lnuss

I've never tried it, but I don't think they are backwards compatible.

Of course it doesn't cost the company anything to produce these "upgrades..."

Better than an ox yoke...

They never did before, when we had a new one every three years or so. Makes one wonder though...

Thanks for letting us know, Nels. I certainly remember those golden years. I agree that this should be interesting -- is it still developed by the same outfit? Guess I should have watched the video first. They sure make it look good.

Thanks, Adrian. It's much appreciated.

I can't understand why the time allowed for editing a new post is so short. I made a rather long post awhile ago, proof read it, then saved it. As I started to reread it as a double check, I discovered I'd left something out so I tried to edit the post and it denied it saying that the time allowed for editing had expired. I know it was less than ten minutes, and it seemed only a couple since I'd pressed POST, but the time had expired. It took over half an hour to create the post, with several proofreads and with additional thoughts, but time available to edit was gone before I could read the post again. So could we get AT LEAST an hour, maybe two, before that time expires (a full day would be better)? Having to create another post to correct problems is unacceptable.

I don't know about the sim, but the real world one cannot.

Well, it seems that the time for editing isn't adequate for a long post, since I forgot to add the footnote for the asterisk near the beginning and it tells me that it's too late to edit this post. So here's the footnote: * Some single engine aircraft don't have the "airline style" levers, but instead have a push-pull control (and throttle and mixture also push pull) on the panel, and a few recently developed singles have a computer that does it for you leaving you with a single "power lever" for your control, sort of like an automatic transmission in a car.

Unless I missed something in the replies above, it appears to me that you are still a bit confused about this. High and low pitch are reference to various positions of an adjustable propeller. While aircraft such as the C-172 and lower end PA-28s have fixed pitch propellers, most of the higher powered single engine aircraft have constant speed propellers. This means there is the (often blue) propeller control in most cockpits* and that the blades are movable. But not all constant speed props can be feathered, although most multi-engine aircraft do have a feathering positions Perhaps it will help to understand that feathering goes beyond just being adjustable, and turns the blades so that they are 90º to the direction of flight for minimum drag, which obviously means they can't propel the aircraft any more. No, they don't feather because there isn't much need for it (it does save cost and complexity vs just constant speed), but they do still adjust on many singles, especially the faster ones. So to understand the constant speed aspect, and the reason for them, think of it as sort of like a transmission in a car, low gear for starting out shifting to a higher gear as you get faster. So you put the prop lever full forward for takeoff giving you low pitch when you add a lot of power, thus getting a more effective bite at the air. This also allows the engine to reach max RPM so that combined you have the best takeoff performance. Once airborne and after initial climb and clearing any obstacles you bring the prop back to, say 2400-2500 RPM (from perhaps 2700 or so initially, depending on the aircraft) for best climb performance, then you bring the throttle back to perhaps 25" of manifold pressure (from maybe 29" at sea level) to get down to the rated max continuous power (typically 75%) 'til getting to cruise altitude. Once at cruise altitude you bring the prop back to, perhaps 2100 to 2400 RPM, depending on whether you want more speed or more economy, and leave it there until ready for descent. What all of this does is to get you in the best "gear" for each stage of flight. And it's called a constant speed propeller because it has a governor (which is what you are adjusting for RPM) to vary the blade pitch (angle) as the aircraft speed and propeller/engine loads change during flight, which results in the blades being in a relatively low pitch (almost flat with the airstream) at initial level off but gradually becoming a higher pitch (more coarse pitch) as the aircraft speeds up, with the governor maintaining a constant RPM on the prop (what you set by the tachometer) as the loads change in flight. I'm not aware of any piston engine singles that have feathering props, but most (maybe all) single engine turboprops do, as much for ground operation as anything, due to the difference in the way turboprops operate. So please don't confuse adjustable with feathering, two different things. Hope this helps.

I know the sim features carburetor ice. Given the right weather conditions, carb ice will cause engine power loss or even engine failure under certain circumstances. I'm not sure about wing icing, since I never did much IFR (or bad weather) in FS2004, and I've not had it on my system for at least a dozen years. But carb ice I experienced when I had that version.

