![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:15:25 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote: Jim writes: Excellent advice on all points. Only thing I would add is to use these steps in basic trainer such as C172 until proficient, as in real life you must crawl before you can walk. Flying a complex aircraft in simulation is task intensive and frustrating. Does a Baron 58 count as complex? It seems easy to fly compared to the big iron. Any plane with retractable gear and prop control is considered complex. I fly mostly the Baron 58 as Dreamfleet's simulation is rigorously accurate, so it behaves just like the real thing. The C172 seems too easy, so either this is the world's easiest plane to fly in real life, or the sim is not as accurate as it could be. The reason a C172 is used as a trainer in real life is because it is a very easy and forgiving airplane to fly. It is a good plane for landings because of the high wing. And because you don't have to worry with the gear or prop control you can concentrate on the fundamentals of a stabilized approach and then when mastered move on to more complex aircraft. Maybe a single engine retractable. I don't remember if the Baron 58 in a multi or single engine. In real life, I'd want to fly the same thing I had flown in the sim, if I could find a place that would give me instruction in a Baron (a new one, not one of those WWII relics, but without the G1000 junk). Be careful not to float or balloon in ground effect. If you do balloon add a bit of power to stabilize and cut the throttle again and flare to landing. Hope this helps. I do seem to glide excessively just before touchdown. I have a phobia about expensive damage to the gear. I've hardly ever crashed in a way that would injure me in real life, but I've had a fair number of landings in which the gear was damaged (on one occasion I damaged flaps as well, not sure how). The gear on the 172 is very resilient. I really think if you use the 172 to master the pitch / power part of the stabilized approach you will do better in the Baron. I have flown a real 172 and find FS2004's 172 to be very realistic. Hope this helps. -- Jim in Houston osPAm Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full, and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ID Please - Throttle Quad | Orval Fairbairn | Restoration | 0 | December 17th 05 08:35 PM |
Throttle movement | Max Richter | Naval Aviation | 12 | December 11th 04 11:09 PM |
Engine throttle | Bob Ingraham | Simulators | 13 | December 11th 04 07:17 PM |
Which throttle governer? | Garfiel | Rotorcraft | 1 | December 13th 03 04:30 PM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |