I've decided to stick with one aircraft type for a while. I'm on the lookout for a FS2002 767 series aircraft that will keep me busy for a while. It looks like POSKY is the dominant freeware 767 author out there. The visuals are good but the flight model is very questionable. Any ideas?

I'd say the Posky 767 has a pretty good FM. I haven't flown a 767 before, but it feels like one would. Of course, this is only my opinion.http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/edenw/fs_banner_je4.jpg Think highly of yourself, for the world takes you at your estimate -Anon

I fly the POSKY 767s alot, and I think they are by far the best freeware (or payware) 767 availible. I fly all of the variants and they all work well. The POSKY 767 is my only suggestion. :)

I haven't looked at any real world 767 performance data nor talked to any 767 crews but I find it hard to believe that a 767 can't climb to cruise at 800fpm to FL330. That's the one big issue I have with POSKY's aircraft.

that's why you don't take off with full tanks

The flight model for the POSKY aircraft are generally the best around. It is you that is using the aircraft wrong. Try to keep this in mind next time you fly..... Plan your fuel for about 10,500lbs per hour total fuel consumption. So if you got a 5 hour flight, load 52,500lbs of fuel and always load an extra hour worth of flight time fuel as well. I also add 2,000lbs for taxi. So for a 5 hour flight, my fuel load would be 64,500lbs. Any more than that and your not flying the right way.

>The flight model for the POSKY aircraft are generally the >best around. It is you that is using the aircraft wrong. Try >to keep this in mind next time you fly..... Plan your fuel >for about 10,500lbs per hour total fuel consumption. So if >you got a 5 hour flight, load 52,500lbs of fuel and always >load an extra hour worth of flight time fuel as well. I also >add 2,000lbs for taxi. So for a 5 hour flight, my fuel load >would be 64,500lbs. Any more than that and your not flying >the right way. Are you saying that you should never take off with a full fuel load? What kind of aircraft would that be?Barry

Well I do not Understand why people who fly the Realistic POSKY Aircraft think that witha close fule Load that the plane can automatically fly up to hight Flight levels with a high Climb rate!?? I know that Continental uses the 767-400ER from my home of Hnonolulu Intl to NEWARK Intl nonstop! I know they are pretty Heavy and from listning to my scanner they only go as high as 30,000FT-max-31,000FT initially! not right away then when they are lighter they climb higher! SO PLEASE do not blame POSKY that the plane cannot climb correctly! Why does everyone want to climb up at a high picth rate anyway! I know that when I go on trips to the Mainland that the plane does not keep a high climb rate for the higher levels! it is very gradually for the comfort of passengers! Well just my 2 cent's as I see this "POSKY AIRFILE IS WRONG THREADS" in all the forums! I am tired of seeing this kind of negative posts for the hardworking POSKY team! MIKE-:)

Barry,If you never used ACLoader, at least get the manual. It explains the trade-off between payload load and fuel load. No aircraft can have a full payload and full fuel. You would go over MZFW or MTOW or both. Everything is a trade-off in the flight world. Want to fly high and fast? Load very little fuel and balance passengers and cargo. Want to carry a lot a long way? Load a lot of fuel, but you won't carry much of anything else, and you won't fly very high or very fast.The only aircraft that really can carry a lot a long way is a 747-400. Still with full fuel and passengers, there's no cargo, you fly at FL350-FL370 and the max speed is 0.84 Mach.A lot of Boeing's new ER series, 777-200ER and 767-300ER in particular, does allow for a lot more fuel load and payload, but you won't go very high or very fast.Physics is a funny thing. It's that darned gravity not wanting a million pounds of stuff just hanging in the air exactly the same way bricks don't. ;-)

:-lolGot quite the point there eh Mike?"Gee Mr. Boeing, your aircraft sucks because I can't climb to the max ceiling altitude with a full load of fuel and passengers. Whats up with this crappy plane anyways?""Son, did you read the manual?" says Mr. Boeing laughing ...Guys, let me introduce you to your new best friend, Mr. "Step" Climb ;-)One levels off and burns that really heavy fuel before moving up in altitude folks ... one does not just shoot right up to FL410, one steps the way up as fuel burns off, generally in increments of 4,000 feet as the flight progresses along ... For example, a 747 is probably going to level off at FL270 and burn off fuel before stepping up to FL310 then burn more fuel and step up to FL350 then FL390 then FL430 ... assuming your flight is long enough to get up there ...One should also note that a full tank of gas for a 30 minute flight is rather silly, unlike small aircraft, you really don't want to carry an extra 300,000 lbs of fuel around just in case you need to fly for a extra 8 hours because it costs fuel (aka money) to carry that extra fuel ;-)Ray

Mine does ,never had any problems with POSKY's planes.RichardThis is meant to go between posts 3 and 4

zclark, I use the POSKY COA B762ER with the PIC panel (a must have panel) -- I have not been able to find any aircraft/panel combo that flies as good as this.For best results, you *need* the PIC panel, and you need to read and ***learn*** the B676 PIC manuals.I use the default POSKY flight model and default POSKY aircraft.cfg file with the PIC panel. The only changes I made to my POSKY aircraft folders is to add/replace the sound.cfg and panel.cfg files to point to the PIC aircraft sound and panel folders, that's it.The ***only*** thing I have experieced (a known issue) is that the PIC flaps gauge does not display flaps-1 and flaps-5 properly, just a comsmetic issue, really.Make sure to read and learn all about using the PIC FMC VNAV features, fuel management, weight management, etc. Once you add the required amount of fuel and completely setup your FMC for your flight plan including VNAV and performance data (like it is done in real life), then the FMC will basically fly your plane using the best flight parameters.My .02 cents,Kerke---

Actually the Posky model, and I'm not making any judgement here, is not optimised to work with the PIC panel and the FMC. Better to use the PIC FDE, you can search for a merge file on the PIC site. Again this is because PIC wanted to model a particular 767 model and Posky have modeled several different variants. The problem is not just a cosmetic one of flpas but most of the figures given by the FMC.

I'm with POSKY all the way WITH the PIC panel as long as you're dealing with a 767-300 model!:) But for those of you still in the thread: Is there a good fuel/loadout manager in excel format or something like the one for the GA737 that would work for the 767?>:-)

I really don't have a problem with the climb rate cause that's easy to fix. Just up the thrust output in the aircraft config file. My problem with the 767s is the fact that wheels are optional when you land cause it slams down hard on the runway even if you're careful. That's gotta be an airfile problem, isn't it?? One in ten times, I can grease the landing, but you should be able to bounce em' a little every now and then without any serious problems. My other problem with the 767s is the fact that the fuse is blurred front and back on most models. Exception is the eal762 and the Delta Olympic model. Those two are nice and clear all the time and great planes except for the landing problem.My other problem with the posky models is with the A330s as the fuse is nice on those but the left wing is a blurry mess. Power can be boosted on those too so I have no beef with that on that particular model. Why doesn't someone smart fix these texture problems??? It's obvious there's a serious flaw. Other than that, I still got 5 posky's on my harddrive out of about 25 that I've downloaded. They just keep going in the trash bin. I'm not even looking forward to any new ones anymore. I hear claims that the textures were fixed by eliminating a mip something or another. Fraid not. Somebody over there at Posky needs to listen a bit better, IMHO.