Can you expand on this? It doesn't make any sense. Cirrus is composite (I used to build them), and they are certified for IFR flight...

 

Qualified IFR aircraft have long been subject to rules which simply do not make sense, and I suspect this is partly due to inertia amongst the fat controllers of what constitutes a qualified aircraft, plus a bit of shady dealing, plus ludicrously outdated beaurocracy of the kind that is epidemic in FAA and CAA circles. You can fly IFR in a plastic aeroplane that doesn't have "official" IFR blessing, but you have to simultaneously be flying VFR rules.

 

You can fly a beaten up old crock of a dying aeroplane that has just about got through its annual and still fly IFR rules, merely because it is deemed to have the right structural "qualities", even though it might be a rusted hulk. Conversely you could be piloting a state-of-the-art GA aircraft with every Navaid available but you still have to be in VFR conditions. The whole system is nuts.

 

Theoretically, as I understand it, as long as you have a transponder, and an aircraft with an "approved" structure, you could probably fly IFR rules with just an airspeed gauge, a compass, a radio and an artificial horizon, in some countries, but that might make your journey somewhat stressful.

 

The lightning restrictions are as crazy as the other restrictions, since easily the most pressing matter is whether the pilot is competent enough, rather than the equipment.

Qualified IFR aircraft have long been subject to rules which simply do not make sense, and I suspect this is partly due to inertia amongst the fat controllers of what constitutes a qualified aircraft, plus a bit of shady dealing, plus ludicrously outdated beaurocracy of the kind that is epidemic in FAA and CAA circles. You can fly IFR in a plastic aeroplane that doesn't have "official" IFR blessing, but you have to simultaneously be flying VFR rules.

 

You can fly a beaten up old crock of a dying aeroplane that has just about got through its annual and still fly IFR rules, merely because it is deemed to have the right structural "qualities", even though it might be a rusted hulk. Conversely you could be piloting a state-of-the-art GA aircraft with every Navaid available but you still have to be in VFR conditions. The whole system is nuts.

 

Theoretically, as I understand it, as long as you have a transponder, and an aircraft with an "approved" structure, you could probably fly IFR rules with just an airspeed gauge, a compass, a radio and an artificial horizon, in some countries, but that might make your journey somewhat stressful.

 

The lightning restrictions are as crazy as the other restrictions, since easily the most pressing matter is whether the pilot is competent enough, rather than the equipment.

 

Thanks for the info

 

From Wikipedia: "Although the DA20 is available with instrumentation and avionics suitable for flight under instrument flight rules (IFR), its plastic airframe lacks lightning protection and thus does not qualify for IFR certification.^[2]"

 

^{Apparently though, composite aircraft can be modified to have lightning strike protection. Perhaps that is the case with the Cirrus?}

 

Thanks for the info... yes the Cirrus had lightning strips built into the fibreglass. Still I find it a little odd about the rule... a VFR plane can fly next to a thunderstorm and get struck lol

Yes, but theoretically an aircraft that is intended for VFR is supposedly meant to stay well clear of that stuff. We all know that's nonsense, but thems the rules, and whilst that beat up old metal aeroplane might be a bit rough, it probably won't explode when it gets struck by lightning, unlike a GRP one with a foam core and no lightning protection, which very possibly will.

 

Pic of the ASK-21 mentioned in my preceding post, on this occasion it was reckoned that rapid expansion of the ballast tank in the starboard wing was largely to blame:

 

 

Al

The best in my opinion when it comes to the overall package:

 

RealAir Duke (both versions, phenomenal FDE)

Milviz C310 (incredible FDE as well, but falls a little short of the Duke because of no native RXP GPS integration)

A2A Accusim Piper Cub (awesome yet very slow, VFR only)

Aerosoft Katana (native RXP GPS integration, rivals Accusim features, awesome visuals, not IFR certified, a little slow)

 

To this excellent list, I would add the BayTower RV7 - native RXP integration, awesome visuals, great FDE. And a ton of fun to fly!

To this excellent list, I would add the BayTower RV7 - native RXP integration, awesome visuals, great FDE. And a ton of fun to fly!

What! Has no-one mentioned the RV7 until now? Outrageous! Actually, I'm torn between thinking everyone should have one and wanting it to be available to only a select few.

That Duke sounds like something not to be missed. Yes, i do value being able to do a slip. I learned to do this in RL and have always tried to replicate in FSX to no effect. Thank you for covering all the innovations in such detail.

 

And my RealAir Marchetti SF260 has been doing slips with perfection for years. Great rudder control too!

I already have the Duke. Is there something like the Katana but with more seats? Maybe a 4 seater?

 

Thanks kee

Not that I know of...with that maintenance module thing...

 

I'd check out the T182T G1000 from Flight1 if you've got a strong system. It's excellent for IFR.

 

Secretly I wish Marcel did a Diamond Star instead of a Katana hehe...

Is there something like the Katana but with more seats? Maybe a 4 seater

 

Yup, the Diamond Star DA-40 is the Katana's four-seater big sister, there are a couple of payware ones for FSX, I have the IRIS one, which is pretty nice, as is their Twin Star, but it has none of that servicing malarkey.

 

Al

Yeah, I would like the 182T. I have the Mustang. I want to get a saitek TPM for my ga flying. Looking for one at $100 or less, to see what I get. :)

 

Lee

 

 

 

Yup, the Diamond Star DA-40 is the Katana's four-seater big sister, there are a couple of payware ones for FSX, I have the IRIS one, which is pretty nice, but it has none of that servicing malakey.

 

Al

 

Thanks Al but I meant the systems, and the little extras the Katana gives.

 

Lee

Nope, but I'll bet you fifty quid A2A come up with some kind of add-on for any aircraft that will do it. AccuService ™ (just in case) or some affair like that.

 

In case they do, you saw these names here first...

 

AccuTBO ™

AccuHangar ™

AccuSpanner ™ Brit version

AccuWrench ™ US version

AccuThreeYearlyStripdown ™ Airliner version (incorporating AccuMEL)

AccuTireKicker ™ Dodgy airfield version

 

Al

Haha maybe Al. That would be good.

 

I remember one other addon having the same thing as the katana in terms of upkeep .Anybody know or am I mistaken?

 

What are opinions on the DA Do-27? Also is there a high quality Super Cub or something similar?

 

Lee

THe Aerosoft H36 Dimona has some stuff a bit like that, for example, it saves the fuel tankage and all the circuit breakers work, but it's not quite a maintenance module in the sense that A2A's AccuSim stuff (which includes the Piper J-3 Cub, but not a Super Cub) and the Aerosoft Katana have them. The Aeroworx FS9 B200 had some of that stuff as well.

 

Al

When it comes to the maintenance items, that airfield has a lot of parking space left. Good ol' Do-27 is doing fine on the features, but surely shows her age. Depends on the price, I'd say. I'm happy to have her while the Katana or later A2A releases of course blow her out of the water.

Up for speculation why the features don't come with more planes these days? Aerosoft of course partially implements some, which is nice. Examples given by Alan or as seen on the latest Bronco with the engine hours and wear.

 

But that's about it for the most part, the rest is still enjoyable aeroplane sim work, but lacks those little extras. Maybe the customer's interest isn't as high as expected or the dev costs are blowing up too soon. I don't know.

I think that the problem with all that maintenance stuff is that in actual flight simming terms, it is a diversion rather than an advance. Sure it is a nice feature flag to wave on a sales web page, but really, can you be arsed topping up the oil on a simulated aeroplane when you don't have to? It is enough of a pain in the arse having to do that with my car, I don't really want to have to do it for entertainment as well.

 

Al