What kind of GA pilot are you?

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

I started to plan a bit on the ferry flights stuff for the ga planes. So e.g. pffft (wait, that's PFPX) comes in handy and then I take literally everything I have to jump over the Atlantic. Includes trying to divert to the Faroe Islands (great freeware by the way) and, later, feeling like a master of bad weather landings. :lol:

 

Hey Bert,

 

I've been thinking about getting PFPX but I haven't seen profiles for a number of my planes including the Dukes.  Are they hard to create?  While I don't think I need it for the US very much, I think it would be very useful for everywhere else in the world.

 

Gregg

[1mikel151 71]

I prefer VFR with real weather when I can and 90% of my flying time is with rotary flight, I have most payware helis and like short hops, usually with detailed scenery, usually photoreal with autogen and since I design scenery I have lots of flight situation sceneries for my flights, like border patrol flights, news reporting, accident/EMS/SAR, island/resort tours, supply dropoff, etc. I also do lots of military flying and carrier ops, love getting the C-130 into small desert strips to resupply troops.

[pilottj 198]

Gregg_Seipp, on 29 Sept 2013 - 1:40 PM, said:Gregg_Seipp, on 29 Sept 2013 - 1:40 PM, said:

Lately, I'm flying the Dukes and the Flight1 Mustang on one hour flights.  While they're considered high altitude aircraft, generally fly them low...7000-14000 to enjoy the scenery and get IMC practice.  90% of my flying is by hand, even when I do go up high.  I have been looking for a high quality 4-6 passenger GA single (not Carenado) with some performance.

 

You might look at the Classic Hangar's BF-108.  It is a vintage German 4 seater that will cruise around 130-140kts.  Great STOL abilities, beautiful VC, its like sitting in a vintage Mercedes.  It does require a little understanding of German systems, but they aren't so hard once you get used to them.   There is no magenta line or 'official' autopilot, however it can comfortably operate in IMC conditions.

 

 

Thanks for the responses guys.  I think folks used to the airline scene think GA scene mostly involves putzing around in Cessnas.  GA is so diverse, comparing a Duke to a 172 is like comparing a chainsaw to a skillsaw.  They are different tools.   'What kind of woodworker are you?'  I am a lumberjack or a carpenter, but we both use saws.   What kind of GA pilot are you?

[simmerhead 885]

I prefer VFR with real weather when I can and 90% of my flying time is with rotary flight, I have most payware helis and like short hops, usually with detailed scenery, usually photoreal with autogen and since I design scenery I have lots of flight situation sceneries for my flights, like border patrol flights, news reporting, accident/EMS/SAR, island/resort tours, supply dropoff, etc. I also do lots of military flying and carrier ops, love getting the C-130 into small desert strips to resupply troops.

 

Cool! What chopper do you like the best? Haven't got any in my hangar (apart from default), so I'd be interested in getting a good one!

[CoolP 283]

Hey Bert,

Mind you that I'm not Bert, Greg. I wish I was though, would mean I'm talented and friendly instead of.. me. :mellow: ^_^ I'm just praising his work for the Carenado and RXP crowd.

 

As for PFPX, there already are profiles for a TBM and KA200, also a PC-12 or SR22 Turbo. Adding new ones is possible too, although I haven't checked that out yet. My assumption would be that if one has access to the POH for a plane, the addition of a profile should work fine if the syntax of the profiles is clear.

 

Well, for planes without much data in the books (Duke T for example), one might be able to directly use the sim derived values. But that's an assumption of mine and, when looking at the profile detail, might at least include some precise flying in standard conditions and some careful measurement.

 

But one already gets precise and valid routes out of PFPX (codename 'pffft'), so that's a win. Same goes for the nice maps on the winds an things or the alternate planning.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

Mind you that I'm not Bert, Greg. I wish I was though, would mean I'm talented and friendly instead of.. me. :mellow: ^_^ I'm just praising his work for the Carenado and RXP crowd.

 

I guess I should have read the rest of your signature.  LOL.  Thanks for the info!

[CoolP 283]

And I missed a 'g' from your name.  :wacko:  See? We both need glasses. :lol:

[Spartan0536 49]

Favorite GA Aircraft...

 

Piston: RealAir Duke B60 V2.0

 

Turboprop: MilViz King Air 350i (still waiting on it, but it looks good so far!)

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

C-172 Carendo or A2A most times normally its 30nm to 50 nm long fligt twin cities or northern iowa in vfr conditions using vor, adf navigation and using just pen and paper to plan routes and notate landmarks stay low and low use rudders pedsls, yoke and strereo 3d. Feel, keep it basic its more enjoyable.

[1mikel151 71]

Cool! What chopper do you like the best? Haven't got any in my hangar (apart from default), so I'd be interested in getting a good one!

 

 

Really depends on what aspects are important to you. When it comes to FS helis, there isn't a whole lot of difference when it comes to airfiles like there is with fixed wing. The DoDosim bell 206 is in a league of it's own when it comes to flight dynamics, but the visuals are really bad and outdated. Next on the list for any type of complexity would be the ones from CERAsim and they usually have pretty good cold start scenarios and slightly more in depth systems than Nemeth. Visually and selection wise, Nemeth helis are great. I don't care for the Aerosoft Huey for the visuals and their wonky airfile.

