Gregg_Seipp

I read recently that one of the mayoral candidates wants to reopen it. Wouldn't that be something.

Also, to add, in the Real World you use the ailerons and elevator to keep the airplane firmly on the ground. When the wind is coming from in front of you, you "descend into the wind". When it's coming from behind you, you "climb away from it." For example, if the wind is coming from your left front you turn your ailerons to the left and push the stick forward. If it's coming from your left rear you turn your ailerons to the right and pull the stick back. The idea is that you keep the nose firmly planted on the ground and, by doing so, enhance your ability to steer. You have to be careful to be aware of this when making a turn on the ground. Not sure how well all this works in the sim. Gregg

To me, if I were going to define a "study level" aircraft, I'd probably just use this definition: Does the autopilot work right? So many of them are just skins of the default API that only loosely relate to what the actual airplane does. Also, most can only hold an ILS like apples in a wet bag. Other things are pretty much optional. Gregg

I haven't tried XP11 (though I've been thinking about it). I wouldn't be surprised to see PMDG make a modern airliner for XPlane. There are some nice things about it and there are a fair amount of folks that use both sims.

Good read. I still wonder if the passenger queen, or something much like it, will come back. It is one of the few planes that has a mystique about flying on it.

Not sure that matters unless there's special X-Plane logic for vectoring.

Agreed, though, I hope the solution is that you always fly the entire STAR. Aircraft do get vectored and that's realistic. What he needs to do is do some kind of calculation as to what a reasonable descent rate is and have the software plan accordingly. Controllers have a pretty good sense for this.

Isn't that how they, generally, do it at busy US airports? I mean, you usually fly part of the STAR but, at some point, you're vectored off the STAR for sequencing. The trick for the arrival controllers is that they have to consider what is a plausible descent rate for the type of aircraft given how much it shortens the route. The pilot can only do so much. Gregg

This is true...even for most single engines. The Malibu's have great side views, though. I do tend towards twins more since a fair amount of my flying is over open water.

Good points. I think I have a common trait of getting something that I think, maybe, I might like only to find that, later, I really wouldn't. That leads to a lot of hangar queens, of course. I tend to like fast but very common GA type airplanes...ones you'd take your family in or to take small loads of cargo in, especially to needy places...things I could imagine liking to do. Another thing I like to do is find YouTube videos of people flying the RW planes. You can garner quite a bit of RW knowledge by watching them. You're more apt to find the more common airplanes on YouTube. (I learned a vast amount of information about flying a Citation Mustang there and, lord knows, with Steveo cranking out videos, there's a lot available about the TBM). I love these people :). So, yeah, the PC-12 should be a good fit since it fits all of those criteria. The E1000 might fit the bill except for its unusual avionics package (again, why did they opt for that package instead of the G1000 the airplane comes with? Strange.) The Malibu Mirage (which has an XP10 version available, the Meridian, Cheyenne or Conquest would also work. Perhaps one of the King Airs. One point about all GA airplanes...the autopilot. In P3D, for GA, they're rarely close and yet they're so core for flying the plane (many of them do a fairly poor job flying an ILS and will do a fairly good job of trying to kill the passengers). Marshall Arbitman did this excellent overview of the autopilot of the X-Plane PC-12 showing what's right and wrong. At least the video sets your expectations and he's opened up a good conversation which should be had for, not just the PC-12, but for all new airplanes because of how, often, bad they can be. It should also be part of the more solid reviews after looks, power, and hand flying. Point is, I'd be keenly interested in airplanes that got that aspect right or, at least, close to right. (One of the many things I already like about X-Plane is that it has a GNS530 and G1000 built in, enabling airplanes to have higher quality systems than I have been generally getting. This means that devs can, potentially, spend far less time developing complex avionics and more time on other crucial bits like the autopilot.) Gregg

I've been getting this as well and repeatedly this morning on both Chrome and Firefox.

Thanks for the replies guys. I do have the PC12 in P3D though I only flew it twice due to nonworking switches and an unrealistic engine model...ITT going down with altitude if I recall. I *would* like to see how the PA42 or the C441 do in X-Plane. Aerobask does look intriguing. Also, there are two Mooneys...Alabeo which gets good reviews and the prerelease Advanced Flight Modelling which comes with a steam Ovation 2 and a G1000 Ovation 3. Curious if anyone's tried either.

All I can say is welcome back and I hope you're well. I'll be looking forward to new programs. Gregg

Hi Lenny, How are Carenado on X-Plane? They've been hit and miss on P3D...mostly miss and I've learned to just give them a pass over time. E.g. they never could get a handle on how to implement a turboprop on P3D. Could be a different story on X-Plane since they have a different turboprop modelling and much of the avionics are already part of the sim.

Thanks. These are great looking aircraft (including the 550). The thing I'm puzzled about is the avionics. The real E1000 seems to come with a G1000. The 550 also seems to come with a different set of avionics than the sim version. Am I missing something? Gregg