FU3 + FS2002 users

[Christopher Low 5,337]

Does anyone here that fits the above description know of any FS2002 aircraft that fly in a similar manner to those in FU3 ? I am finding it INCREDIBLY difficult to control aircraft in FS2002, and I would really like to be able to find one that suits my style (well, there's a problem right from the start) :-) What I am looking for is as follows:-1. An aircraft that "feels" like an FU3 model.2. More immediate response to throttle input.3. A nice VFR cockpit :-)4. Good quality visual model.5. Preferably a twin turboprop.6. Payware or Freeware, I don't mind. I just want to be able to fly the thing ! :-lolI have pretty much given up being able to fly a large jet in FS2002 (although I may experiment with the upcoming Gmax models of the Fokker 100/70 from Project Fokker). Even the twin turboprop Jetstream 41 is more difficult to fly than Ansgar's 747-400 in FU3 ! :-eek I'm not sure what that says about both flight simulators, but I suppose that everyone will have differing opinions.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest Staggerwing]

OH NO ! Here we go again :-lol Don't be surprised if you get the same answers this time 'round :-)Just kidding with you Chris... I truly hope you find an aircraft that you like one day soon.Keep in mind... you will NEVER find a turboprop that has "immediate" throttle response, it has to spool up to power every time...you have to stay "ahead" of your needs at all times.Actually, you'll not find a piston aircraft that gives it either.. not if it's modeled right. (with exception of some airshow/racing ships)As before, I'm still flying the Cessna 185, created by Mikko Maliniemi and others,as my main aircraft. (but that's a single piston engine, tail dragger)I do find small items I'd like to fix with many/most aircraft, but have yet to find any that are as bad as you have found. Try the Great Lakes Convair, Version 3.0 by Glen Hall (with lots of help) Twin turboprop with some good size to it... Want a twin turboprop "hot rod" try the OV-10 Bronco by Tim Piglet Conrad. Has some faults (IMO), but it's lot's of fun and looks really nice too.Good luck with your search :-)Broncohttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3ded1959420bd7d8.jpgCessna 185http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3ded1965423183ac.jpgSorry, can't find a shot of my Convair 580 right now.. let me know if you want to see it and I'll snap one for you.

[Christopher Low 5,337]

Tom,OK, bearing in mind your comments about turboprops "spooling up to power" (actually, that was one aspect of the Jetstream 41 that I noticed), maybe I should be looking for a small executive jet (a bit like FU3's Beechjet). In fact, I have always wanted to be able to fly a nicely detailed Hawker 800XP........but only if it "feels" right :-lolBest Wishes,Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Christopher Low 5,337]

Tom,Are you saying that this Convair 580 is quite responsive for an FS2002 twin turboprop ? If so, then I would very much like to see a screenshot :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest Staggerwing]

>Tom, >>Are you saying that this Convair 580 is quite responsive for >an FS2002 twin turboprop ? If so, then I would very much >like to see a screenshot Well, I guess I'm saying that I liked the way it "felt" from the first flight :-) I know how you judge the aircraft YOU like and I think the best thing is to just try some and see... not much work to add/delete an aircraft and these are freeware also.Guess I only have shots of my previous Convair 580 and not the current Great Lakes version I spoke of above... but it gives you the idea of size etc. More than just the livery was changed with the newer version.http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3ded358929949429.jpghttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3ded359229b3b91d.jpghttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3ded359d29de18a3.jpg

[Guest Staggerwing]

Just found a small shot of the newer "Great Lakes" version in the plane file. Also, thought you might like to view the "readme" that came with the 580 :-)http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3ded3fa14ba3da9f.jpgIt reads as follows:The following was take directly from Dee Waldron and Michael Verlin's read me file. Although I have modified the aircraft.cfg file and .air file to represent the 580's flight dynamics as they were explained to me, much of this still applies. Items in () are my comments.Flying the 580:Taxing is fairly easy if you remember to "downshift" the engines into Low RPM. Remember to "up-shift" the engines into High RPM before takeoff!(30% power with props in low and condition levers at flight idle will produce breakaway thrust and the plane will begin to move)At all weights, use one notch of flaps for takeoff. Vref (rotate) about 100-105 knots V2 at about 120 knots (gear up: V2 + PRC) Initial rate of climb about 1500 ft/min, flaps full up after passing through 1500 to 2000 ft agl. Then look for a target speed of +180 KIAS and set climb to 1800 ft/min.(above 6000' use 160 KIAS @ 1500 ft/min. @ 90% power)In the roll axis, the 580 is very stable and almost flies hands off. However, these engines are VERY torque! When increasing or decreasing power watch carefully to keep wings level. Pitch axis is a little sensitive. Careful and constant use of pitch trim is always required.(adding or removing even one notch of flap will require a small but immediate trim change)Watch your airspeed carefully while flying at lower altitudes. Keeping the 580 slowed down is going to be a full time job.(the secret to good landings is get it slowed down early; 160/140 KIAS, gear down and one notch of flaps for downwind, 120 KIAS 2 notches of flaps on base)Approach to land with full flaps, approach speed around 110 knots, and about 100 at touchdown. After you get all 3 gear planted, FLAPS UP and prop reverse.(it requires very little flair)It's important that you practice your approaches and get the airspeed right on! The airplane has a bad "floating" tendency while in ground effect if you're going to fast. So I'll repeat it one more time: After you get all 3 gear planted, FLAPS UP and prop reverse.(as an added note, my 580 pilot friend say Dee and Michael's numbers are right on!)

