Well if you're not she is only 24 bucks anyway.

 

I don't really get those discussions. The answers often are to get a RV-7 or the Turbine Duke. Those planes are fine but the Katana 4x is simply in a different league, and cheaper. The argument most often 'misused' is that the Katana is too slow. So who cares? Does it matter how fast you get from A to B or how much fun you have? Why not plan your routes accordingly? I use Plan-G to plan my VFR-Routes for the Katana to be 70-100 miles so such a trip lasts me good hour - enough to relax after a hard day of work. Why would I want to go farther? I pick a field in Plan-G that I stay overnight (atm I'm parked in Pudding Hill staying in the lodge) and will continue from there.

 

The magic of the Katana unfolds after a few flights. Everything you do or don't is logged after you landed, EVERYTHING. When you continue from there, you have the very same plane, not a factory new one like you get with the RV-7 or Turbine Duke and the likes. After a few flights the stains on the plastic airframe will remind you that she needs a cleaning. Small issues popping up will remind you of a checkup you've forgotten. Even if you're following the rules and fly her by the number, she will age and will show sings of it.

 

And then there is the damage. You can break so much more than just a turbine engine because you mistreat it - as if that would be feature worth of praise in an age where a lot of addons offer engine wear. You can damage the wheel fairings if you're landing too hard on a strip that is too rough. The repair will remind you to take a look as the surface of your next planned stop and maybe take them off and live with the increased drag instead. The propeller suffers wear and tear over time and needs to be looked after and even the elevator can break if you mishandle her.

 

Yes she might be slow(er) but she is the first real simulation of a GA plane there is. There is simply no alternative, no RV-7 and no Turbine Duke will ever give you the level of satisfaction the Katana gives you. The Katana simulates the ownership of a GA plane in every aspect, not just on a flight per flight basis. A2A offers similar with their Warbirds but there is no alternative in respect to a GA. After you've suffered an engine failure and have successfully made it back to earth in one piece and an inspection reveals that you forgot to to close the oil door after your last oil change you'll notice and appreciate that the Katana 4x teaches you some proper manners.

 

You learn to respect her, treat her right and even care for her. If you want a game, get a faster RV-7 or Turbine Duke, but if you wan't to feel and experience the thrill of real GA ownership, there is no way around the Katana 4x. There is nothing better, no matter how slow or fast.

 

P.S.: Even if you could purchase from the European store, the price would be 25 bucks (18.80 Euros). The standard price in the US store is 23.93 so why try to get a European sale that would turn out to be more expensive? It might even be discounted since the regular price is 29.something. Maybe it's just not showing 20% off but those 23.93 are pretty much 20% off regular price.

 

Well said! :)

Whilst that is all certainly true about the level of immersion the Katana gives you, in simulating ownership of the real aircraft, you should bear in mind that not everyone who flies GA aircraft actually owns them. I've got tons of real life GA hours, and I've never owned anything bigger than a radio controlled aeroplane. I'll admit that there has been some caring for and servicing aeroplanes which I've been involved in, but most of the time they have been club aircraft, flying one of those pretty much simply consists of turning up at the airfield, hauling it out of the hangar, giving it a once over to make sure the control locks are off and the wings are not about to fall off, a quick wipe with a cloth, and then it is off into the blue, and that is also true when you rent an aeroplane. Sometimes it invloves even less than that if someone has already been flying the thing that day.

 

Al

 

That is true but as far as I'm aware the RV7 or Duke don't even simulate that part completely. I purchased the RV7 beta and returned it for a refund because this rather expensive GA doesn't even had working circuit breakers. And neither had the piston Duke. I don't know for sure about the final RV7 or the Turbine Duke but if I'm looking a GA simulation for the scenario you mentioned I'd expect proper simulation of ALL systems, not only the main ones. The Katana does all of this and so much more for a price that is significantly cheaper and the only reason she is rejected and not taken into consideration is her speed?

 

All those addons and even Carenado is fine and ok if they are what you're looking for. But they aren't complete simulations, neither in the cockpit nor outside of it.