 

For me, visuals and immersion are important. I love the MilViz/Nemeth A109 and the Huey, with the Huey getting lots of airtime. The last few weeks i have spent entirely in the new CERAsim Blackhawk, great visuals/details and very easy on the framerates. Then comes the Nemeth AS-355, but the airfile is twitchy and a handful..

 

as for flying FS helis, if you can master the default 206, you shouldn't have any problem with any others.

[simmerhead 885]

as for flying FS helis, if you can master the default 206, you shouldn't have any problem with any others.

 

Thanks a lot Mike! Immersion is everything, and I can forgive lack of in depth features if the VA looks good and don't steal too many fps. I fly the 206 a lot and it's a blast buzzing treetops and rooftops with it. The Robinson is too slow, and that EH101 is just silly... Will seek out those you mentioned on youtube and see what gives me an itch.

[1mikel151 71]

Thanks a lot Mike! Immersion is everything, and I can forgive lack of in depth features if the VA looks good and don't steal too many fps. I fly the 206 a lot and it's a blast buzzing treetops and rooftops with it. The Robinson is too slow, and that EH101 is just silly... Will seek out those you mentioned on youtube and see what gives me an itch.

 

You'll probably like the Blackhawk then, the VC looks convincing and worn with lots of detail and performance is great. It also has cold and dark setup as well as just fly, best of both worlds. Great nightlighting also

 

As for buzzing treetops, one of the things I love is nap of the earth high speed flying in one of the Apaches (Area51 or Virtavia) thru photoreal mountains with convincing mesh.

[JB252 15]

No turbo props. Everything else is fair game.

[tttocs 301]

Great topic, TJ.  I think a lot of tube guys think GA automatically means low'n'slow, but you're right - it really means a lot of different things.  And we all sim for different purposes.

 

I'm a "right tool for the job - simulate real world flights" guy, with a preference for complex piston singles and twins, though I venture a bit into turbines with the JetProp (single) and Turbine Duke (twin).  I fly almost exclusively real world wx and prefer to fly each plane the way it would typically be flown IRL, with all the advantages and limits of each, as that's the fun and challenge for me.  I enjoy both IFR and VFR flight, but per the previous statement if I'm flying a Turbine, it's almost always going to be IFR and high, if flying something like the normally aspirated 337, it would be IFR only for training and/or in lower terrain, but If in the US mountain west with its high MEAs where I usually fly, it would be VFR only in many areas, using classic mountain flying techniques - flying the passes.  And so on.

 

Other than when doing pattern work or flight maneuver practice at and around a local airport, each flight is fully planned (I use a real-world GA tool - ForeFlight - these days for most flight planning) and all flights are conducted from parking, cold and dark with complete checklists.

 

I typically fly two, or at most three airplanes in a regular rotation so that I stay "current" in whatever I'm flying, occasionally moving one in and another out.  I do have a few other planes that sit outside my normal preferences, but I've discovered I don't enjoy them as much, so one or two in the hangar have a bit of dust on them.

 

I can imagine some simmers reading this and thinking - "man, doesn't that guy like to have any fun?", but these are the things that making simming fun to me.

 

Scott

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

The DoDosim bell 206 is in a league of it's own when it comes to flight dynamics, but the visuals are really bad and outdated.

 

I've found that unlike almost any other add-on in FSX / FS9, it's easier to ignore the outdated visuals in the 206 because you're too darn engaged in trying to actually control the thing.  As such, it's easily the most immersive add-on I have.  I actually made a hardware overhead switch panel for it so I can completely start from cold and dark and take off without having to look at the VC switches, that helps too.

 

---

 

I'm generally the type of person that sticks to one plane at a time, but mostly because I usually re-arrange my hardware controls to suit the plane I'm flying.  For example, since I'm engaged with the A2A C-172 right now, I have my yoke, switch panel, trim wheel and TPM unit all arranged in the most accurate possible position for a 172.  But now with the Duke 2.0 out, I'm tempted to rearrange to use the twin TQ's.  And after thinking about the 206, now I'm hankering to put away the yoke, clip on the modded joystick and throttle to my chair, hang the overhead panel and fly that... *sigh*.

 

That said, for the most part I'm low and slow when it comes to GA, mostly short VFR flights that I can complete within 1-1/2 to 2 hours including startup, taxiing and shutdown. Sometimes I go on a military kick, and fly stuff like Dino's F-14 exclusively, doing carrier ops and such.  My only foray into airline ops is the Q400 - unfortunately I find that as much as I enjoy that plane, I just don't have the time to do full on flight planning, start-up, FMC entry, etc and still have time for a decent flight.  As such, I rarely get into flying it.

 

I rarely take things outside of their realm - my military stuff stays military (although I have had some fun times with Dino's F-35 as a  bush plane!), my little bush planes stay in the bush, my bigger, faster GA stuff stays in locations where you would typically find such planes, that sort of thing.  In fact, I seldom like even flying something with the wrong registration for the region!!