Simviation Forums

OK,I know we always have to go looking for better and better aircraft and we generally tend to ignore the default things offered up in FS.

Well I have to confess to taking a liking to the default Lear. It turned out to be a pleasant thing along with the KingAir.

My question is:

                    Has anyone looked at the airfile etc with a view to tweaking it?

There were all sorts of tweaks for DHC-8's to make them fly and I had my own play around with files as well but I don't have the expertise to do any more than basic stuff.  

I haven't searched files or anything yet or maybe I am missing the obvious.

Anyhow-I do like the Lear as it is

Cheers,

Col.

The Default Lear 45 is a nice, gentle step up from Piston Prop, and Turbo (Turbine) Prop aircraft....Default Beech Baron 58, and King Air!

I mostly use the Default Aircraft, as most of the time I am looking out of the window at the scenery evolving below me...

....not admiring their posh seats, colour, and shine, whilst sat on the ground......!

The Lear just takes a little time to slow down, when landing.....practice needed.....!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004... 8-)...!

Have fun with some of the "Default Stuff"... ...!

Hi Fozzer.

I am using some of the default stuff although it is annoying when you have to play with the .cfg to get the default 172 to climb at its rated airspeed

Col.

Hi Fozzer.

I am using some of the default stuff although it is annoying when you have to play with the .cfg to get the default 172 to climb at its rated airspeed

Col.

I'll tell you what I do Colin......

I pinch the "aircraft file" from a better performing similar Aeroplane and insert it into the Default Aircraft, (re-naming the Original file for safety).... [smiley=evil.gif]...!

The "Turbo Beech Baron 58" Aircraft file replacing the default Baron file will speed it up somewhat......!

That way the correct aircraft always appears in Multiplayer Flights, (no change to the Aircraft "Model" )... ...!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004..and a nippy Default Baron 58!... [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]...!

Darn Fozzer,you have exposed me for the lazy bastard I am.

I usually go looking for all the flight specs for whatever I want to fly and tweak the .cfg to produce the right performance(saving the original file in a nice safe place of course). I sort of thought that was a better approach than importing a complete file. But each to his own and there is more than one way to skin a cat----and half a dozen other cliches

This time I thought I would ask to see if anyone else had got there first.

There does not appear to be anyone squealing about how badly the default aircraft fly so I am accepting no-one is going for an overhaul of the airfile. It is more,as I said, 'tweaking'.

Cheers,

Lazy Col.

....in the Aircraft file, under...

[turbocharged= 0]

I modify to read...

[Star Trek Warp Drive=1]

Problem solved... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

Hi Fozzer.

I am using some of the default stuff although it is annoying when you have to play with the .cfg to get the default 172 to climb at its rated airspeed

Col.

Hmmm  :-?   The default C172 is dead-on, as far as performance goes.. Both climbing and cruising.  I wouldn't change anything  8-)

I will bow to superior knowledge of course but my experience recently was with an instructor yelling at me,'Nose up,nose up,get your nose up!!'.

Now I know he is looking at attitude in climb but I am looking at fpm and airspeed. To keep everyone happy we went for 75kias which is,of course,best rate of climb and showed 1100-1200 fpm. Manoeuvring speed on the day was 120. This was a 1983 172.

I am flying around my patch of FS at the moment in the default 172 and initially it would not climb at that rate or exceed 110kias. A small "tweak" has it doing somewhere what I expect

With some aircraft in the past needing some "tweaking",after complaints from real pilots,I sort of thought the original reference to the default Lear was valid even with the offerings we have now.

All in all,given the limits of FS,the default aircraft I have used are good.

Anyway the voyage in the Cessna is drawing to a close and I'll be looking to use the Lear to transport me to new skies--Africa I think

Cheers,

Col.

Hello Colin...

I have an idea the the Cessna 172 is somewhat "nose heavy", due to its larger, heavier engine than the Cessna 150/152 Trainers...

....and requires a spot of "upwards" Trim to be safe......

..which is why the C150/152 always seems "nicer", and more "balanced" to handle... ...!

For my daily practice, to keep "on the ball", I always use my Trusty Cessna 150 Trainer......!

It's a bloody shame that the Cessna 150/152 Trainer was never included in any of the MS Flight Sims for Newby Pilots to perfect their skills on, on before leaping into a bleedin' great Jumbo Jet!... ...!

Paul...G-BPLF....FS 2004...and a nice collection of 150's and 152's....!..

It's a bloody shame that the Cessna 150/152 Trainer was never included in any of the MS Flight Sims for Newby Pilots to perfect their skills on, on before leaping into a bleedin' great Jumbo Jet!... ...!

Not like they would use it even if it were there!  ;) 8-)

It's a bloody shame that the Cessna 150/152 Trainer was never included in any of the MS Flight Sims for Newby Pilots to perfect their skills on, on before leaping into a bleedin' great Jumbo Jet!... ...!

Not like they would use it even if it were there!

I'm not trying to be argumentative

I don't think this is being argumentative ,I think it is rather interesting as more is revealed as we go.

You are partly right as to the day etc. It was cool,the aircraft had just come in off another hire and the instructor said there was sufficient fuel for our purpose(I did not look at the fuel to be quite honest),no baggage and maybe 400lb(the instructor was a way small guy!!)

I will admit I was surprised to see 1100fpm but,hey,I'm the rookie right? The maneuvering speed was only out in the training area and not in the circuit and I thought that 93-97 was not necessarily minimum but a bit like doing approaches with the stall buzzer going off in your ear. I get a bit nervous about that sort of thing

And before we get this post shifted to Real Aviation let me just say that the change I did make to the default 172 was actually very small but it was enough to satisfy me.

Anyway the purpose of the post was to see if there were any tweaks for the default Lear and since we have had no posts with regard to that I can only assume we have no resident Lear pilots anymore.

And Paul,150/152's are quite nice aircraft but I spent an hour in the right seat doing night circuits scrunched up trying to avoid conflicting the controls(two big boys)---172 or nothing

Besides that the hire rate wasn't that much different and I got it at hire/fly rates anyway 8-)

Cheers,

Col.

......And Paul,150/152's are quite nice aircraft but I spent an hour in the right seat doing night circuits scrunched up trying to avoid conflicting the controls(two big boys)---172 or nothing

Besides that the hire rate wasn't that much different and I got it at hire/fly rates anyway 8-)

Cheers,

Col.

Colin...

Cessna 150/152's are what I call....."Cosy"..... ....!

With my 154 Lbs weight, my 5'-7" height, and my soft brown eyes, the little Cessna has a good power-to-weight-ratio.

With just me as Pilot, no " extra baggage", and 50% Fuel, my "C150_v2" Cessna 150 Aerobat will give a Cessna 172 a run for its money... ...!

One just has to be sure to have a Shower, a fresh cotton Shirt, and generous application of After-Shave Lotion, before entering the Aircraft with a Passenger...or Instructor......!

Shoulder-to-shoulder with a well endowed Female Instructor makes flying in a Baby Cessna a delight, and well worth trying out, .....even at

Riiiiight. Book female instructor(buxom),request 152. Got it.

Now all I have to do is shop around here for the instructor and hope they don't fly something less 'cosy'

Col.