"Remember that Tom will be back in a few days with a "cease and desist" order regarding anything to do with FS2002 on this forum !"Not true, Chris. Intelligent discussion comparing flightsims is fine, but bickering about which is "better" is not. [table][tr][td valign=top]http://www.avsim.com/other/usaribbon.gif[/td][td valign=center]Bob "FlyBert" StilesAVSIM Moderator[/b][/td][/tr][/table]

>I can provide you with Laurie Doering's weather upgrades if >you want them. You simply have to copy and paste the text to >the end of your flt3.cfg file. Please do.Thanks in advance,

I respect your opinion. Almost all GA (general aviation) aircraft feel 'stiff'. They are slower to react then one would think.Tom Z

Daniel,Send me an e-mail to the following address, and I will send you the weather text [email protected] Low,ENGLAND.

>I respect your opinion. Almost all GA (general aviation) >aircraft feel 'stiff'. They are slower to react then one >would think. >>Tom Z What you are referring to there is 'inherent stability',most G.A types are inherently stable, ie it takes a 'deliberate' action to make them change direction or attitude.Inherent stability is built in by the designers,( by use of wing dihedral angles, and tailplane incidence,) on purpose because it is expected that the aircraft will be flown by single pilots, often withlimited flight experience,indeed once trimmed out, many G.A aircraft wil happily fly 'hands-off'.High wing aircraft, such as the Cessna 172 (and on) are also more stable than their low-wing counterparts, because of the mass distribution, the main mass of the plane being below the centre of lift.:-wavePete

Pete,The problem with the default FS2002 aircraft is that they seem to take AGES to respond to a reduction in power. This might make them stable, but it also makes them incredibly difficult to "anticipate". When the nose does start to drop, it again takes a long time for the aircraft to respond to an INCREASE in power.Maybe this is just a consequence of the way that I control virtual GA aircraft during a final approach. I prefer to control the descent by adjusting the engine power. I do NOT like messing around with the trim controls after I have slowed down to approach speed, and I certainly do NOT like controlling the descent angle by pulling and pushing on the control stick.In short, FU3 allows me to control the aircraft in the way that I want to control it. I would like to think that any aircraft that I flew in reality (a very unlikely scenario) would respond in the same way.Any comments ?Chris Low,ENGLAND.

>>The problem with the default FS2002 aircraft is that they >seem to take AGES to respond to a reduction in power. This >might make them stable, but it also makes them incredibly >difficult to "anticipate". When the nose does start to drop, >it again takes a long time for the aircraft to respond to an >INCREASE in power. >>Maybe this is just a consequence of the way that I control >virtual GA aircraft during a final approach. I prefer to >control the descent by adjusting the engine power. I do NOT >like messing around with the trim controls after I have >slowed down to approach speed, and I certainly do NOT like >controlling the descent angle by pulling and pushing on the >control stick. >>Any comments ? >Yes------When actually learning to fly, a few of the difficult items includes practice and practice to control pitch and speed during a climb. This may be at VX, VY, or perhaps a shallower climb to make it easier to scan for traffic. This is just something you learn by doing it over and over, and the idea is to get it smooth with climb rate and airspeed remaining constant. The same applies to landings and power reductions. Other wise, speed and climb is varying and the plane is porpousing.I have seen many complaints of sim pilots porpousing with FS2002. It's NOT the program, even with the defaults. I had no problems what so-ever with the defaults when it comes to either climb or landings through the use of power and pitch. My main complaint of the defaults is a stiffness in roll and pitch when releasing controls. I prefer more dampened actions, which the 3rd party files take care of.Still havn't re-loaded FUIII for current evaluations :) I can only remember the few "bad" items from years ago, so a lot of it must have worked right. The "bad" included an highly under-powered Baron in FUII (it was a Baron, wasn't it?), and the Lake Renegade resembling a glider with a high aspect ratio wing in FUIII. I could just go forever powerless with little sink rate!L.Adamson

Larry,That's one aspect of FU3 that I have to concede. Sometimes the aircraft just glide forever ! This is a major problem if I am slightly high on final approach to a short runway, simply because I can throttle back to idle and the plane will STILL overshoot the runway. We all know that pushing forward on the stick in a situation like this is just asking for trouble.Even I know that. :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

>Pete, >Any comments ? Yep,looks like you still need a bit more practice using trim controls:-lolThe problem with the default FS2002 aircraft is that they >seem to take AGES to respond to a reduction in power. This >might make them stable, but it also makes them incredibly >difficult to "anticipate". When the nose does start to drop, >it again takes a long time for the aircraft to respond to an >INCREASE in powerIf you're doing it correctly,you shouldn't get the nose dropping,at least, not until you apply flaps....>Maybe this is just a consequence of the way that I control >virtual GA aircraft during a final approach. I prefer to >control the descent by adjusting the engine power. I do NOT >like messing around with the trim controls after I have >slowed down to approach speed, and I certainly do NOT like >controlling the descent angle by pulling and pushing on the >control stick.In descent,engine power sets rate of descent,aircraft pitch angle setsairspeed,best applied by using trim!For something different try a few 'flapless' approaches in the jet/mooney , you'll soon get the hang of it :-):-wavePete

Too late Pete, I've given up on FS2002. I can handle the FU3 planes no problem with my "reduce the operating lifetime of the engine method". :-lolChris Low,ENGLAND.

thats what i ment by "most" aircraft. Mooneys handle nothing like cessna 152s.Tom Z