[LAdamson 240]

It's been a while since using FUIII, but I don't remember vast differences in the perceived "feel" between the two products. I could always dectect obvious errors in particular flight models for both products, but one was certainly not "harder" to fly than the other. Make note:, that I'm referring to default's or "better" addon's. There are definately add-ons, that are nearly impossible to sim fly. Would be scary as he## in the real world! :)L.Adamson

[Christopher Low 5,337]

Tom,Did you have an engine failure in that first screenshot, or are you just showing off ? :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Christopher Low 5,337]

Larry,There are probably quite a few FU3 users here who would say that the "feel" of flight in FS2oo2 is significantly different to that in FU3. However, so long as I can find an FS2002 plane that feels comfortable to me, that's all that matters :-)Best Wishes,Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest Staggerwing]

>Tom, >>Did you have an engine failure in that first screenshot, or >are you just showing off ? >>Chris Low, >ENGLAND. :-lol Well, I like to check out the entire flight envelope of these aircraft so I'm always going through the various procedures etc.Do try the Bronco Chris... you can fly that one by the seat of your pants :-) Great for STOL fields (and it has very good throttle response too) Fantastic view from the VR cockpit.Look for file name OV_10a.zip and OV_10aup.zipIf you want to try the Convair it's file is: GL580V3.zipBest,http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3dee4edd409aacb4.jpghttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3dee4ee640ad9cf6.jpghttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3dee4eef40c49cf6.jpg

[Hans_Petter 1]

Chris, the "spooling up for power" aspect is a jet engine thing. Turboprops are powered by jet engines running a propeller. Thus, a turboprop is a jet and does suffer from that "spool delay".The main advantage of a jet engine is that it stays efficient at high altitudes. Unlike piston engines, a jet engine doesn't become oxygen starved as soon as the aircraft climbs above 4,000 - 6,000 ft. A basic piston engine will be able to climb higher with proper leaning but the power output is dwindling nonetheless. A turbocharged piston engine will take it further (up to 20,000 ft or so) since the turbo compressor power feeds air into the carburetor. Still, no piston engine provides lively performance at high altitudes. So, if "jet" is the answer, why fit it with a propeller? The turboprops get the best of both worlds for medium altitudes / medium legs. The thing is, a jet isn't economical until you reach a proper cruise level. But then, for short hops it doesn't make sense to climb that high. A propeller that bites into the air is more effective and economical at low altitudes. Thus, by fitting a jet engine with a propeller you get a jet aircraft that provides thrust and power from the moment you start the take-off roll, meaning shorter runway requirements and better fuel economy for "regional" flights. A simple and blunt way of putting it, if your flight isn't long enough to warrant a climb to about 30,000 ft a turboprop will provide better fuel economy than a (fan)jet. (99% of modern jets are fanjets rather than "pure" jets -- "pure" jets are too noisy and even less economical at low altitudes).Anyway, if you don't want spool up / spool down time you'd want to fly a piston aircraft. If you want to fly low and slow you'd want to fly a piston aircraft. Chris, I'd say you're a piston engine guy... eh, bloke :-) If you prefer twin engines and retractable gear / undercarriage you might look for a Beechcraft, a Piper twin or a Cessna 4xx!best regards,Hans Petter

[Christopher Low 5,337]

Hans,You say that the "spooling up for power" is a jet engine thing. However, I love the Beechjet and 747-400 in FU3 ! Surely that should mean that I would also like a turboprop, since (as you say yourself), a turboprop is a jet engine that is driving a propellor.Get out of that one if you can ! :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Christopher Low 5,337]

Hans,Here is another point that I forgot to mention.I CAN FLY THE KINGAIR 350 TURBOPROP IN FU3 WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS.Nobody ever said that I wasn't controversial :-lolChris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest Staggerwing]

Chris,Have you tried any of the suggested freeware turboprops yet ? I think that would pretty much "cut to the chase" and find you something you like quicker than anything else.

[Guest]

Hans et al,Your comments regarding spool up for jets are correct. And they are correct for many turboprops partucularly the PT based ones. But, there is a class of turboprop engines that operate differently and I'm pretty sure the 580 is fitted with this class of engines.These engines are designed to operate at 100% rpm ALL the time; sitting on the ramp, taxiing, waiting for clearance, whatever...it's 100%. Well, technically there is a "low" rpm setting but for all flight regimes it's 100%The way power is added on these engines is not by increasing RPMs (spooling up) but by increasing the pitch of the props. So at idle the props are at 0 degrees of pitch = no thrust... full power = full pitch. The advantage of this system is that the pitch can be changed very quickly so one can go from idle to full power nearly instantly = no spool up... always 100%.These are the type of power plants that are on fitted on C130s and P3s as well as the Lockheed L188 (Electra) and (I'm pretty sure) the 580. I have about 3,500 hours on P3s so I've personally felt the effects of instant acceleration many times. It can be impressive.So, no spool up acceleration on the 580 would be in fact an accurate representation.Jeff