I went ahead and purchased the Realixy XP GNS530 (for the Duke), A2A Cub witht the expansion pack, the Sibwings Bird dog and the RealAir SF260. Ended up spending the whole night flying pretended SAR missions around Mt Hood and Mt Rainier in the twilight courtesy of ASE, REX and Orbx NW USA. What a truly amazing experience it was. Btw, that chick in the Cub can be quite rude and really criticize the flying skills, don't you think? :D Btw, is the Flight1 Islander worth getting? On of the guys at the flightclub getting the UL certificate has some 10,000 h in it (and about the same number of water landings...) and I thought I'd surprise him!Oh, to add - that flying guide that comes with the cub is really superb and extremely useful - worth the admission fee on its own!

The Flight1 Islander is without a doubt my favorite GA plane and I have the A2A cub and RealAir Duke B60, but fly only the Islander. The interior 3D modeling, the shaking of the cockpit when take off and land,the flight model and the sounds are just amazing.

Big fan of both Carenado and RealAir's GA stuff (got the Turbine Duke tonight - tons of fun!). I wish Dreamfleet was still in the game too, their GA stuff was always great.

I haven't purchased the Turbine Duke, because I don't think MSFS models turbine engines well.. If we're talking about a real pilot's perspective, that has to count when rating the best.Same for turbo-charging, though it is modeled better than turbines. So for this real pilot, the best has to be a normally aspirated piston-engine airplane.I've purchased just about every GA model out there, and modeled a few myself. If I were to rate the best, it would have to be a consideration of four catagories: 1) Best flight dynaminc (handling, V-speed accuracy, and feel)2) Best performance (climb, cruise, glide; as affected by load variation)3) Best systems replication (accurate and useable gauges.. ie.. MP/RPM against control setting and actual performance; fuel-flow, CHT, EGT etc.. )4) Best immersion (VC-quality/accuracy; model/texture-quality; sounds, etc..) Without going in-depth on high-points and short-comings.. nor noting that I've had to tweak ALL models at least a tad.. These would be my candidates (no particular order)Carenado C206.. even though it falls short due to being pretty much an FS9 re-compilation, it's the best representative of its real-world counter-part.Carenado Saratoga (all Carenado models have great potential).. I spend most of my sim-time in one of these.A2A Cub.. A simple airplane, replicated beautifully.Default Maule.. Worth the price of FSX, all by itself.

I haven't purchased the Turbine Duke, because I don't think MSFS models turbine engines well.. If we're talking about a real pilot's perspective, that has to count when rating the best.Same for turbo-charging, though it is modeled better than turbines. So for this real pilot, the best has to be a normally aspirated piston-engine airplane.I've purchased just about every GA model out there, and modeled a few myself. If I were to rate the best, it would have to be a consideration of four catagories: 1) Best flight dynaminc (handling, V-speed accuracy, and feel)2) Best performance (climb, cruise, glide; as affected by load variation)3) Best systems replication (accurate and useable gauges.. ie.. MP/RPM against control setting and actual performance; fuel-flow, CHT, EGT etc.. )4) Best immersion (VC-quality/accuracy; model/texture-quality; sounds, etc..) Without going in-depth on high-points and short-comings.. nor noting that I've had to tweak ALL models at least a tad.. These would be my candidates (no particular order)Carenado C206.. even though it falls short due to being pretty much an FS9 re-compilation, it's the best representative of its real-world counter-part.Carenado Saratoga (all Carenado models have great potential).. I spend most of my sim-time in one of these.A2A Cub.. A simple airplane, replicated beautifully.Default Maule.. Worth the price of FSX, all by itself.

Brett,I understand that you are an experienced pilot IRL and I often read your "lessons" here in the forum with big interest so I have big respect for you (and many others) opinion. I therefore I find it interesting that you rate Carenados models highly, although you do specifically point out that you have had to tweak them. I personally very much enjoy all the Carenado planes I have because of their VC, the sounds and in general the ambience (not to mention their very reasonable price) but I've read quite a few comments that show dislike for their default flight charateristics. Are they in your opinion way off the mark and are your tweaked file perhaps uploaded somwhere :D

Brett,I understand that you are an experienced pilot IRL and I often read your "lessons" here in the forum with big interest so I have big respect for you (and many others) opinion. I therefore I find it interesting that you rate Carenados models highly, although you do specifically point out that you have had to tweak them. I personally very much enjoy all the Carenado planes I have because of their VC, the sounds and in general the ambience (not to mention their very reasonable price) but I've read quite a few comments that show dislike for their default flight charateristics. Are they in your opinion way off the mark and are your tweaked file perhaps uploaded somwhere :D

I am wondering the same. Carenado do have great potential (as you said Brett) but what has let them down IMO is their poor flight modelling. The Carenado Seneca looks wonderful, has a great VC but flies weirdly. I find it nearly impossible to fly any coordinated turns in most Carenado aircraft. For example - feed in even a small amount of rudder and the aircraft (Seneca + Archer especially) starts yawing left and right like a drunk. Makes me feel a bit ill! I don't get this behaviour with other aircraft in my virtual hanger.I assume we're all using either the CH or Saitek Yoke/Rudder combo?EDIT: You posted just after me. That explains alot if you modify the airfiles yourself :( If I had the time and know-how I'd try myself!