Interesting, since that sim was released just under 20 years ago (late 2003, if I recall correctly). Granted that it was really the first one to behave really well, and is still decent today, for most purposes.

I'm pretty sure that Zippy is right, that it's only going to show there if the add-on puts it there. I know nothing about FS Tramp but apparently it doesn't put anything there, unless there is something you aren't doing, such as starting it separately if that's required (it may not be, though).

I guess my ears are faulty, but I thought I heard Common Tower Advisory Frequency, but I just went back and listened again, and you did say Traffic. Apologies for my hearing problem. I thought that was a strange mistake, but it's my mistake both times when I listened at first, not yours. I've noticed recently that I occasionally mis-hear things now, so perhaps it's old age- same happens with hearing aids, so it's not the ears themselves. Again, sorry I heard wrong... Larry

Nicely done. I might suggest, though, that CTAF is Common Traffic, not Tower. Thanks...

They don't now, Charlie, but MilViz did offer a C-310 for FSX- I have it. It's also been modified a little to work on P3D V2.4. The version I have was copyright ©2010 and ©2013.

A hard to watch "signature?" It's very distracting...

A great write-up, Tony -- thanks, and another one that I missed the first time around. You obviously had a great experience, and I appreciate you sharing that with us -- great pix, too. The ES side of CAP has changed since I retired in 2008, though it was a change in progress even then. Of course the Cadet Program has changed some too, but not as much. As a reminder to readers here, the CAP Cadet Program is a great way for young people to learn about, and experience, many facets of aviation, as well as learning about military customs and courtesies and, with sufficient progression in the program, to even gain some actual military benefits, should you join the service. You can also learn and experience the ground side of the Emergency Services that is one of CAP's core missions. Hope you've read Flying Minutemen, the 1948 book by Robert E. Neprud that details the beginning of CAP and it's history in WWII and shortly after, a superb read, IMO. For those not having a copy, it can be read online here: https://archive.org/details/FlyingMinuteMen. My copy is old and frail, probably from the original printing -- I've reread it several times over the years. They did so in the early 1940s (see Flying Minutemen), though in a bit different fashion back then, but otherwise those experiences have certainly been scarce as hen's teeth. For those who wonder, "RON" means Remain OverNight.

You have to keep in mind what it takes to disassemble the aircraft, and get space on a ship to take it there (could be weeks for that), as well as the travel time of the ship, then reassemble it after arrival, and ensure that it had been done right. And certainly that size of cargo on the ship isn't cheap to transport, plus the chance of damage with the cranes and such to get it on board in the first place. In contrast, the ferry tank setup was not something new that would take forever to get FAA approval, since many folks have done it before, including this pilot ferrying since 1988, so it was a known process with well tested equipment and with a fairly short installation time (compared to shipping), then the inspection and paperwork with the FAA shouldn't take long. So a big difference in travel time plus it remained flyable throughout the whole process. Also, "gutting the interior of the plane" wasn't necessary- they just remove the rear seat, which is pretty quick to do. At the beginning of WWII they shipped aircraft to Europe and Africa in crates, then had to reassemble them and test them, and it took a LOT of time. So they eventually were able to establish a North Atlantic route and set of bases that were close enough together that they could fly these aircraft instead, getting them to the war zone weeks sooner than taking them by ship. So it's the same deal with this ferry flight, same reasons, same advantages. The procedures and equipment have been refined and tested and refined some more over the last 75+ years. I know the article almost made it sound unbelievable, but the pilot (Lopes) himself thought it was no big deal: "'Lopes has been doing it since 1988, and says that this isn’t even the first time that he’s taken a small plane nonstop over similar distances. Thus, he was a little surprised when his routine job spread around the net." And: "The next weekend, he flew a Cessna 208 Caravan across the Pacific to Thailand." Don't get me wrong, it's still quite an undertaking, and not everyone can sit there for 18 hours without stretching, certainly I can't do that, but it has enough advantages that it's been happening for a long time. Routine, for him and others in his business...

