On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:10:57 +0200, Paul Surgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does someone have a list of "flyable" aircraft for FlightGear? > About the only aircraft that handles in a realistic way is the 172. The C-172p (which you mentioned) and PA-28-161 handle very accurately. The C-310 is flyable, if a little klunky. The J3 Cub works well, as the the Wright Flyer (it's almost unflyable, but so is the real thing). The DC-3 is usable, if not entirely realistic -- the main problem is the panel. The BO-105 helicopter is also flyable, but does not support autorotations yet. That's about all I regularly fly -- of lot of the jets work, but I don't know how realistic their handling is; the turbine engines are certainly oversimplified compared to our piston engine support (which is maybe 70% accurate right now). Personally, I'm not all that interested in the big jets. Flying a jet is complicated, but many of the users who ask for them are people who could not even handle a 172 or J3 Cub. I have great respect for the people working on the models but it's an enormous job (I was never impressed by any of the jets and panels in MSFS or Fly!), and if they make the jets realistic, the potential pool of users who could actually handle them will be small -- the sad irony is that the better they do, the more complaints they'll get. We already have trouble with regular, sometimes angry mail from people who think it's a bug that our single-engine planes pull to the right during a steep climb, or that taildraggers don't just go straight down the runway on their own when the tailwheel comes up. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
