Guilty pleasures?

[jetsflier 87]

CLS A330/A340. I use it solely on flights longer than 8 hours and when I have to do such a long flight I don't want to spend time programming an FMC at the start or doing tedious cockpit checks like I would on shorter flights (2-6 hours)

[Q_flyer 766]

Really good thread OP!

 

There should be more like this (light hearted and not opinionated!).

 

My guilty pleasure (as a complex airliner fan), is definitely the Just Flight DC-6!

 

:smile:

[pilottj 198]

One thing to remember, Accusim or extreme realism doesn't have to mean 'harder'.  I find the P-40 quite easy to fly.  I think that's just because I am used to it but you can become proficient in any airplane and it will seem 'easy' after some time.   It is easier to get proficient in highly realistic airplanes too, because they provide immersive feedback that others don't, that you as a pilot learn to recognize.

 

That being said, there are lots of non realistic airplanes I enjoy.  I do enjoy the carenados from time to time, particularly their Piper Archer.  For some reason I just enjoy using it for a basic IFR refresher.  I know the flight modeling and systems aren't great, but I find it enjoyable, more so than their 172.  I know I probably wont fly it after A2A comes out with their Cherokee series

 

I also enjoy Alabeo's Waco YMF a lot.  Again, not particularly deep systems but open cockpit biplanes are very fun.  I used to fly and enjoy Golden Age Sims old Waco biplanes a lot before I switched to DX10.

 

Bill at Lionheart is a really good guy, and a fellow Sci Fi geek, so I like to support him and buy his airplanes.  They aren't exactly accusim but they are very fun to fly.

[Alan_A 1,650]

 

 

My guilty pleasure (as a complex airliner fan), is definitely the Just Flight DC-6!

 

Thanks, Q400 - I agree it's nice to have a non-combat thread or two in play.  And it's nice to know there's another (at least occasional) Just Flight transport pilot out there!

 

 

One thing to remember, Accusim or extreme realism doesn't have to mean 'harder'.  I find the P-40 quite easy to fly.  I think that's just because I am used to it but you can become proficient in any airplane and it will seem 'easy' after some time.   It is easier to get proficient in highly realistic airplanes too, because they provide immersive feedback that others don't, that you as a pilot learn to recognize.

 

Interesting point.  I've found that the Dodosim Bell 206 is easier to fly with full realism set than in its lighter modes - yes, it's a challenge, and there's more going on, but a more complex flight model seems to allow for more control, once you get the hang of it...

 

I have to confess that, much as I'm an A2A fan, I've avoided their single-seat warbirds after the P-47 - which is wonderful, but I found I didn't enjoy flying an aircraft that you need to stay on top of all the time.  I've been happier with their B-17, which doesn't feel like it's planning to kill you every minute of the flight.  But maybe I ought to give the P-40 a try.

 

When I opt for, say, the Just Flight DC-3 over the B-17, it's not because I want a less realistic flight model - it's because I don't want to spend all that time on procedures.

 

The problem is that the aircraft that are more complex procedurally are often better fliers, too, because the care that goes into the systems also goes into the FDE.  And of course the systems themselves are better worked out, and that can make for a better experience.  I like the idea of the Quality Wings 757 but its route-following has always been quirky for me, in contrast to, say, the NGX.  So it can be a challenge to find something light that also flies in a satisfying way.

 

 

I do enjoy the carenados from time to time, particularly their Piper Archer.  For some reason I just enjoy using it for a basic IFR refresher. 

 

Another point to consider - in a formal training curriculum, you might isolate on just one subject at a time - working, say, on instrument procedures and, while you're doing that, not worrying about systems so much.  So a sim aircraft that does one thing well can be worthwhile from that point of view.

[pilottj 198]

Alan, I wouldn't worry about the fighters trying to kill you. You have to remember that these planes were designed for the rigors of air combat and thus are very rugged. They operated out of desert and jungle airstrips. These fighters were also flown by proverbial 'kids' during the war, so they had to have a certain simplicity to them. The AT-6 was supposedly a bit more difficult to fly than a P-51

The P-47 is by far the most complex of all the A2A fighters. If you can handle the P-47, the others are easy. The Spitfire pretty simple and straight forward, you just have to watch the engine temps like you do in the B-17. Just be mindful when operating during warm days, but once in the air, the Spitfire is really a wonderful flyer.