Si, si, señores, a salty guy... Ferrying light aircraft overseas is pretty common, especially across the Atlantic, but a C-172 over the Pacific isn't as common. Still, that's how most of those get to Hawaii and other places overseas, for the reasons mentioned in the article. Nels is right, in that it has to be extremely boring, especially with no company, but I think it pays well.

Unfortunately, hearing folks opinion on real world aircraft means little for the sim modeling, which is often quite poor, in terms of aircraft behavior. For example some sim aircraft have been carefully tweaked to match real world numbers, or nearly so, yet feel rather artificial, often harder to fly than the real ones, and certainly it often comes with some odd behavior that would defy physics. There are very few aircraft available for the sims that are comfortable to fly, having to compensate for odd happenings in one way or another. A long time friend of mine felt the same way, and eventually did something about it, for us. My late friend Mike (a 10,000 hour plus RW pilot) tweaked many, many aircraft to feel natural, much preferring that to an exact match on the "numbers" and they were (and are) a delight to fly in the sim, being able to do most anything with those aircraft with maximum immersion (even tight formations and aerobatics, even spins in some of them) and without having to think about it, though he spent a LOT of hours on it, sometimes weeks on a single aircraft, then sending me the mods to test and comment on, then sometimes he'd further tweak them until we were both happy with them. This has all spoiled me for the aircraft, both freeware and payware, that has not been tweaked by him. As background on that, we met in 1974 when he was running a glider operation in Albuquerque, and I soon became a tow pilot for him part of the time. We soon became good friends, and as his operation progressed into flight training with a variety of fixed wing aircraft (Cessnas, Grumman Americans, PA-11, PA-18, Stearman, Citabria and more) I started instructing part time for him (I had a "day job" too) and we got to know each other well. In addition, starting with FS98, though he was then in Dallas area and I was in the Denver area, we started flying multiplayer together, progressing through the sims through P3D V2.4. Of course voice communication was essential for that to work very well, and we tried a lot of things over the years, including Microsoft meeting, Freetel and several others. We finally settled on Murmur/Mumble, a free/open source VOIP program that works very well indeed, after configuration. All this to say we knew each other well and had similar flying preferences. So his tweaks are very special, but due to the hassle involved with posting and distributing such things, along with the complaints and "gimme" expectations of some, he was never willing to share with the general public, and likely most simmers wouldn't much care anyway. After he passed I uploaded a couple of his tweaks and got little response. So there's a variety of ways in which sim aircraft behave, some a bit realistic and some not very, and apparently a lot of simmers don't much care how the aircraft handle, or even prefer strange things. On the other hand, as I've said here many times, most versions of MSFS are excellent procedural trainers when it comes to how VORs and other aircraft specific things work, how to fly on instruments, traffic pattern procedures and much more.

Thanks for the compliment. And I agree with your second sentence -- there are, indeed, too many generalizations in the wrong places, both in the forums and in so many other places too. So for the OP, you can see that there's not really a consensus.

OK, link #4. "Many single-engine piper aircraft have only one door on the right-hand side, whereas all Cessna aircraft have two doors." Of the singles, the Pipers starting with the Cherokee have only one door, but the Pacer and TriPacer have two doors (right front and left rear), and it's only starting with the Cherokee line that the singles are all low wing -- prior to that they were all high wing. "The first Piper aircraft, the Piper J3 Cub, was, in fact, a high wing aircraft. However, since that time, almost all Piper aircraft have been low wing. There are a few exceptions to this, but certainly, the more popular general aviation aircraft, such as the PA-28 Warrior and Archer, are all low wing." She skips the rest of the Piper singles since the Cub, through the TriPacer and Colt, before getting to the Cherokees. "Cessnas, on the other hand, are almost all high wing, although again, there are some exceptions, particularly when it comes to larger and more modern aircraft such as the Cessna Citations." Cessna singles hold true to this, but Cessna only has one high wing twin (the C-336/7), with the rest being low wing and single door. "All pilots are agreed that when it comes to performance and handling issues, there is virtually nothing to choose from between the two companies. To illustrate this, here are some quotes from private pilots concerning both Piper and Cessna aircraft…" Not all pilots. From an instructor's standpoint, the Cessnas tend to do more to force the student to use the rudder, where the Piper trainers have so little adverse yaw that students can easily get sloppy without realizing it (or caring, in many cases), and some instructors seem to be almost indifferent to this. There are other differences (flap use, etc.) too, but I'll pass on covering the rest, for now. All in all, she's a tad more professional in her coverage, but like so many writers makes general statements that should have a caveat or two (ALL Pipers have one door, ALL Pipers are low wing). Granted that a lot of this may apply to those currently for sale new, but often so many used aircraft from earlier times are ignored, yet they're still on the used market. Again, be careful...

