Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Any good freeware 767 aircraft out there?

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:-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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?>:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"mgdbottled",I've read your threads in the past and you're obviously have a grudge against POSKY based on what I've seen. It seems everytime we get something new out, all I see from you is "I don't like this...", "I'm deleting it off my HD...". You're entitled to your own opinion, but do not go telling everyone that our models are bad. The majority of people who fly them are very pleased with them and we don't need bad advertising for the new comers. I can answer all your questions below: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.Are you landing with a lot of fuel? That's one of the main causes of gear collapse.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.Go to Imagetool, extract mipmaps, choose the one that has 0 after the name, save over original, problem solved.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.Same as above.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???You seem to be smart, they're easy enough to fix yourself.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.Have you ever tried eliminating the mip maps? Works everytime for me. The "serious flaw" can be fixed in about three minutes of work.[TABLE BORDER=0][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][tr]

[td]

[link:timsfsstudio.home.attbi.com]Click here to visit Tim's FS Studio!] Updated June 11th!

[/td][/tr][/TABLE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Timbo; I think you must have me mixed up with someone else. I seem to remember commenting once on blurred textures on fuses shortly after the first posky aircraft were made available. If I remember right, that was on the Posky forum here. Other than that, I don't believe I've ever posted in a single thread or even commented anywhere concerning the Posky aircraft. I've certainly read a lot of the threads concerning problems with this and that and different points of view. Why don't you point me to a thread or threads that you're referring too. Jog my memory if you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW; if the problem with the mips are so simple to fix; why should five hundred people that download the aircraft have to fix them. It's make more sense to just fix it before it's uploaded. Or is there something wrong with that logic???BTW; I fly the poskys with the tanks half full and the 767s still slam down onto the runway. It's not a full fuel problem or a weight problem. None of the other heavies do that. Until the folks that designed these aircraft realize that, nothing will be done. What good is input if noone listens???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the other heavies do it because there aren't many GMAX heavies out to experience. As for updating the textures, it's not up to me because I didn't paint all the planes. You will notice though that none of my planes suffer from blurry textures and it is not a model issue. A half tank of fuel is still a lot of fuel to be landing with. Usually planes land with 25% or less if I recall.[TABLE BORDER=0][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][tr]

[td]

[link:timsfsstudio.home.attbi.com]Click here to visit Tim's FS Studio!] Updated June 11th!

[/td][/tr][/TABLE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting, I fly my default COA B762ER with the PIC panel for hours every day (using POSKY's default airfile and aircraft.cfg) and I heve never had any problems at all, and I use *all* FMC features. It flies like a dream.Best reagards,J. Padron---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great responses from most of you. It looks like I need to add fuel burn, weight & balance to my flight planning.Thanks guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>BTW; I fly the poskys with the tanks half full and the 767s >still slam down onto the runway. It's not a full fuel >problem or a weight problem. None of the other heavies do >that. Until the folks that designed these aircraft realize >that, nothing will be done. What good is input if noone >listens??? Or it could very well be that you're just landing the 767's too hard, and theres nothing wrong with the flight model.Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this