The P-40 is like an old stick shift jeep, it is very rugged and 'manual' but once you get the hang of it, it is easy to fly. I took the P-40 out of Alice Springs during the middle of Australia's summer. I even forgot to lower the cowl flaps for takeoff. The warning light came on, so I immediately opened the cowl flaps, reduced power and lowered the nose...the light went away as temps returned to normal. Inspecting the engine later, there were no problems. The Allison V-1710 is a very rugged engine.

The P-51 is very automated by comparison. All you have to really do is fly it. The Civil P-51 is excellent mix, having the excitement of flying a powerful WW2 fighter, but also having an excellent GA platform for doing GA type stuff.

 

All these airplanes will keep you on your toes, but they wont blow up if you breath wrong. They actually allow you to get away with quite a bit, and they end up teaching you why you should or shouldn't do something. That being said any good pilot should be on his/her toes even in a 172.

The chances of these planes 'biting you' is more relative to how you fly it.  If you fly the plane on the edge of it's performance envelope, the plane will more likely get you.  If you fly within the normal operating ranges such as with speeds and power settings, these planes will be fine, just like any real airplane.

Cheers
TJ

[Alan_A 1,650]

I'll have to check them out (actually I've known that for a while, I've just been putting it off...)  The challenge for me with the P-47 was all the juggling - managing the engine (my intro to that task), managing all the weight, and managing the limited visibility, especially on approach and landing.  But it sounds like the others aren't as much of a struggle.  And I do need to add a couple more high-demand aircraft.  They're a good experience in themselves... and they'll make me appreciate the "light" aircraft all the more... for their lightness...  B)

[Boeing or not going 578]

I have a pretty small hanger and not that much flying time. But I guess the Carenado C208 fits the bill, it doesn't have deep system modeling but once I slapped Reality XP gps and gauges, and the updated FDE, it flies great!

[ClearedtoLand 149]

Captain Sim C130 Hercules.

 

I recently spent a lot of time downloading scenery files for various parts of Africa and the Mediterranean. I find that the Hercules is a nice aircraft from which to explore the new scenery files at low speeds and altitudes without necessarily planning on going anywhere. Get in and go and why not just land next to the pyramids because you can.

[metalmike 34]

Although I haven't flown them lately, I still think some of CLS's stuff are quite good, considering they do advertise as "lite" products. You can beef them up a bit with ISG gauges/FMC and TSS sound packs. I used to fly their MD80 and 767 and still think highly of them, even though I've moved onto PMDG, iFly, Level-D, etc.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

I've found that the Dodosim Bell 206 is easier to fly with full realism set than in its lighter modes - yes, it's a challenge, and there's more going on, but a more complex flight model seems to allow for more control, once you get the hang of it...

 

Having recently been hooked by it, I've decided to torture myself by leaning to fly it at full realism... Starting to get pretty rewarding, but wow... I'm not sure if any other aircraft in FS has ever immersed me to the same extent by virtue of demanding my complete and utter attention!

 

It occurs to me that this probably illustrates a guilty pleasure that I am indeed guilty of - the ability to place yourself in a (simulated) situation where you end up flying whatever you wish without any consequence, financial or otherwise.  Flying something like the dodosim hammers this home pretty harshly.

[Alan_A 1,650]

It's taken me about a year and a half of constant practice but I'm finally starting to get on top of the Dodo.  This helped (and serves as a token of how hard I've been bitten by the helo bug).  And so did this advice, which was different from anything else I've read and provided me with sort of a breakthrough.  Agree that there's nothing quite as involving, every second you're in the air, as a helicopter.

 

Funny thing is, I've never thought of the Dodo as my private ride.  Actually I went the opposite way - when it finally dawned on me (post-financial crisis) that I'd likely never own an airplane, it freed me up to try airplanes that were totally outside of the ownership experience, like turbine helos and airliners and such.  Before then my simming was always focused on what my private airplane was going to be when I had one.  

 

Using that line of reasoning, I suppose a Cirrus or a Jetprop would be a guilty pleasure for me now...