OK, link #3, another attempt to compare two manufacturers, rather than specific aircraft, same guy as link #2. Similar problems to his attempt with Cessna and Piper. "Another key difference is that Beechcraft models tend to be more expensive than their Piper counterparts. This is partly due to Beechcraft using higher quality (and thus more expensive) materials in the construction of their aircraft, which Piper mostly avoids." This isn't necessarily true. Just because materials are aimed more at luxury doesn't automatically mean that they are inferior parts. The designs are considerably different, and Beech puts more "luxury" into their aircraft than Piper tends to do and, for example, in the Bonanza has a very refined design that is the Cadillac (rather than the Chevy) with a fast aircraft that carries a decent load with good range and superb handling, though it's not quite as benign in slow flight as the Pipers and Cessnas tend to be. The Piper singles are also very refined designs, but with a different aim. Another factor is that the Beech aircraft tend to be overbuilt, by comparison to Piper (or Cessna, for that matter) giving a very solid feel that, if you're a car afficianado, (to me) reeks of BMW and the like. And I see that he compares the Piper Seneca with the Beech Baron (260 HP? Only on older models), again not really comparable aircraft other than speed range and the fact that they're light twins. So there's plenty of the article to be wary of, with some misinformation and much of the same problem that plagues his article in link #2. Careful...

I'm looking more closely at the second link now. I found this statement: "As student pilots are often inexperienced and prone to attempting maneuvers that increase the likelihood of a stall, a higher stall speed is not ideal and perhaps explains why more flight schools use aircraft like the C152 and C172 than the Piper Arrow. " The Arrow would compete more with the C-177 than with the C-172. It should have been the Archer (and the Cherokee 140/180 before it) that were compared. And this: "For more experienced pilots, a higher stall speed is also less desirable if the pilot enjoys doing aerobatics, as some of these maneuvers reduce the aircraft’s speed dangerously close to the stall speed." What does that have to do with Cessna or Piper? "Both Cessnas and Pipers are famous for being used as trainers. However, one of the biggest downsides of using a Piper as a trainer is that they have, on the whole, far higher stall speeds than Cessnas. " Huh? Not when looking at comparable aircraft, though there is a little difference. "In many cases, such as that of the Piper Cherokee and Cessna 182, the difference can be as little as $15,000, with the Cherokee having a new price of $500,000 whilst the 182 sits at $515,000." Huh? The Cherokee hasn't been produced for decades, and it's only the Cherokee 235 that used to compete with the C-182, way back when. Archer, Warrior, Dakota (all with the newer wing that's more like the Cessnas) are the light singles that Piper currently produces. This is so very true: "When it comes to a direct comparison of Cessna and Piper, it’s safe to say there is no “one size fits all” answer as to which is better. At the end of the day, it’s simply a matter of personal preference." Also, he sort of compares the Seneca and the C-310, yet the aircraft aren't quite comparable, though they both are light twins. Useful load, range, roominess and more are not much mentioned, for example. All in all, it's quite a bit better than the first link, but still leaves a bit to be desired in many areas, often comparing aircraft that aren't meant to be comparable, and getting into the rather tricky area of trying to compare the whole line of each manufacturer, rather than a pair of basically competing models. Again, careful of misinformation.