LA

Okay........I'm extremely familiar with C/S. I bought and own one, for the numerous advantages over a fixed pitch. The ability to slow down much better than a F/P is one of them. We are not directly controlling prop pitch with the blue knob, as the prop governor does that. You do not have to push the knob full forward to get the braking/drag benefits. If.................I had an engine out situation, and the prop is still turning (with oil pressure), I'd pull the blue knob all the way back to force it into coarse pitch. The less drag is very noticeable, to stretch a glide if needed. It's the opposite for most aerobatic C/S props......as they go to coarse with no oil pressure. Mine goes to fine. LA

You don't push the knob full forward at that speed. Just leave it at 2350 or 2400, or so...... and the plane still slows. I know this because I've flown C/S props for around 18 years, and still have one these days. The C/S is all the difference in the world compared to a fixed pitch, when it comes to decelerating airspeed for the pattern. I don't go full forward, until the engine has really slowed down, as on final approach. To do so before....................is like jamming a vehicle into low gear at highway speeds. I don't have retracts in my plane, and it's been too many years since I flew the retractable Arrow. I'd have to see more input, on which will actually have a better effect, between the gear & prop. Every retract I flew, always had a C/S. I can easily 45 into a pattern at 150 kias, make a short downwind, tight base & still fly over the fence at 70 kias. I can decelerate at 2000 fpm down a mountain canyon, thanks to the C/S. An F/P simply won't do that.............unless it was optomized not to do anything else. LA

Something to keep in mind, is that the Mooney in the video has a constant speed prop. These props will act somewhat like a speed brake, which allows the plane to decelerate quicker while descending, than a fixed pitch prop can. I haven't found as much effect as I'd like in any desktop sim..............when it comes to the braking effect with C/S props. So.........I suppose results could vary. LA

Do you really believe that X-Plane's flight model is so advanced.................that imputing correct dimensions will produce an exact duplicate of the real aircraft! ;D HA,HA,HA Just as with MSFS, X-Plane has to involve black art, hidden parts, etc............to make it believable & functional. I hate to break it to you..................but I often read about X-Planes superior flight models.......just by imputing the airplanes dimensions, airfoils, power, and a few other things. But............it just doesn't happen. At least not yet! Personally, I think Fatherjack should build a real B-17 and quit his moaning.... I found his criticism to be in bad taste. X-Plane is not a real aircraft. There is no metal, no aviation fuel, no rivets, no air, and a lot more nothings. I deal with the real thing. Did a bit of metal work on a B-29 too. Yet........Fatherjack talks as though the "model"......or simulation.............is the real thing... ??? LA

I've been using XM weather for around three years. Had a Garmin 496 prior to the 696 I have now. Between the 696 & getting a weather outlook from several Internet based websites.....I would say that I have a much more up to date weather picture, than what I'll get from a briefer. I have not called a FSS briefer in years. Having real time weather in the cockpit has been an outstanding feature................and is extremely beneficial in the mountain/desert country that I fly in. Thanks to XM weather, I can get ATIS, ASOS, & AWOS for destination airports hundreds of miles in advance. I also get winds, current TFRs, and altimeter settings............in addition to all those other things that the 696 does. LA

Just saw this thread today................although it's a few months old. Since I like canopy airplanes, especially for the view, I downloaded and tried it out. For starters, I liked the throatier engine sound. What I did notice on the takeoff roll & climb, is that it didn't really require any right rudder. I've read that the real DR400s , require quite a bit of rudder through the initial climb. In flight, I found it pleasant, smooth, and not twitchy. I hate twitchy X-Planes! Which reminds me.... the comment in the review about MS and flying on rails (whether true or not). No, MS aircraft haven't been flying on rails since FS98. To me, rails means constant heading & altitude, without the use of auto-pilot. Because MS may be smooth by default, it's because of lack of turbulence. Real planes, including small GA can be very smooth, when the weather is calm. In fact, when it's smooth, it can almost seem motionless,..... even if you're scooting along at 200 mph. Since I just downloaded this Robin, I don't know if the flight files have been updated or not.............because in my case, it landed with ease, and didn't do anything weird. As to braking, I'd have to try it again. The runway I was landing on, had a bit too much downhill, as compared to the real one. I think I was coasting. I haven't run real numbers, but it's a good little aircraft. Especially as freeware. LA

