I read somwhere on this forum that one could never be sure that a freeware or payware aircraft had the right flight dynamics because many developers do not use real world manuals and other realistic documentation when they make the aircraft. What a pity. And how can I tell the realistic from the non-realistic aircraft? I'm not a real pilot - just an armchair one ..;-)So that's why I would like to have some suggestions for downloading FREEWARE or buying PAYWARE aircrafts which have realistic flight dynamics.Looking forward to see some suggestions!--Lars

Not sure we really need another thread on this. Have you tried using the search function, as there have been hundreds - if not thousands - of threads on the accuracy of specific flight models, involving comment from real world pilots with hands-on experience!?Just put `flight model` or `dynamics` into the search engine, grab a coffee or two and read away!Apart from that, realistic flight models doesn't mean a can of beans unless you have realistic controls, set up in a realistic manner, flown in a realistic way.Allcott

There's a wide consensus that all the following aircraft have a "feel good" flight model.- FreewareMilton Shupe and team's Beechcraft D18 and Spartan.Robert Sanderson's Boeing Stearman 75- PaywareEverything Real Air has put onto the market : the Supermarine Spitfire (the best payware I ever bought), the SF260 (a close second) and the Scout/Citabria/Decathlon combo.FSD does very good aircraft too, I recommend the Pilatus Porter and the Cessna O2A.Mid Atlantic Air Museum C-47/DC-3 combo and their North American B-25There're more I guess but with these you can't go wrong :-) .

For Turboprops: at least on the Payware side(1) MajesticSoftware Dash 8 Q300 .... Number 1 on the Totem Pole. Tested by RW pilots. Main focus True representation of all systems used on the Dash 300, including the "Heads Up Display".(2) Aeroworx King Air B200 ...True testimonial given by RW pilot and tested by RW pilots.(3) Flight 1 ATR .... Created in close conjuction with AerospatialeJets:(1) Level D Simulations 767-300 .... Pure Systems(2) PMDG 747If you perform a search, you will find hundreds of posts regarding your querriesGood Luck

It is a common misconception that all the aerodynamic information needed for the flight model is available - neatly packaged and documented. In most, cases it simply isn't. For older aircraft the manufacturers didn't need it. They estimated the key aerodynamic characterisatics, including essential derivatives etc, based on the initial aircraft GA drawings and experience, adjusting the design layout as necessary. Wind tunnel tests could be used to confirm thse and enable further changes to be made to the design. The prototype aircraft was handed over to the test pilots who reported back enabling changes were made to the aircraft itself until its characteristics were felt to be satisfactory. All this information was kept in paper files and wouldn't be in a form suitable for Flight Simulator.Increasing computer power and the development of computational fluid dynamics enables manufacturers to study aerodynamics in much more detail. This expensive and, in a competitive world, manufacturers are not going to publish it freely, and again it wouldn't necessarily be in a form usable by Flight Simulator.I suspect, but I'm open to comment, that the best flight dynamic designers understand the aerodynamic principles involved but get the results they want by tweaking the values in the air file based on their experience, and not on detailed knowledge of the individual aerodynamic derivatives.

I find myself "tweaking" the aircraft config and model files on every payware or freeware aircraft I acquire. One thing about freeware I've noticed is the differences bewteen two like aircraft. Somewhere along the lines someone has done some tweaking of their own. Sometimes it's good, sometimes not. My biggest complaint is to dload say a 737-200 and get the old CTD when adjusting the weight (but not fuel). Another 737-200 from elsewhere, same designer, may not have the same problem. Weight and balance can make a significant difference in acft performance and is a good starting point, but CTD's can be a problem. That's when I started to tweaking various items to my satisfaction.I've never flown a jet, but I have over 2000 hours in general aviation acft, so "accuracy" is not my goal. Rather I try to match flight characteristics to my experience of what feels right. I have several pals who are commercial jet pilots and I'm constantly seeking their help and opinions. When they come over and 'fly' FS9, they always have a wealth of info and advice to offer as to how to make a particular acft feel just a little more realistic. That's AFTER they stop laughing at what we simmers have to endure.Advice: Learn everything you can about the inner workings of a particular class of acft. Lots of info out there. Then AFTER BACKING UP the acft you're going to experiment one, have at it.The basic priciples of flight apply to every acft; go from there.Bob

I have flown few GA airplanes for real...and the one that impressed me the most (among the 15 or so types of GA that I have flown) is "Real air's" Decathlon.It came out. during the time, I was flying the Decathlon for real a lot....and I can tell you.. Its simply mind blowing..how good its flight dynamics are...meaning how real it is to the real Decathlon, the Speed numbers, the dyanmics etc...I also like Dreamfleets old Piper Archer.There are various other aircrafts' dynamics I like ..but are they as good as real?.. I have no clue. (PMDG 747, Flight 1's ATR-500, Flight1's Piper Meridian), Aeroworxs' King air, etc... Wish the real world pilots would give a feed back on these.

I agree with that part of Allcott's post which points out that the user's flight control rig has an enourmous impact of the realism of flight dynamics.It's impossible to simulate the "heavy feel" of the B90 King Air I have time in when the user's rig is a toy (no disrespect intended) with no force feedback.In addition, some aspects of the flight envelope are modeled really well in some aircraft while other aspects are lacking. The greatest imperfections seem to show up in slow flight, approach to stall and the stall itself. In addition, the landing phase of flight is poorly modeled in almost all add-ons because few of them model float due to ground effect at excessive airspeeds and/or the inevitable bounce that occurs due to excessive vertical speeds at touchdown.For those aspects of the envelope it is difficult to beat the RA Spitfire and SF260.Overall, the Aeroworx Super King Air 200 is a great add-on.Regards,Jim