That's fine and as said depends on what you're looking for. If you want a 'game' and go fast, than the RV or Duke are fine. If you want a sim, they are worth less because they simply don't simulate properly.

 

I look for simulated airplanes that are close to reality. The Baytower RV-7 does a very credible job of it. The creator of the simulated RV has spent a lot of time to get things correct. I certainly wouldn't use the term "game" in comparison to a simulated Katana. I do have an RV background, as I built and own a 6 with a C/S prop. It has a much better climb rate & cruise speed than a Katana. I'd never be happy with a real life Katana. As for simulating systems, maintenance, & repair...............a desktop sim doesn't even get close to what's really involved. Therefor, it's not something I feel is that important. As a owner/builder........I do my own yearly condition inspections. I do think that the sim Katana would be just fine, for flying here and there............but I certainly don't get the "game" reference as a comparison.

 

L.Adamson

The Katana and the RV-7/7A are really designed for two very different missions. The emphasis in the Katana’s design is economy, safety, and instruction. There’s a good chance if you’re in training or planning on it, you’ll fly a Katana. And that’s an important reason to have a great one in your sim. The RV’s design is about economy of construction, safety, and performance (both fast and slow). You won’t find an RV-7 at a local flight school to fly; the landing gear is not designed for abuse, and the combination of low-stall with high-cruise makes maneuvering speed a bit too critical. It’s not for training. But if you intend to own an aircraft someday an RV makes an awesome candidate. In my eyes they're not in the same category...but both hardcore GA add-ons.

 

The mission of the project itself, is to convince you to build an RV ;) I’m not serious, but for me personally it has been about considering building. And in a way it allows you to entertain the idea too for a while. There’s so much more to learn about aviation through exploring design and building. IMO the study is time well spent and makes a more informed pilot. For the RV selecting options is the beginning. That’s why there are four aircraft and as much as possible they are customizable. The other goal was to push the fidelity of the simulation…to give simmers the best impression of RV performance and give RV builders the best impression of FSX’s utility. There’s sort of a fractal-type relationship between fidelity and development. Taking something 10% further can take three times longer - often more. And as you add fidelity the target audience shrinks and focuses. For instance, the DF-II autopilot includes all its configuration-submenus and tuning-modes (a custom feedback controller too btw). It’s a component that would only appeal to a builder installing a real DF-II. Otherwise it’s an expensive little diversion, seldom used. In the thousands of hours that went into the total I readily explored every diversion I found. Like in the engine and prop (C/S drag) simulation. It was very meticulously worked and calibrated over several months. The goal, to show how an RV enters the pattern, and how poor its C/S engine-out performance is. About the value, making it a commercial add-on helps mitigate some of the cost, but likely not all. On BTS scale FS development is a great and satisfying hobby but not an investment or business :)

Danny

 

That's fine and as said depends on what you're looking for. If you want a 'game' and go fast, than the RV or Duke are fine. If you want a sim, they are worth less because they simply don't simulate properly.

 

FSX is not a maintenance simulator, nor an engineering simulator. It's a flight simulator. Both Dukes are designed with two things in mind, gauges and cockpits that function for flying as well as possible, and a flight model which is as close as we can get to the feel of a real aircraft, for which they have both received many awards. Most pilots never do any maintenance on aircraft, since for example fixing a broken elevator is beyond their skill and so too are engine and electrical servicing beyond daily checkups and maintenance. Your comparisons are similar to comparing for example a soccer simulator to a soccer management game.

 

It's great to have both and if some developers have achieved that then they've done well. We focus on what the pilot wants. You've now made your opinions clear over many many posts and you are beginning to repeat yourself in a way that hints you have some agenda. I very rarely express this and keep out of opinion based posts, but in your case I feel you are pummeling your point to death, in this and other threads. In other threads you pulled apart our Turbine Duke, but you are not a customer and you did not purchase it but described how you tried out "a friend's" copy. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and by now you have expressed it, repeatedly.

FSX is not a maintenance simulator, nor an engineering simulator. It's a flight simulator. Both Dukes are designed with two things in mind, gauges and cockpits that function for flying as well as possible, and a flight model which is as close as we can get to the feel of a real aircraft. Most pilots never do any maintenance on aircraft, since for example fixing a broken elevator is beyond their skill and so to are engine and electrical servicing beyond daily checkups and maintenance. Your comparisons are similar to comparing for example a soccer simulator to a soccer management game.