Yes............the fact that it's turbo-charged, hadn't entered my mind. I havn't yet seen what a checklist say's about leaning after engine startup at high altitude airports. This would of course be at idle speeds. At our airport elevation of 4603' msl., it's quite obvious when we don't lean right after startup (no turbo & carb). I also did see in a Corvalis checklist, that it's important to lean in climb, if the turbo charger isn't maintaining a predetermined value below 18000'. I'd have to look that up again, to check the numbers. LA

Okay........ You night want to add a line about leaning after startup at airport altitudes above 3000' msl. (because of density altitude) This would also include some leaning before takeoff, and not always going full rich for landing. A lot of POH's don't mention this, but you'll find that engine manufactures will, as well as checklist's at high elevation airports. LA

Put me down for the P51D as my all time favorite in both looks & sound. I got hooked on P-51's when I was 10 years old.........when my grandmother gave me a "see through" plastic model kit of the Mustang. That was about 50 years ago. In the meantime, it didn't hurt that a friend ( now deceased) owned a 1944 P-51D with a Cavilier conversion for a back seat passenger. I was able to go through some loops & rolls, in this aircraft.......as well as just enjoying it. Very noisy when the headsets are off for takeoff. But that was part of the fun. For me, the Spits come in second. LA

Thank you, very much, for pointing this out. This is where I live, and KSLC is where I got my PPL completed. It's all mountain and desert scenery in this area, which includes some of the best scenery in the world, considering numerous national parks such as the Grand Canyon & Yellowstone are nearby.........by airplane.. LA

I'll throw some more info in the pot.... In my case, it's a carbureted engine with a constant speed prop. Since my airport's altitude is 4607' msl, I'll crank over the engine with the red knob full forward, but pull it out about 5/8" just after engine start. I'll adjust it again during the runup. I only have a CHT & EGT for cylinder #3. This is usually the hottest cylinder on a Lycoming setup such as mine, but it's not always the case. Since I don't have fuel injection, nor CHT & EGT to monitor each cylinder, I won't be trying to run LOP. In flight, I'll be leaning the "old fashion way". Lean until the engine runs rough, and then about three turns rich. This will put my EGT at about 1325 F. Bare in mind, that EGT's can differ, just with variations of where the probes are installed on the exhaust pipe. For me, a smooth running engine & 1325 F. means I'll have clean & un-fowled spark plugs. It's probably 100 degrees ROP, but I can't say for sure. Since I usually fly at higher mountain altitudes, I'll never go full rich on landing. After takeoff, I usually pull the prop knob back a bit, to lower the sound levels. Cruise is usually between 2350 & 2450 rpms. My engine prop combination has limitations for vibration between 2000 & 2250 rpms. I just can't run continuous between those rpms. 2000 rpm is to slow for my taste. One option for lower power settings is to keep the black knob full forward, and use lower rpm (blue knob) to fly slower. I don't prefer that method, and will just pull manifold pressure (black knob) back. I'll adjust the red knob (lean/rich en) for different power settings, as explained above. For landing, the constant speed prop is an excellent speed brake, even while left in the cruise position. As said in another reply, it doesn't need to be pushed in on final approach. But if I'm doing a go-around, or touch and go............then it needs to be pushed in. You can really tell a lack of takeoff power, other wise. But only push it full forward, when the plane has slowed down on final. Otherwise, it's like jamming a motorcycle into low gear, at the wrong time! And finally, for best results, running LOP really requires an engine monitor for each cylinder, as well as fuel injection. Carbed engines just have to many variances between each cylinder. Those that really get into running LOP, will often change fuel injection orfices, to get the most even cylinder temps possible. LA

