Yep it was at 4.5 for about a year... Then 4.4, then 4.2..... You get the picture lol

The Mustang was flyable on my old 2.8Ghz Q9550, so it certainly should not have any problems on a 4Ghz system.

 

 

I'm excited for you guys but the stang was always tough on my PC

It should be better with P3D given that the sim now push more on the GPU.  The new compiled code should help too, as the stang ran much better on FSX-SE than FSX.  I would expect the same with P3D.

Maybe I'll give it another try.

 

Thanks,

Mark

This news deserves bringing my OLD signature back.  I'm so old, I purchased the 23rd copy of the Mustang on release day in 2008 

Hi Folks,

 

I always liked the CJ's but the Mustang looks good - maybe that will satisfy my small business jet need in P3D...

 

Regards,

Scott

One of the best aircraft I have ever owned, in any flight simulator. Great visibility, that nice big G1000 screen for easy navigation, low approach speed, short take off and landing distances, and perfect flight characteristics. I like to fly my aircraft to as many destinations in the UK as I can, and the Flight1 Mustang can get in and out of a huge number of small airstrips in the simulator (including the 2000 feet runway at EGHE St Mary's in the Isles of Scilly). Very important when I want to be able to fly my favourite aircraft to airfields in my most detailed scenery areas.

Very good point, Christopher... my current favorite is the Cit X,  but I love to fly to all the freeware ORBX airports and most of them can't handle the CX.   The CX for those longer flights in the upper FLs and longer Rwys, but the Mustang for everything else  :smile:

ORBX airports and most of them can't handle the CX. :smile:

We're curious Vince, how many are you having difficulty with. We've been able to put down it what seems to us, too short. :wink:

If you are just speaking generally we understand.

Yeah definitely check your weights... I've seen the CX land here in Duluth in an impressively short distance... I'll have to check the manual for sure though

We're curious Vince, how many are you having difficulty with. We've been able to put down it what seems to us, too short. :wink:

If you are just speaking generally we understand.

Did not mean to confuse Ron... I'm only referring to the smaller GA fields that ORBX has done for freeware.  From what I've read, the CX wants around 5,000 feet (5,250) for a typical departure and I was only referring to fields with shorter runways.   :smile:

 

http://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/citation-x

I certainly can't imagine a Citation X operating from a runway only 2000 feet in length!!

Ah , that's what we thought you were saying but wanted to clarify. Some folks think the X won't go into smaller fields but it continues to surprise at times when we get six lights on the Thrust Reversers. :smile:

Ah , that's what we thought you were saying but wanted to clarify. Some folks think the X won't go into smaller fields but it continues to surprise at times when we get six lights on the Thrust Reversers. :smile:

Oh yeah... she's a beauty to land !!!   :wub:    She just wants to be able to leave without taking threshold guard poles with her 

Oh yeah... she's a beauty to land !!!   :wub:    She just wants to be able to leave without taking threshold guard poles with her 

HaHa, I hate when that happens.   By the way, we just put up a revised installer for this plane which fixes a bug in the clock and adds better P3D Flight Planning along with ASN weather integrations for those interested.