Default 172 makes me sad.

[Old_As_Dirt 160]

For free try downloading the Eclipse 550.

 

It is a small jet and this eliminates the torque of the prop aircraft.

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=18661

 

With a few free mods, you can get the GNS430 operating and clear the "screeching" default brakes.

 

It has a 3D glass cockpit.

 

Also, you can cruise at about 340 knots.

 

John

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

For free try downloading the Eclipse 550.

 

It is a small jet and this eliminates the torque of the prop aircraft.

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=18661

 

With a few free mods, you can get the GNS430 operating and clear the "screeching" default brakes.

 

It has a 3D glass cockpit.

 

Also, you can cruise at about 340 knots.

 

John

How does one clear the screeching brakes?

[Old_As_Dirt 160]

You have to have a "non-screeching" aircraft and copy the "ground contact" file into the culprit file after erasing the  bad one.  Very easy.

 

Careful with copyrighted aircraft as the authors probably wouldn't like you copying their sound files.

 

John

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

Thank you!

[The_a350_Second_Officer 0]

I hear x-scenery's mu2 is pretty good http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/mitsubishi-marquise-p-29.html

[turner112 52]

Thanks everyone!

 

For what it's worth - I only own 1 payware twin - the MilViz C310 - but don't use twins much, because if I really get serious, they'll cost me an extra $150...

 

[jcomm 5,919]

Thanks everyone!

 

For what it's worth - I only own 1 payware twin - the MilViz C310 - but don't use twins much, because if I really get serious, they'll cost me an extra $150...

 

 

You are absolutely right! It's practically impractical to deal with a twin without a proper PQ .

[Old_As_Dirt 160]

Or two of these - I use this one.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Saitek-Three-Throttle-Quadrant-PZ45/dp/B000TCEU4Q/ref=sr_1_15?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1414677653&sr=1-15

 

John

[turner112 52]

 

 

Or two of these - I use this one.

 

Hi John - Not a bad idea! - I use that one now, but unfortunately, it's tied to a yoke I seldom use. Buying two would save me $50 and solve the yoke problem. (Sticky elevator operation. Typical.)

 

Did you just rearrange the lever handles?

[Old_As_Dirt 160]

Did you just rearrange the lever handles?

 

The Yoke/Quadrant combo did not work very well (wouldn't calibrate), but I ordered two of these and eliminated the one attached to the yoke.  The Yoke works flawlessly and the two quadrants - having seperate USB plugs - work well.  (Remember - Saitek controls don't seem to like USB3) They have molded indentations in the side which let them sorta lock together when you place them close together. The knobs pull off so you can align them as you like - 2 black - 2 blue - 2 red..  They program in the settings easily.  They also have a switch at the bottom of the axis travel which can be programmed to reverse thrust just by pulling back on the trottle.  I also program the switches at the bottom of the unit to aileron adjust, ALT, HDG, NAV, landing lights on/off, taxi light on/off, gear up/down.  Pretty nice!

 

John 

[turner112 52]

Thanks again John. Really wish the one that came with the yoke attached via USB.

 

Anyway - I do like the throttle. I don't use reverse thrust as I don't fly jets (ok, sometimes, just to goof around) but the buttons are nice, though I typically only use mine for trim and flaps. 

[Old_As_Dirt 160]

Actually, the reverse works better with props (some have reverse - some don't) than jets. (I don't do jets much either) Also, I use the switches on the yoke (the Satek) for AP, flaps, and trim.  More convenient.  The buttons on the front of the Yoke work for my Track IR functions and views....  I use the CH Product pedals...

 

John

[Oracle427 45]

For what is worth. I posted some time back about issues I had with the default 172 that comes with XP9. There were certain issues I had with stalls, slow flight, glide, etc. I was debating these areas with some members here and got some suggestions and even some assistance from GoranM to review some tweaks.

 

I found some similarly odd behaviors in the A2A 172R which finally led me to reevaluate everything. I decided to take some video in the last couple of months while flying in 172N and 172S and also took notes about the performance I was getting in specific conditions while doing maneuvers in specific configurations and climate.

 

The default 172 is far more accurate than my memory says. By the numbers it behaves very close to certain limited areas that I tested.

 

What I also observed is that you can NOT extrapolate performance at all based on your observations. An example of this is doing an approach at 45kias with full flaps, idle power, 2 souls and half fuel. The RW 172N was barely descending at 400fpm and could easily flare and land in a short field. Also climbing with full flaps at full power at 3000 feet, simulating a go around without flap retraction was obtaining around 1000fpm with just me and full fuel in the 172N.

 

So lesson learned is never trust memory and only use figures in very specific scenarios for making comparisons.

[Humpty 751]

I am using a modded XP9 172sp,  

[Oracle427 45]

I saw that, but I haven't gotten around to installing that one again. I just happened to get back into looking at XP9 as I do every now and then. I tried a few tests and was pleasantly surprised.