What to do with my birthday money?

[Guest Shalomar]

I just came into $75 bucks I must be irresponsible with and would like to invest in aircraft. My tastes range from GA to medium turboprops and bizjets. A shallow learning curve is a plus.Aircraft I am considering: The RealAir Marchetti, Flight One PC12; ATR-72, Eaglesoft Citation X and Bill Lyons "Flying with the Stars" bizjet.So Far I am leaning heavily toward the Marchetti which would leave me with fifty bucks more to spend.Could I get some input from those that own the aircraft? I intend to shop around, feel free to add to the list if I missed any gems.Thanx; Donald Traill:-beerchugFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

[Guest CowlFlapsOpen]

Get the Aeroworx B200, the Carenado 182Q, and the DF Bonanza 36. You will be all set!

[Guest dswo]

The Marchetti is my all-around favorite. Great for VFR, IFR, and acrobatics. Smoothest gauges ever. Easy on framerates, too.If you don't already have it, consider ActiveSky. Makes every kind of flying richer.

[Guest SJDickson]

These are my firm favourites:RealAir SF260 MarchettiRealAir Citabria/Decathlon/ScoutRealAir Spitfire Mk14Dreamfleet A36 BonanzaDreamfleet B58 BaronCarenado C182 seriesCarenado C206 seriesaeroworx Super King Air B200 (*)Digital Aviation Piper PA31T Cheyenne series (*)Shockwave Wings of Power series (WWII warbirds)(*) = non-shallow learning curveI spend at least 90-95% of my time in one or the other of those.

[Guest Dominique]

The Marchetti SF260 has a very credible flight model, she's nimble and relatively fast (about 155 IAS) but stable (didn't say tame). The VC gives you a great visibility to the outside and the gauges are very fluid. It's not a difficult plane to fly with only the fuel system to manage (balancing the load). Allow me to draw your attention to the Spitfire from the same team. Outstanding aircraft too. Same gauges fluidity. A powerful and fast aircraft, she's more difficult to fly though, specially at both ends, taking off and landing but maybe more interesting because of that. You'd better have pedals. Not a hard learning curve but you gotta be attentive and respectful. Or she may bites you :-). I've had them for few years now, fly them regularly and if I'd lose them I would buy them again without ant hesitation. Not many aircraft you can say that of.Both are very much optimized and thus frame rate friendly.

[Guest allcott]

Shalomar, From your list I'd select the ATR. Yes it does have the most complex systems, even a fully-functional FMC, but it also can be handflown and it just never gets old. I can use it for five minutes or five hours, from a fully cold'n'dark startup to a `jump in and go fly`All the others would be great choices for sure, but if you're looking for one aircraft to keep you occupied until FSX arrives, that would be my recomnmendation.Allcott

[ORN 1]

If you really wanna have a ball, why not try the new Cloud9 F4f? Same league as the Marchetti, top notch fighter (which is hard to find in general).Nothing wrong with the Marchetti, everything from RealAir is good. Also take a a good look at Digital Aviation's Piper Cheyenne and Feelthere's Legacy!Good luck to you :-)Eagle

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

Hi,All the planes you listed are really nice. My vote would be for the Eaglesoft Citation X, with my Lone Star MedEvac paint of course. :7 I love the ESDG Citation X. It flies high and fast if you want, it's pretty easy on the frame rates even in the full VC model with the great looking virtual cabin which includes an animated passenger, and has excellent flight dynamics which are done by the same fellow who does them for the RealAir Marchetti. And it's not too hard and pretty fun to start up from a cold and dark.The only thing I could wish for is a little bit better panel graphics(although the current version is stil pretty nice) and a full FMS. Well, that's exactly what their doing for v2.0 of the bird for FSX! Although it'll probably be a little while before it comes out you might want to wait for v2.0. Hopefully it'll be compatible with FS9 also.All the planes you listed are outstanding but I thought I should let you know I've really enjoyed my Citation X. :) Have fun with whatever birds you end up getting!Cheers

[LAdamson 240]

The Marchetti has been my favorite for quite a while. I am partial to sliding canopies with excellent views, and sticks for precise control......though!And of course the Real Air Marchetti has some very excellent flight characteristics, and just feels and behaves very much like the real one; well at least as good as a desktop airplane can get. L.Adamson

[Guest Shalomar]

Thank you for all the quick and kind replies. I have a few questions:Why are the B200 and Cheyene not shallow learning curves? Starting seems to be pretty straightforward though there is more to it like bleed air. Do they both use the default GPS?Will Active Sky help for flying in IFR when it is IFR in my home area? Too often default fifteen minute updates give me blue skies when it is pouring out my window.The ATR won't be that bad of a learning curve; I am familiar with the ATR-42 by ROTW and really only have to learn the FMS.Thank you for all the suggestions: this is getting harder instead of easier:-)Best Regards, Donny:-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.:-)

[Guest dswo]

For me, the big deal about ActiveSky is that it makes weather visible in the distance. I knew that something was different when, taking off from Santa Monica in clear weather, I looked east to see clouds banking up against the San Gabriel mountains. With the default weather, you don't see new weather until you're in it -- one second it's clear and the next it's foggy. ActiveSky also has more weather stations, so for some areas it will have more accurate weather than the default.

[Guest SJDickson]

The B200 and Cheyenne have some moderately complicated systems and avionics that require some study and training to use properly. They're not nearly as complex as the more sophisticated airliners of course and you don't have to worry about FMC programming etc but you can't just jump in and be up and running in 5 minutes like you can with some of the small GA aircraft. This review of the B200 at SimHQ (http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_112a.html), written by the pilot of the real plane modeled by aeroworx, highlights the depth and fidelity of the flight, systems and avionics modeling and also demonstrates some of its capabilities using side by side comparisons with the real aircraft. The Cheyenne is of similar quality and complexity. You can probably be up and running comfortably with either after a couple of hours with the manuals and tutorials.

[Guest Tingoose]

Can I suggest something entirely different?! If you haven't ever flown in a light aircraft, what about a trial lesson in a real one, a Piper or a Cessna 172 maybe. You'll find that it'll improve your simming enjoyment! If u don't wanna go that way, I'd recommend the Marchetti for a real sense of flying.

[Moose4 0]

With $75 burning a hole in your pocket, I'd pick one plane, ActiveSky 6, and get a pizza or a burger with the leftover. :)The SF.260 is a great choice, it's a lot of fun, it's a nice fast cruiser when you go want to get virtual $100 hamburgers, and then you can go put on your own airshow. All of the other planes mentioned upthread are excellent depending on what you're looking for (piston single, turboprop, etc.) but the nice thing about AS6 is that it'll enhance your FS2004 experience in any plane. And, yes, it's that much of a leap over the default weather. Once you run it you won't go back.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

[Guest Shalomar]

I see a consensus developing; I bought the Marchetti. The one thing I am not sure about: How much of a frame rate hit does Active Sky produce? I have an AMD Sempron 2.8 but only a Radeon 7500 vid card; I get 14.8-9 FPS with the Marcheti as it is. Good enough for me but I don't want to go lower...Thanx everyone.:-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.