Hi Krister,You raise a good point, in that I probably under-estimate how much cfg/air-file editing I end up doing to Carenado Models. The credit I will give Carenado, is that their releases aren't blatent compromises.. ie.. just using a generic set of files (air/cfg) and then trimming around the obvious edges to make then "fit". With some payware, I've literally just started from scratch.. going through a generic air-file, item by item, and then creating completely new cfg file. Carenado models don't require that much effort.. But again, some of their stuff is WAY off, when rigidly flight-tested.I think, like most models (payware of freeware), they aim for EASY, as opposed to REALISTIC flight-dynamics. That's the best way I can put it. And if realism suffers (as in the ridiculous performance envelope for the initially realeased Caravan), so be it. And I can live with that, because they give us the best foundation to work with; especially for the price.As for sharing my modifications.. man, that would be tricky. Not only do I modify flight dynamics; I only keep one livery (loading time and aircraft-selection screen clutter).. and that livery is redone at super-high resloution (2048X2048) (many hours spent on the "enlarged" details) .. (good time to thank the people at OZX for some of the 2048X2048 "Redux" on many Carenado models)... So it's not a simple upload/share to be super-imposed on an existing installation. I wouldn't want to get into that can-o-worms, nor worry about copyright stuff.Even if you're interested in having re-named, un-referenced copies of my cfg and air-file sent to you; to use at your own risk... no support, or help in using them.. there are also gauge modifications set to match realistic performnce(re-done ASI, customized MP/Tach bitmaps and XML coding). In order to share this with simmers at large, it would end up being a full-time job.. :Nail Biting:EDIT.. change 2048X2048 to 4096X4096 :(

CH Flightstick Pro USB joystick :(

Even if you're interested in having re-named, un-referenced copies of my cfg and air-file sent to you; to use at your own risk... no support, or help in using them.. there are also gauge modifications set to match realistic performnce(re-done ASI, customized MP/Tach bitmaps and XML coding). In order to share this with simmers at large, it would end up being a full-time job..

I hear ya!I bought FSX, like most of us, the day it was released. But it's not until literally the last few days, that I actually have gotten it working properly. I am almost reluctant to shutting down FSX out of fear that the next time I fire it up I will end up miserable. And all it took was running an fps limiter AND most important to disable the second monitor.... So the less I mess around with it, the higher probability it will function properly next time too, so no experimenting for me! :D Anyway, I appreciate very much everybody taking their time and giving me feedback!

As far as a complex ga aircraft, the DA Cheyenne ranks as one of the most realistic in my books.

Ah good call! I forgot about the Digital Aviation Cheyenne. That airplane is truly brilliant and probably one of the best twins for FS. I would even argue it's nicer than the RealAir Turbine Duke! But don't tell Rob I said that...

Ah good call! I forgot about the Digital Aviation Cheyenne. That airplane is truly brilliant and probably one of the best twins for FS. I would even argue it's nicer than the RealAir Turbine Duke! But don't tell Rob I said that...

Another plane that I bought, flew, loved (the sounds and night lighting!!!) and then left neglected in a corner of the hangar simply because I never gave it enough time to learn the Bendix GPS. sigh...

Ah good call! I forgot about the Digital Aviation Cheyenne. That airplane is truly brilliant and probably one of the best twins for FS. I would even argue it's nicer than the RealAir Turbine Duke! But don't tell Rob I said that...

I totally forgot that one! The DA Cheyenne is a wonderful simulation. I used to fly it loads. If only it had a more modern moving map GPS I'd fly it alot more often.All the Duke needs now is a Weather Radar and TCAS gauge (Rob? Sean?).No. I'm teasing :)

The Cheyenne is still great!I have TCAS functionality on my Duke with RXP unlimited package.

I keep going back to the Aerosoft Twin Otter. Not only will it fly slow, it will taxi backwards. Ray

The DA Cheyenne is a wonderful simulation. I used to fly it loads. If only it had a more modern moving map GPS I'd fly it alot more often.

You can put an RXP GNS430W in the panel if you would like a moving mapand all the other good stuff, like LPV landings, that the 430w offers..