Brett_Henderson

Yeah.. I got my PPL in 1979.. Instrument rating in 1996... over 2,000 hours in PA28s.. Of course care must be taken, but leaning for ground ops is all I've ever known..

The sounds (all of them), are a $50 add-on, all by themselves...

There is no comparison... A2A does much of the flight-modeling, and engine/prop modeling, outside of FSX. No goofy bugs like fuel-flow increasing as you lean from a too-rich state.. no power tied to fuel-flow... realistic EGT modeling.. etc.. More realism on the subtle stuff.. ie.. torque / p-factor / stalls / control-response.. etc,, All that on top of the realistic, cumulative wear/tear modeling.. and the pre-flight inspection.. and the maintenance hangar.. Heck.. I even got a "hiccup" from the engine when applying takeoff power too quickly... (after having to clear the plugs 'cause I taxied without leaning.. )

Igloo_Lain said: ------------------------------------ "Even once it's fixed, I have. Major concerns for the way this aircraft flies. I have hrs on the real aircraft, I found flying it easy like it should be, the controls slightly slow, the roll and pich lazy. But I nearly looped this oe when taking off, 1pass full fuel, slight back pressure and nose was 20 deg up! At slowspeed, the aircraft is very nervous and twitchy, especially in pitch." ----------------------------------------- As in real flying (especially lightly-wing-loaded trainers), you'll learn the airplane's "needs". Like, matching the elevator trim to the load. Being that FSX models trim incorrectly, it's not cut-n-dry, but with proper trim (per the load), this C172 will lift of like a cooperative feather, and (like a real C172), climb trim is much different than takeoff trim.. you gotta jump right on the trim-wheel, and get to hands-off Vy... Also, as noted.. a model might need hardware-realted tweaking (my yoke is very elevator sensitive), via control_surface effectiveness (aircraft.cfg) Aside from using the the elevator for drag after landing.. or exectuting a soft-field takeoff, or certain maneuvers, real C172 flying consists very little elevator deflection. Igloo_Lain said: ------------------------------------- For fun, I flew at 70 kts, hard turn, 360 deg, stall horn sounding, completed turn in under 10 seconds, then inverted at 70kts, 200 ft, stall, pulled out at 100 ft. It flies like an overpowered rc plane? ---------------------------------------- Once you get much outside a normal envelope (steep turns at an airspeed that promises an accelerated stall), FSX's flight-model falls to pieces.. not much A2A (or anyone) can do about it... Igloo_Lain said: ------------------------------------ Landing was no much fun, trim FULL forward and the nose still want to stay high as it rolls to a stop. ------------------------------------- Trim full forward ? Or elevator full forward ? If you manage the approach speeds realistically, and re-trim for flap deployment(s), it will settle nicely into a roundout and modest flare... get even a little sloppy or aggressive, and it will float (realistically) like a hot air balloon.. lol .. and do any number of odd things if you "force" it to land..

@J van E: Published performance data is usually at MGTW, on a standard day (15C 29.92" @ sea-level).. And lightly wing-loaded trainers fluctuate from published data, quite bit.. A 180hp (172S), will climb like crazy with 50% fuel, and just the pilot, on a cool, fall day... I've reached pattern-altitude not much past the departure end of a 5000' runway.. ... and fully loaded, on a warm summer day, not reach pattern-altitude until a mile or two, on course. The realism aspect that really grabs me (among many), is the manner in which it's "easy" to fly.. meaning, a C172 will pretty much fly itself, if you don't ask it something odd.. lol On a cooperative day (weather-wise), you can take a C172 up.. trim it for 70kias, and then fly touch-n-go, over and over, never touching the yoke.. just throttle and rudder. Sure it's a bit sloppy, but I've done it. There's a difference between easy, and not difficult

Welllll... nothing is perfect.. but this comes as near as I hoped. First thing I checked (after going through it on the ground as though I was buying a real one) was how naturally it would settle into a climb (it did).. that is a flaw in the best add-ons (transitions.. takeoff-climb-cruise-descent-approach-flare)..all EXCELLENT in this bird. Steep-turns felt creepy realistic, too.. Best thing so far, is that you can finally manage mixture realistically.. Fuel flow, and engine sounds, and RPMs, and EGT.. all are spot on. Leaning by ear even gets you pretty darn close.. no more using the FSX fuel-flow bug to set mixture !! All-around.. not much to complain about.. Another excellent A2A product !