Use right rudder (hope you have pedals) for the takeoff roll & initial climb to stay on the runway heading. After picking up airspeed, the rudder trim should be enough to keep the plane straight at cruise speeds. If a wing dips after takeoff, then pick it up with aileron (yoke/stick). Actually, I don't know what kind of rudder trim a T34C has. Choices are in-flight adjustable trims, fixed trim tabs, offset vertical stabilizers, or a combination of. LA

There are several advantages for having two comm radios. If a comm fails, it's great to have an easy and accessible backup. In my case (real life), I'll have three or four frequencies in use at the same time. When flying with several other aircraft, I'll use one for the airport I just left. Another frequency is for ATC, as I'm flying under Class B airspace. I might not be talking to them, but at least I'm aware of whats going on around me. The third frequency is for air to air, with the other airplanes in our group. Another situation is where I fly around a point of the mountain that has an untowered airport on each side. One radio is set for one airport, and again ATC, as we're under the veil of Class B. The second radio is set for the destination airport's unicom frequency, and it's AWOS. Sure you can do all this with one comm, and the flip/flop frequencies make it easier. But two comms managed through an audio panel make it even more convienient. As for nav radios and auto-pilots (FMC. etc) , my plane is GPS auto-pilot coupled. I don't have NAV radios. My auto-pilot will fly from any waypoint I select, to the next & the next, automatically. Mine isn't legal for IFR, though LA

Well, I do. When you build your own plane, help others build theirs, and travel to airshows such as Oshkosh to see aircraft..........you have a tendency to care about exteriors. Besides, we often fly in group or formation flights, where you always see exteriors. I personally don't care much for simulated airplanes that resemble a toilet paper tube with wings. It just seems to distract from the illusion. And since I'm a fan of 3D virtual cockpits, it's always nice to have an authentic looking wing to peer at out the wind screen, canopy, etc. Based on that, I usually skip simulated aircraft that look cheesy, and will go more for airplanes that show a true talent in artwork & graphics, such as the T34C Mentor that is found within this forum. LA

You might want to adjust this, as normally.... a constant speed prop will allow the engine to rev to full rated rpms while standing still. LA

Within whatever sim I use ( I use three), I want accurate aircraft response, good looking airplanes (that means well done graphics inside and out), and lot's of ground/sky (eye candy) to make the desktop effort worth the trouble. Therefor, for me, it will never be just the option of eye candy or under the hood. ;D. Afterall, I have a real under the hood to play with, and all of the real scenery of the mountain west to look at. In order for me to get enthusiastic about a flight sim................it needs to recreate as much as real life as possible. I do like those moments when I think...........wow that seemed so real! And it does happen once and a while.. LA

Okay...........A minor gripe... For months now, I'm remaining rather neutral in thoughts regarding MSFS versus X-Plane. However, that means that X-Plane must stand on it's own merits, and not appear to be the best simulator in terms of "flight dynamics" because of what could be implied "misinformation" regarding MSFS. For instance, the author states that he's not familiar with MSFS, but states that theoretically that X-Plane should be faster in response to control movements & accuracy. Theoretically yes, but in reality no. MSFS is very fast, and can be very accurate. And as far as who or what government entity prefers one sim over the other, there are just as many on the other side. Therefor, I would have just as well preferred, that these comments were left out of the review.............even though it is a MSFS product converted to X-Plane. The rest of the review, was good information. At this very moment, the new MilViz Cessna 310R (FSX), is getting some great praise for possibly the best critical engine response yet, in regards to desktop sims & multi engine GA aircraft. While this may irritate some, that I even mentioned it, it's best that X-Plane designers are aware. You have to know, what you're working against. LA

It's probably a carry over from MSFS in which you hit the "L" key for simplicity in getting the lights on. Lot's easier than mousing over to switches. At that point, different MSFS panels allow for seperate switches to turn items off, if desired. One major difference between desktop simming & real life, without a full panel mockup, is the time it takes to "mouse" to to a switch or dial. Real life is certainly easier & much quicker! LA