 

It's great to have both and if some developers have achieved that then they've done well. We focus on what the pilot wants. You've now made your opinions clear over many many posts and you are beginning to repeat yourself in a way that hints you have some agenda. I very rarely express this and keep out of opinion based posts, but in your case I feel you are pummeling your point to death, in this and other threads. In other threads you pulled apart our Turbine Duke, but you are not a customer and you did not purchase it but described how you tried out "a friend's" copy. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and you have expressed it, repeatedly.

 

I don't think it's about maintenance, it is about facing the consequences of bad flying habits, which have to be in a simulator. If I drop my flaps when I'm going too fast, because I miscalculated my approach, the servos should jam. If I land my A/C hard on the runway my landing gear structure should have a chance of suffering a structural damage. If I overstress my flight controls the same should happen.

The Katana it's not about doing the actual maintenance, cause clicking a button doesn't make you an engineer, but it's about asking your fellow mechanic to do some checks on your aircraft and tell you if there is something wrong with it.

 

I personally think that a plane without a damage and wear model won't be ever a complete simulator, cause it would be missing a big part of flying an airplane: the care a pilot should have in using systems properly and efficiently not to bring any harm to his machine.

 

It's something that has always been a show stopper to me: going through long checks, knowing that they are useless, cause you can just start everything up and fly however you want since there is no issue with the plane and will never be.

I don't think it's about maintenance, it is about facing the consequences of bad flying habits, which have to be in a simulator. If I drop my flaps when I'm going too fast, because I miscalculated my approach, the servos should jam. If I land my A/C hard on the runway my landing gear structure should have a chance of suffering a structural damage. If I overstress my flight controls the same should happen.

The Katana it's not about doing the actual maintenance, cause clicking a button doesn't make you an engineer, but it's about asking your fellow mechanic to do some checks on your aircraft and tell you if there is something wrong with it.

 

I personally think that a plane without a damage and wear model won't be ever a complete simulator, cause it would be missing a big part of flying an airplane: the care a pilot should have in using systems properly and efficiently not to bring any harm to his machine.

 

It's something that has always been a show stopper to me: going through long checks, knowing that they are useless, cause you can just start everything up and fly however you want since there is no issue with the plane and will never be.

 

Fair points. Both Dukes, and particularly the Turbine version, have failure modes for engine and temperature. As far back as eight years ago our Spitfire for FS2004 had engine failure modes which at the time was a first for any GA/military FS aircraft. All our aircraft since then have had the ability to belly land with appropriate reaction if you forget to deploy the landing gear. FSX is quite limited in what it can offer in maintenance themes without a lot of extra non standard programming. We put most of our available time into the primary function: Flying.

Fair points. Both Dukes, and particularly the Turbine version, have failure modes for engine and temperature. As far back as eight years ago our Spitfire for FS2004 had engine failure modes which at the time was a first for any GA/military FS aircraft. All our aircraft since then have had the ability to belly land with appropriate reaction if you forget to deploy the landing gear. FSX is quite limited in what it can offer in maintenance themes without a lot of extra non standard programming. We put most of our available time into the primary function: Flying.

 

And that's probabily fine for most people. Also, as someone pointed out, you might be thinking about renting the airplane rather than owning it. Still, I think that adding flight controls damage model, hydraulic systems and structural damage, eletrical issues, especially random ones related to actual statistics (quirks and problems of the real A/C) would be nice and very welcome additions to any product.

 

And if you pretend that you are renting the A/C, your wallet might get a lot lighter if you don't do things right. ;)

 

P.S.: if I could have your Turbine Duke with an Accu-Sim addition I'd buy it hands down.

Hi

I keep returning to fly the Duke again and again - I particularly like the Turbine Duke for all the qualities referred to by others in previous posts although the piston engined version is great to fly too. My second choice would be the Flight 1 Britten-Norman Islander. I don't have experience of the Katana for FSX although I do like flying the FS9 version and I would imagine the FSX version is even better.

