Mustang does do rather than nit picking for any possible perceived shortcoming. I find it a really neat plane and very enjoyable to use, I didn't expect to like this little jet this much but I do.

I'm over at an X-Plane forum because I own it (although it's not my favorite........by far), and someone who fly's an Avanti II picks up the product because he see's it in a commercial aircraft magazine advertisement. Turns out the actual Avanti II with Collins Pro radios isn't actually modeled. So someone says that he can possibly get help from a few modelers and make one himself. And this is where MSFS users have the BIG advantage. Instead of a few modelers producing a resemblance in a week, and not a chance of duplicating the Collins; Us MSFS users have designer/programmers with years of experience, who will go all out for months and months, or even years to produce a fairly accurate model. Then what happens, it gets picked to death by a few, usually with agendas, because the $55 re-creation isn't an exact duplicate! And this just doesn't happen with Flight1,; it happens just about everywhere; and I personally know that most developers just get sick and tired of it all! And as we get into more sophisticated glass panels, it will only get worse! So sit back, relax, and realize that 55 bucks isn't going to put a real aircraft in a real hangar, or become a complete substitute for John and Martha King's $250 Garmin 1000 video class. Better yet, buy X-Plane, get some help, spend a few days, and build one yourself. And if it's realistic "enough" then make it $10 payware. In the meantime, think of the positive aspects of this model, instead of the fact it isn't real...L.Adamson

I'm over at an X-Plane forum because I own it (although it's not my favorite........by far), and someone who fly's an Avanti II picks up the product because he see's it in a commercial aircraft magazine advertisement. Turns out the actual Avanti II with Collins Pro radios isn't actually modeled. So someone says that he can possibly get help from a few modelers and make one himself. And this is where MSFS users have the BIG advantage. Instead of a few modelers producing a resemblance in a week, and not a chance of duplicating the Collins; Us MSFS users have designer/programmers with years of experience, who will go all out for months and months, or even years to produce a fairly accurate model. Then what happens, it gets picked to death by a few, usually with agendas, because the $55 re-creation isn't an exact duplicate! And this just doesn't happen with Flight1,; it happens just about everywhere; and I personally know that most developers just get sick and tired of it all! And as we get into more sophisticated glass panels, it will only get worse! So sit back, relax, and realize that 55 bucks isn't going to put a real aircraft in a real hangar, or become a complete substitute for John and Martha King's $250 Garmin 1000 video class. Better yet, buy X-Plane, get some help, spend a few days, and build one yourself. And if it's realistic "enough" then make it $10 payware. In the meantime, think of the positive aspects of this model, instead of the fact it isn't real...L.Adamson

I am enjoying it hugely. It seems to fly very much like a Baron with a few more whistles and a little more speed-the numbers are even not that different except in cruise and altitude. It even spins nicely. I wish I could afford one.Why would anyone want to use an autopilot on such a machine?-a joy to hand fly.On one of my rw boards there was a debate on flying hours and what they meant. A 15,000 airline pilot came on and said he finds most of his hours useless as they are flown on autopilot with a USA today in his lap. Food for thought...quality flying time or button pushing. The handling is so nice in this bird I can't force myself to hit the autopilot button yet.

hi, this is just a .02 comment on this already kind of bloated thread but i had a few thoughts about this plane. normally i would ignore posting on something like this but i have had a great time with the mustang in the last couple days and was surprised at the drama..first of all to spaceman3 (props to the name btw ) i was wondering what happened when you saw this data?

Ah oh. Maybe you should report your findings to flight1, because if you are correct, they overmodeled the thrust on the Mustang as it's easily capable of a 235kts climb at FL250 in the sim.

i just tried this out of curiosity, mostly because i've done a half dozen flights so far and this seemed really different than what i've been seeing in the sim. i was finding that with cruise thrust i would just barely do 230 at FL250. If i go to a 5degree pitch i will really quickly drop in speed but a high rate of climb, i was at 210kts by the time i hit FL260. so i dunno, that behavior seems expected to me?? in general i've been finding that i climb most efficiently around 170-150 knots, although i've cheated and gone above that for flights where i'm not intending to reach past the 20's.anyway, about other stuff people been commenting on..the spoilers are pretty strong but for a plane that barely outweighs an SUV it didn't seem that unreasonable to me, also considering there is no reverse thrust so they are designed to get really dirty on landings..i'm not nearly as informed as the RW guys here but i share geofa's impression that it flys a lot like a twin prop with some extra juice on the high ends especially for altitude.approaches on the GS seemed very stable to me, but required careful attention to the throttle - it follows the GS very well when you are at Vapp but i can see how it gets a little squirrely if you dont set the power correctly. since approach speeds are so slow it feels like a prop in how you have plenty of time to make sure you're stabilized.. and it seemed weird at first to be flying a jet at 100kts but if you are in the right configuration it's smooth as silk..as far as sid/stars go yeah i think it would be nice if their DB was complete, i think they've acknowledged that issue quite a bit already..sort of speaks to the main issue that there isn't just a standard that all mods and fsx will use by default.. with this plane i don't care that much personally either, the thing that is interesting to me about this plane is that it's a jet which can operate out of fields that don't use sids/stars! i've been having a lot of fun checking out 4000ft fields which i ignored before because they were too small for other biz jets and airliners.overall it's a really fun flyer for me! the icing graphics are a nice touch..cheers,-andy crosby