Which is the most realistic GA aircraft for FSX

[papeg 0]

This question is for all of you real world pilots out there. Which add-on GA aircraft for FSX has the most realistic flight characteristics?

Greg

[mutley 4,497]

My choice would be the Real Air Turbo Duke.

[papeg 0]

What about a little trainer like C172 or C152 or even a C182, a single piston engine? The only reason I ask is that I will be starting classes for my PPL this weekend in either a 172 or 152 (not sure which yet) and was looking for something about that big with very realistic flight characteristics so that I might get some extra practice in FSX.

Greg

[mutley 4,497]

Ah! Well that's a different matter, Jack and George are presently taking PPL, they might be able to advise.

My choice would be the Carenado version OR there is a free 152 from Just Flight here that would be good to try first?

Cheers,

Joe

[Aircraft Aviation 2]

The JF152 is excellent, except for its Flying Dynamics, which in my opinion is way off.

There's is no way a Cessna 152 can, with full flap and idle throttle, hold 70 Knots with a decent rate of just 300FPM, at nearly full load!

[mutley 4,497]

So any recommendations Jack? :wootmesalia:

[allardjd 1,853]

Quote

There's is no way a Cessna 152 can, with full flap and idle throttle, hold 70 Knots with a decent rate of just 300FPM, at nearly full load!

 

I have to agree emphatically with Jack on that. If the FS version does that it's severely wrong - 1300 fpm might be more like it, with the windshield full of ground to keep 70 knots.

 

I've never flown the 182 in the RW but the Carenado 182 RG seems pretty good - much like a 172 but with a little more weight, a little more power and a lot less drag when the gear are up. If you want to use it to emulate the straight-legged one, just don't retract the gear.

 

John

[papeg 0]

Thanks for the inputs. How is the flight dynamics of the Carenado 172?

[GabethePilot 1]

Try TweakAir (?) ... to change flight characteristics BTW.

I think the Accusim stuff (A2A) is a good starting point. There are two Cubs out there that seem to get good reviews across the board. One may be Aerosoft's; the other is A2A I think.

And personally, I like the SAAB Safir. Very good on FPS too ! I have it for FS9 but I think it's available for FSX too. Beautiful plane. Just get it. Trust me. :icon_thumbup:

[allardjd 1,853]

The only reason I ask is that I will be starting classes for my PPL this weekend in either a 172 or 152 (not sure which yet) and was looking for something about that big with very realistic flight characteristics so that I might get some extra practice in FSX.

The A2A Cub (and their other things) are reputed to be pretty realistic but in the context you're asking about, i.e. using an FS aircraft to supplement RW training in a 152 or a Skyhawk, a Cub is just going to muddy up the water for you - it's just too different, i.e too little power, no flaps, taildragger, rear-seat solo flying position, different panel, etc. None of those matter as much after you have some hours in your logbook but will cause a lot of confusion early in your training. Best to stick to something closer to what you're getting your RW training in. The 152 looks like a bad choice because of what Jack said about the flight model, but the Carenado 172 or 182 look as if they might be valid candidates. I haven't used their 172 but their 182 RG feels right. If they got the 182 right, they probably got the Skyhawk right too. Carenado does good work across the board.

John

[papeg 0]

Great inputs, thanks. I think I will give the 172 a try but I'm going to give that SAAB Safir a good look.

Greg

[allardjd 1,853]

Greg,

 

If you're not already doing so, seriously consider a flight yoke and pedals for FS if you're going to use it as a supplement for RW training. You've been around the FS scene for a while and I suspect you already have them, but if not they will move your sim flying very much closer to what you're experiencing in the RW. If there's even more discretionary money laying around, the TrackIR would also improve the fidelity a lot. Pretty soon it will be cheaper to fly the RW Cessnas.

 

John

[papeg 0]

Way ahead of you John, I've had the Pedals and yoke for a while now but I am eyeing the Saitek Cessna throttle and trim wheel. I also already have the TrackIR 5.

[VH-MAL 0]

A bit late to add to this I guess, but for what it's worth:

I have the Aerosoft Katana and find it very difficult to fly which in my limited experience (flying, that is) means that it must be somewhere near accurate! From the forums it seems that they are on the money with this one, to the extent that the stall warning horn sounds on short final if you are flying by the numbers.

And if you can wait a little while, Ant's Airplanes are working on the Eaglet, and his (Anthony) previous efforts of the Sierra and the Drifter have been quite accurate in all respects.

Perhaps these aircraft are in the wrong category, being LSA types, but many pilots begin their flight training in these types of aircraft these days.

Mal

PS from what I've seen, Sibwings (maker of the Safir) are more concerned with eye candy rather than flight models - I was horrified when they themselves asked on their forums if anyone could give them more accurate figures for their Cessna O-1!

[M31 0]

I have some hours in a real Piper Warrior III, but am no expert on flight models.

I will agree with Mal on the Aerosoft Katana in that it just feels right as much as FSX will allow ...I also love flying Aersoft's Twin Otter for perceived feel of flying something real.

One of the biggest challenges in Flight Sim (as in real life) is flying the Twotter into Lukla in poor weather with full FSX realism.

Moving on to Military combat sims, Lock On's Flaming Cliffs SU-25 shows what can be done in feel for a realistic flight model (they have never pulled this off in any other of their series IMHO) It models inertia and physics as I imagine it should be for this jet ... it just feels right and even if its not right, it feels good to virtually fly ... this goes for the same jet in FC2 as well IMHO. DCS A10-C feels positively feisty IMHO and there are many fixes to tone down its flight model.

[Wyatt 0]

There's is no way a Cessna 152 can, with full flap and idle throttle, hold 70 Knots with a decent rate of just 300FPM, at nearly full load!

I have to agree emphatically with Jack on that. If the FS version does that it's severely wrong - 1300 fpm might be more like it, with the windshield full of ground to keep 70 knots.

I've never flown the 182 in the RW but the Carenado 182 RG seems pretty good - much like a 172 but with a little more weight, a little more power and a lot less drag when the gear are up. If you want to use it to emulate the straight-legged one, just don't retract the gear.

John

The 182 has retractable gear?

[allardjd 1,853]

The Carenado C-182 RG II does.

 

http://www.carenado.com/CarSite/Portal/index.php

 

John

[Wyatt 0]

The JF152 is excellent, except for its Flying Dynamics, which in my opinion is way off.

There's is no way a Cessna 152 can, with full flap and idle throttle, hold 70 Knots with a decent rate of just 300FPM, at nearly full load!

If you like it and are willing to spend some time modifying code you can always change aircraft performance.

@John, I see it now. I've only seen earlier versions.

[britfrog 180]

the main problem with our beloved fsx, or any sim for that matter , it is only as good as the person who has written the program, and 98% of them have never flown a plane. fsx no matter how well you write the a/c cfg is really limited in what you can do , try a stall, it is about as realistic as jordans boobs, but as we dont stall very much we dont come across the problem a lot. I have been lucky in my time to fly a lot of aircraft but to fly an a/c well, you have to fly it by the numbers and ignoring different weights if you know the numbers most small planes fly pretty well the same much as they do in fsx, the realism in flying real planes is shown in many ways, most of them arrive through the seat of the pants, which fsx cannot emulate unless you have a motion seat and lots of expensive equipment, so really the most realistic small aircraft is the one that is visually the most realistic, because the programmers will have enabled the plane to fly the numbers.