In reality, flight in a GA plane can be anything from what seems like almost motionless stable, to severe chop. My wife has often remarked that we almost seem to be standing still, when actually we're doing close to 200 mph, and only about 4000' agl. And honestly, I don't really like turbulence all that much. That's why early morning, evening, and winter flying on good days are preferable. Never the less, I've turned the factors that make X-Plane always on the move....down. LA

I like FSX flight dynamics as a general rule. That doesn't mean everything in the relm of flight........but more than not. So what am I missing? With 3rd party intervention, it has Excellent cross-crontrol with slips All three of the turning tendencies.... torque/p-factor/prop slip stream ground effect spins & secondary spins capable of tail slides, snap rolls sense of feel, when it comes to dampening, inertia, power to weight I'm not here to slam X-Plane, but at the same time, I can respond on this forum when a slamfest for FSX occurs. This is something I can't do at the org., which is infamous for MSFS slamfests with little opposition. My post's go through moderation there. Do keep in mind that I own and fly a Van's RV6 regularly. In fact, Ive flown nearly every type of single engine Cessnas, Pipers, Mauls, Pitts S2B, Super Stearman, Marchetti SF260, various ultra-lights, and gliders. In the meantime, I'll use both X-Plane & FSX, while putting up with all the good points as well as the bad. LA

You can use more than one sim you know : Makes more sense, than anything I've read today.... LA

I usually reserve Avsim & Flightsim com. for my X-Plane versus MSFS thoughts. I split time between these two sims quite evenly lately, but as a long time MSFS user...........I am NOT one of these "I've seen the light........and am totally switching to X-Plane" type of people. I do get a bit annoyed, when I see this constant banter of "blade element theory" as being totally superior to look up tables. And lookup tables (MSFS) being referred to as a "pig". If they were a pig, I wouldn't be using the sim at all. I'd have jumped the MSFS ship years ago, even if I didn't think X-Plane was perfect at the time. But I did think that MSFS was lacking all the way through FS98. It wasn't until MSFS released it's combat series, that I began to really appreciate it. In fact, the combat series and the next release of it's flight simulator had many of the ground interactions with airflow, that have been partially removed today. But..........as a pilot/plane owner that I am; and as one who has flown quite a variety of GA aircraft, as well as aerobatic, mountain courses, etc..............I wouldn't just discount "lookup tables". They've been manipulated rather well, with designers that have been doing this for years. If they're believable, look right, give a sensation of feeling right, and hit the numbers............then that's what counts IMO. And.........they do! LA

My wife and I like animals. I think that Austin Meyer did good. I suppose I'll support the cause by buying X-Plane 10...........but no I phone apps for me.. http://www.thestate.com/2010/08/13/1415849/computer-developer-grounds-airplane.html LA

I've basically turned the turbulence in X-Plane off, except for naturally rough weather situations. I found it rather annoying. As a pilot/plane owner..........I'll fly a lot of cross country flights of several hundred miles or more. During the warmer months, the air is usually very still in the early morning hours. The plane is so rock solid, that it seems like we're barely moving, although GPS ground speeds are between 175 & 200 mph. As the morning progresses into afternoon, I can usually count on mild turbulence until the later afternoon hours, in which the air mass settles down again. During winter months, I've often flown thoughout the day, with little or no turbulence. Note: This airplane is a Van's RV6A. About the same size as the Falco, that's offered as a simulated aircraft. Flight area is the Rocky Mountain area of the USA. LA

Most of the NDB approaches in the US have been redone with RNAV (GPS) approaches. This is in addition to the NDB approach. These can be flown with no ADF or DME. With the addition of WAAS, there are even more changes in regards to alternate airports, etc. For a dipiction of an NDB, my Garmin 696 "portable" will show the NDB, and all the terrain features associated with it. It's the same graphics look as a Garmin 1000. But my 696 isn't legal for these approaches. LA