A complete taming of FSX, is like trying to travel at the speed of light.. the nearer you get, the engery and cost rise exponentially.. IOW.. All things equal; the jump from 10 to 20fps = $1000... from 20 to 30pfs = $3000... from 30 to 40 = $6000... etc Theoretically, there is not enough energy in the universe to accelerate the tiniest piece of matter to the speed of light.. and there isn't enough money in a simmer's budget, to tame FSX.. LOL Great story, BTW

Good call, tttocs ! Load the C172 first, made it work.. It was a non-issue to me, as I never use an ADF compass card (real or sim).. I've always just mentally superimposed the ADF needle onto the DG/HSI... They aren't very accurate in the real world... So it was just a "bug" to add. Now the right-side DG really does "bug", me,, as I like to fly right-seat now and then..

My ADF compass card is inop.. it's always set to 360, not even an indication on the mouse pointer that the 3D knob is there.. The readme says that "clickable" spots that do not work can be fixed by turning off instrument reflections... that didn't fix it either, and I wouldn't consider that fix at all, as cockpit "ambience" is a big part of a good VC..

Yes.. the ADF compass card.. Many pilots (me included) disregard it, and simply, mentally super-impose the ADF needle onto the HSI (or DG).. but it's there, and has a 3D knob, so it might as well work..

ADD.. ADF reference card in-op... Per your item #5 .. it's just a directional gyro, not an HSI

By EVEV TRIM not modeled, do you mean the wheel/indicator ? If so, mine is modeled.. it's on the right side of the center console.. Every model has little "problems" that I fix quickly.. mostly performnce and gauge reading/response.. There are (in addition to what's already dicussed) two things the need fixing ASAP.. 1)ADF reference card is inop 2)Right-seat directional gyro is off by 180 degrees And, since you cannot enter a waypoint in the G430 that's different than entered the G530... I'd like an DME, for certain approaches.. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "So far, the sights don't disappoint, but the sounds do. In this case, I wanted the JetProp, only with a good piston roar. Nope, this is more like a somewhat annoying buzz." ------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the sounds are pretty good.. The Mirage has two, huge turbo-chargers, that not only pressurize the intake manifold, but pressurize the cabin, too..They give the exhaust a muffled "whine"

It's actually, high/low altitude.. but yes, it's about range.. That's the on ground, planning part.. You identify a VORs limitations, before you incorporate them into your flight-plan. That info can be found by several real-world sources.. In MSFS, it's included on the map pages, or flight-planning pages...

The solution I found (at PMDG support), is awkward, but it works.. Make sure that your saved (default) flight is with an FSX base aircraft.. I use the C172.. When you plan to fly the J41.. FIRST place the C172 at the airport; start the flight.. Then from there.. C172 on the tarmac.. switch to the J41.. Also.. if you plan on using the FMC, DO NOT slew the C172, nor the J41. All of this has to do with the J41 model/system complexity..

Here's a neat one: It's more of an "on demand" flight, used daily.. and in the winter it's on more of a schedule... 83D - to - KMCD (Mackinac County- to - Mackinac Island) Aprox. 5nm .. they're almost part of each other's pattern..

That's a good question.. I'll poke around. Mean-time, I'm sure they'd be very close to what you'd come up with, if you plotted them yourself... www.skyvector.com ...has all the online charts you'd need. Or, even the FSX built-in planner works well, and you can avoid the name/frequency changes that might have happened since 2006. I just set it up for 'VOR-to-VOR' plan, and then go in and tweak it a bit (i.e.. sometimes it'll use low-altitude, or terminal VORs for legs beyond their ranges)... then you can even print out a log, showing frequencies/radials/ranges ..

Most of the work happens on the ground.. if you're well versed in flight-planning, and have mastered radio navigation (in slow, forgiving trainers)... it's not hard at all. You already know what's going to happen.. so the in-flight navigation itself, is almost redundant.

Yeah.. there all kinda tricks and geometry Let me be a little more clear.. you can fly a very precise course to/from an NDB.. so you aren't blindly groping for that intersection... And even if you choose only one (3,4) intersection; you'll see your drift (if any), if the CDIs are not centering at the expected time(s).. IOW, if one nears center too soon, you know which way you drifted.. And of course, as mentioned.. you can 'plan' for as many (3,4) intersections as you feel you need..

And/or, you can use a pair of regular VOR gauges (like in the default C172).... or even just one VOR gauge with a 'flip/flop' receiver.. or (a bit tedious), you can manually change frequencies using just one receiver/gauge.. As for aiming at (3,4).. you'll fly a good part of that leg tracking away from an NDB (its range is the circle).. getting a good feel for winds aloft, so you'll likely get within range of the terminal VOR, right on course. But you can check your position any time by checking bearing/range from either VOR.. or triangulating via both VORs..

    Yeah.. your name too Now.. how the heck do I attach an image ? EDIT: Got it to work using my laptop,, and we're all GPS advocates

Planning is the key.. ---------- 'High Altitude' VORs have ranges between 150-200nm. 'Low Altitude' VORs ~50nm 'Terminal' VORs ~25nm --------------- Also, keep in mind that VOR navigation need not be a direct course twixt two VORs.. I.E.. outbound on a radial until intersecting the next VOR radial (maybe terminal or low-altitude VOR).. ------------ IOW... High-Altitude VORs can give you 300-400nm legs.. and if for some reason you need to plan for longer legs (airspace or mountain avoidance.. or a more direct course) .. you just need to take advantage of all your tools.. ------------- Attached is an example: green course, traveling from right-to-left, avoiding airspace, arriving at an airport with a terminal VOR (very short range).. ---------------- -Fly dired to VOR(2), until intersecting a radial from VOR(1) ----------- -turn on-course using a couple of DME/radial references from VOR(2) --------------- -when in range of NDB(pink) fly roughly to/from it (keeps you clear of airspace).. then maintain a relatively accurate course by radial intertsestions (VOR(3)(4)) .. one should do it, but plan for more per winds aloft.. ----------------- Once in range of terminal VOR.. you're home-free Edit: Having trouble with image upload.. working on it.. (got it, using my laptop)

Couple of things: As fun as Accusim might be.. the Strat is too much for one pilot.. There's an option in one the pop-ups (2, or 3, can't remember), that turns turbo managing over to the First Officer.. "he", acknowledges this by saying, "I've got the turbos". .Remember to turn on the water injection (set all to auto), for the takeoff/climb.. and you usually have to throttle back a bit on inboard engines (watch CHT) until you reach cooler air, or can achieve cruise speed. I've gotten +50 hours on the engines before they even wear past "excellent"... gotten as many as 100 hours before any troubles (hard starting, rough running), and even squeezed 300 hours out of an engine, before I felt a need to "rebuild"..

For good and bad.. A2A captured the spirit of this bird (beast).. there are some great stories out there.. many about how difficult the Strat was to land.. Here's a good site: http://www.ovi.ch/b377/articles/speedbird/ A quote from an article there: To your question... plan the approach way way way out... Convince yourself that you cannot be too low... 120 is fine on approach.. but try for 100 at the threshold .. hand FLY it right down to the runway, little if any flare (nose-wheel first landings were not uncommon) **eek** If you're running Accusim.. the fun is just beginning at touch-down... get it rolling out straight (runway adhesion is awful), and get on the reversers... good luck not breaking something in the engines..

I don't think anybod says they can't be fitted.. the question is, why are they not fitted.. And of course it's not universal, as some do have a muffler, or muffler-ish component. There are even aftermarket, "tuned" exhaust systems, that are muffler-ish, and actually improve performance.. and they are a cost issue. It's always a trade-off.. weight/cost/performance ...

When even an old C172 constitutes a $30,000 airfrane, a $25,000 engine, and up to $35,000 in instruments/avionics.. the cost of a muffler is a rounding error.. Weight is one consideration, but it's also about performance. Exhaust back-pressure can cost quite a few horses..