Point taken, Alan. On the oil. But that wear and 'treat your engine/plane right' thingy is interesting, not? I had some stuck flaps on the Do-27 lately. That A2A 'FO' tells me not to pivot the tires. If I do too much, the tire himself speaks, very short.

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

 

Don't have it... but I do have their P31T Cheyenne - really graphically dated but excellent FDE and engine management... I can't remember if it has some maintenance module or not...

 

For Cub A2A with accusim is fine or I like the little Super Cub from Flight Replicas (faster than A2a's offering)

http://www.flight-replicas.com/SuperCub_basepage.htm

Point taken, Alan. On the oil. But that wear and 'treat your engine/plane right' thingy is interesting, not? I had some stuck flaps on the Do-27 lately. That A2A 'FO' tells me not to pivot the tires. If I do too much, the tire himself speaks, very short.

 

Well yeah, there is that which can certainly make things more fun. I had the hydraulics go out on the J-31 Jetstream this afternoon and had to land without flaps and with dodgy brakes, and there was a thunderstorm rolling in as well LOL, that was certainly entertaining, got a screenie of it too, god bless beta mode eh?

 

 

Al

That super cub looks really nice. I think I'll actually go for the Do-27, little bigger and faster.

 

Lee

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...

 

Marcel is working on a Pilatus Porter. Or is that one too big for you?

@ Chock; I really think the 'maintenance' thing splits the community; however I'd argue (with no backing whatsoever!) that you're probably in the minority in terms of it being of little interest to you. Topping up my car's oil bores me too, but topping up oil and maintaining my own aircraft in the real world certainly would not bore me. I have an Aviation film (from Simmarket) of an Estonian flying club where they start the vid with the guy re-fuelling, checking oil, checking water in fuel etc, on his Piper PA28R-200 Arrow... and I certainly don't fast forward that part to get straight to the flying. In fact it's one of the most fascinating parts of the vid.

 

We're all different and I'm guessing from your posts that flying fidelity is probably a lot more important to you; it is to me too and probably most, but do not dismiss the 'peripheral' aspects of flight simulation that many of us do enjoy. After all, it's all part and parcel of aviation.

 

I also want to thank Rob Young for taking the time to give the background on the phenomenal advances that have been part of the RealAir releases for some years now. Talk about flying fidelity! .... nothing beats RealAir in this regard. B)

 

I also agree with Rob on the outdated bureaucracy around aircraft certification et al. The "thems the rules" piece frustrates me because that attitude holds the world back and just serves to feed egos.... but that's probably for a philoshopy or psychology debate! ............. certainly it is mad to me that a 40 years old rusting spam can, can be IFR certified, whereas state of the art aircraft with better avionics just cannot achieve that.

 

Mind you it can go in the non-certified aircraft's favour. Just look at all the low cost GA autopilot systems, like these :- http://proviationsho...param=cid%3D%26 that can only be fitted to 'experimental' non-certified aircraft, for example. I occasionally fly right seat in a Tecnam with an avionics stack that most C172s would die for ........... all VFR of course.

 

 

Marcel is working on a Pilatus Porter. Or is that one too big for you?

 

That would be perfect, any place I can more info?

 

Lee

Here:

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/45239-whats-next/

I dream that someone will release a fully featured Pilatus PC-12, either with the new full digital displays or the original design. The Flight1 is showing its age and has little system modeling.

certainly it is mad to me that a 40 years old rusting spam can, can be IFR certified, whereas state of the art aircraft with better avionics just cannot achieve that.

 

That's not down to the rules, there are two tangible differences, i.e. it is down to the avionics fit and its ability to withstand a lightning strike, better avionics speaks for itself, that picture I posted of the ASK-21 in bits does the rest of the talking. If there are no static wicks and no conductive strips on a composite aeroplane, it would be massively damaged by a lighting strike, that hypothetical old Cessna, by virtue of being alloy, does most of that simply because it is alloy, but even then it still has some augmentations to it in that regard. You can see how necessary these measures are by simply by looking at an airliner, without exception, their composite nose radomes all have conductive strips to channel lightning strikes into the metal outer skin, and the makers do not do that for fun.

 

Al

Here:

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/45239-whats-next/

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Something there brought up a good point. When you fly in real life in small aircraft, your moving more,either up or down because of updrafts etc. Is there something like this for fsx? When we're flying light planes it seems pretty smooth in fsx. Maybe an idea for an accu-feel update. Because I don't think air pockets and stuff are modeled in fsx right? In rl even if your ADI is level your vertical speed won't always be zero, at least in small planes.

 

Lee

Thanks for the link.

 

Something there brought up a good point. When you fly in real life in small aircraft, your moving more,either up or down because of updrafts etc. Is there something like this for fsx?

 

CumulusX. Or Active Sky can do it too. The fact that you need an add-on to do it easily is one of the worst things about FSX's air mass and weather modeling system.

 

Al

CumulusX looks very nice though

 

Thanks! Lee

Thanks for the link.

 

Something there brought up a good point. When you fly in real life in small aircraft, your moving more,either up or down because of updrafts etc. Is there something like this for fsx? When we're flying light planes it seems pretty smooth in fsx. Maybe an idea for an accu-feel update. Because I don't think air pockets and stuff are modeled in fsx right? In rl even if your ADI is level your vertical speed won't always be zero, at least in small planes.

 

Lee

 

There are many, many times in small aircraft..............where it appears as though you're hardly moving. And I'm often close to 200 mph at the time. My wife has often commented on the phenomenon. And then off course, there is the "mid" afternoon constant, or near constant turbulence, and those occasional strong up/down drafts. I prefer the real life smoooth stuff, and that includes flying over a lot of mountain area. FSX can do a decent job of simulating turbulence, if you set it. Also happens with (FSX) real weather. Keep in mind, that my real life aircraft is a Vans RV6A. That's pretty small, with a short 23' wingspan. When it gets bumpy, it gets bumpy!

 

I never agree with the "on rails" comments about FSX, and when I see a sim plane jerking around all the time, even if it's just tail wag, then I know it's not realistic either. I also care less to do simulated airplane "maintenance". I've spent many real life years doing that. Put me on the no list for maintenence. Simulated and real, just isn't the same.

............ Simulated and real, just isn't the same.

 

Agreed, of course they're not. But not all are privileged to have flown a single nautical mile in real life. And the simulation of any aspect of aviation is subjective. Simulating a 'APU Master ON' procedure from a SOP manual, by reaching up into thin air, flicking an imaginary switch and calling "APU Master Switch ON" is a simulation if it serves to draw a parallel to the real activity. If the simulation of maintenance actions on a small GA aircraft provides people who have not the ability or desire to experience the real thing a semblance of (virtual) reality, then those maintenance aspects are relevant to a flight sim product.

 

Now, simulating getting up at 03:30 to get to Heathrow to take on a red eye flight, that's something I don't wanna do! ..... but joking apart, some people get enjoyment from sitting in front of a long-hauler for 10+ hours.

 

There are so many different interpretations of this fascinating hobby.