In your opinion, what is the best and most realistic default aircraft in FSX?Thanks! -jayflies737

IMHO, none of them.

They're basically all the same. It depends on what type of aircraft you like to fly (Airliners, GA, Business etc).

The C172 is actually pretty decent. i prefer it much more to the Carenado 152 that I bought. and you can improve the flight dynamics by merging with the RealAir FS9 sim.

I am just asking because I would like to know other peoples opinions.

I'm curious myself as well.

I quite like the C172, the Maule, the Baron, and the Piper Cub.The 172 and the Baron panels can be significantly improved by retro-fittingRXP FLT gauges..

I like flying the jets, and as I do not have any addon aircraft, my preference I have been flying the last several months is the 737.I can't comment on realism, it flies relatively easily, but has some drawbacks - like, the interior panel light does not work during the daytime, the airspeed indicator sometimes goes to zero for a time, can't start individual engines manually, probably more that I am not aware of.

turn on pitot heat and/or deice so your airspeed won't go "zero"

Hmm, I will have to check that out - thanks for the tip.

In your opinion, what is the best and most realistic default aircraft in FSX?

The trike :)Actually now that I think about it, the Maule M-7 is by far the best default aircraft in my opinion. The Piper Cub is also pretty much there (until you see what A2A did) but that Maule really is quite nice, it's the one aircraft that would need something quite special from the payware box to beat.The FSX big jets are probably the worst aircraft there are for FSX, default or payware. I think maybe even Abacus make nicer aircraft than the default 737/747. And Abacus can't really make aircraft at all.

In your opinion, what is the <snip> most realistic default aircraft in FSX?Thanks!-jayflies737

The only people qualified to properly and accurately answer that question are those that would have actual RW time in all of the default models.Good luck finding someone that meets that description and hangs out here.regards,Joe

LOL Thanks! The CRJ-700 is pretty realistic.

The only people qualified to properly and accurately answer that question are those that would have actual RW time in all of the default models.Good luck finding someone that meets that description and hangs out here.

Bah, Humbug! :(

The only people qualified to properly and accurately answer that question are those that would have actual RW time in all of the default models.

Well... sort of. I've flown the C172 (FSX 172 is not really there), C208 (very wrong), J3 (not bad until you try some abnormal flying) and a Mooney (not an M20J exactly but the FSX one is terrible) and a Baron (FSX... no)Thing is, when you've flown a few aircraft in real life you can start to sort of fill in the gaps. Most payware aircraft offer far greater realism (not all). Just Flight made a Piper Tomahawk for FS9 which I really enjoyed. The panel etc. are quite old and low res but the way that thing flew was really very, very close to the real thing (in which I have a few hundred hours). It behaved much like the real thing even in the most absurd of attitudes and spins. So sometimes the good aircraft come from unlikely sources.Systems realism is easy to spot for anyone, even if you haven't flown the real thing. The information is all out there and you can compare addon aircraft with the real thing that way. As far as the "feel" of it goes though, it's when you start doing things like stalls and spins that you get a proper idea of how good an addon aircraft is, and all the default aircraft fall short here.One thing though, if you have experience with real aircraft, you want the sim aircraft to be exactly the same. But for people who don't fly real aircraft, and probably never will, does it really matter? I mean of course we want all the best realism etc but without a reference, what's real? The default 172 behaves itself in level flight and everywhere else it starts to depart very slightly from what the real thing would do. But to a simmer, the FSX 172 is as close to a 172 as they'll get, and if this is the way it flies then this is the way they'll master. Nothing wrong with that really.