Bill

I personally think that a plane without a damage and wear model won't be ever a complete simulator, cause it would be missing a big part of flying an airplane: the care a pilot should have in using systems properly and efficiently not to bring any harm to his machine.

 

It's something that has always been a show stopper to me: going through long checks, knowing that they are useless, cause you can just start everything up and fly however you want since there is no issue with the plane and will never be.

 

We're just going to have to add a lot more to it then. First, we'll "load" the Saturday night "hangar" simulator. This is where you simulate going to the airport & plug in the heater, because it's going to be less than 40 degrees overnight. We don't want too cold of oil, for the Sunday morning brunch flight. While we're at it, we might as well grab the air tank and roll the plane back & forth to find those tire fittings thru those little 1" holes in the wheel pants for the air hose. Need to grab a simulated flashlight, that lights up 3D surfaces, because I can't see the fitting. And,.... we need to do all three tires. Watch out for the grease on the floor, in case it's simulated. While we're still here at the hopefully fully simulated hangar...; lets do a few more checks. It's been a week or so, since the last flight, so flip on the master switch. If it's below 11 volts, which apparently it is, then pull out the battery charger. With the particular simulated battery that we have, we need the old charger, that can pump out at least 14.5 volts. Otherwise, this battery just won't charge. Looks like it's going to be at least an hour for the charge, so we might as well clean the simulate bugs off the leading edge of the wing. Should have done it after last weeks flight. Make sure the programmer, got those simulated bugs to add drag..... as it just wouldn't be right without it. Just remember to grab the "Boeing" spec cleaning fluid. Grab the wrong one, and we'll have to simulate corroding aluminum panels.

 

And don't forget, next week..........we'll change the simulated oil, pull and clean the oil screen in the crankcase, torque the prop bolts, and reset both magnetos. I just hope the simulated oil, was of the proper viscosity during our engine break-in; otherwise we'll have to simulate disassembly, to hone the glaze off the cylinders, and replace the rings. Just put in six quarts to start with. Otherwise, we need to simulate blowing two quarts out of the breather hose...

Don't forget simulating having a sneaky whiff of the oxygen from someone else's tank in order to clear that Sunday morning hangover. Then also simulating dollying four other aircraft out of the way to get to yours because it was at the back of the hangar. Not forgetting wiping the wings and the canopy with a sponge to get the simulated bird crap off them, from the simulated sparrows nesting in the roof of the hangar. And my personal favourite, simulating leaning down into the floor of the cockpit and simulating trapping your finger in the release lug when adjusting the rudder pedals because some midget was flying it the day before, and the rudder pedals are now 2 millimetres away from the seat, which of course is covered in simulated clods of mud and bits of grass.

 

Al

I own an RV Myself, if you really want to simulate maintenance, there should be a check-writing panel.

I own an RV Myself, if you really want to simulate maintenance, there should be a check-writing panel.

 

Yes, and as RV owners, we need to simulate getting under a slider canopy panel. I usually take two pillows...

We're just going to have to add a lot more to it then. First, we'll "load" the Saturday night "hangar" simulator.

 

So instead let's fly our perfectly simulated plane which can drop flaps at Vne, can run a radial engine right after start without any warming up, can land on any terrain with tiny wheels and can pull as many G it wants without being affected.

 

Again, maintenance is not the point. It's nice to have it on small planes, but the main issue is having the aircraft to react to overstress (of course, FSX's default damage is pretty limited and I don't even consider it), bad management or just plain bad flying.

 

A2A's success has demonstrated that people want and like complex engine management, wear and tear, realistic systems and failures.

Good point on the A2A titles. I'd love to see more of those, hopefully in the normal GA spheres. As for the Katana, it's a benchmark when it comes to those features and the corresponding consequences. Gives you, in my eyes, a totally different way of interacting with the sim.

 

Not that throttle and forget style, but that 'I hope I did everything right' one, together with some sort of luck on e.g. the items which can fail, even if you treat them right. And for the folks not looking for those things or just not today, you can turn it off. Perfect solution.

 

By the way, dmaher, great post and video there.