RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

Little background, I solo'd on a Superstar40 over a year ago, and then crashed it three times. Bought RFG2 this past weekend, absolutely love it, already bought 4 of the 5 addon's. My question is... I've practically mastered the PT-40 trainer, and I still use it to practice landings and some slower flight manuevers, as well as differing weather conditions, until I feel COMPLETELY comfortable flying. My qeustion is.... When I fly the warbirds, Corsair, P-40, P-51, and even the older biplanes like Tiger Moth, and Albatross, I feel SO much more comfortable flying them. Even at moderate to high speeds. When I go back to flying RC's for real... should I step right up? Or go ahead and get another trainer to practice, then make the jump? How realistic IS RFG2 compared to actual flying?

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

Landing and takeoff are not as real unless you add a little wind gust and increase realism for landing. Once in the air, it's very close.
Since you put the Superstar in 3 times and only having G2 for a week, I'd suggest going with the Avistar which you'll be able to fly in stronger winds and will land much better.

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

My experience is that the sim is much more forgiving than real life. The P-51 is not that easy, I have one. It does fly well but not so well as the sims version does. The larger the plane on the sim the slower and easier it handles. I think that is true to a point. My largest is a 90 and it is harder for me than the 40's. I think the Great Planes flight simulator is a masterful blend of physics and computer animation and great help but I would not rely on its physics to choose a plane.

It is also my experence that I had an easier time flying a low wing tail dragger than I ever did with my trainer. Felt a lot more comfortable to me to have greater control and response. I went from an Avistar to a Funtana. Can't suggest this but it worked for me despite everyone I know saying it was far to much for me then. Also bought a computer radio so I could control my rates at my pace along with some other nice things a computer radio will do.

Just my 2 cents
M

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

I've found that take offs on the sim are too simple to be true compared to the real thing... maybe its just my Tower Hobbies 40 traiiner, but it starts getting very squirly on the ground on take off at a certain speed... nothing like what happend in the sim... in the sim you just gas it and go! Before I got the hang of take offs I broke several props before I even got off the ground ... :-)

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

Well, a little more background perhaps... I've got RFG2 set up with a 10 mph wind directly down the runway, which is very similar to a normal day at the club field, with variable wind direction up to 45 degrees off, and gusts to 15mph set on about the middle of the scale... I tried to keep that much as real as possible to what conditions I'll normally be flying in. We also have an asphalt runway, and I prefer taking off from it, and landing on grass (seems more forgiving with less rollout on landing). I've got the landing spectrum all the way to the most realistic setting, and I fly at half throttle most of the time, rather than full throttle. I even take off with between half and 3/4 throttle. The takeoffs and landings on the PT-40 are dead on what I experienced flying last year when I solo'd, and I'm very comfortable flying it on the sim. The other planes I feel much more comfortable in the air than the trainer, but you're right, takeoffs and landings are alot different than the trainer. I try to keep it as realistic as possible from a comparison standpoint between real aircraft and the models on the sim. I will say I'm not at all happy with the way the P-51 flies or lands. Seems way too sluggish for me. However, the P-40 with about 30% flaps at all times (full flaps on takeoff, 30% in the air, and about 1/4-1/2 throttle flies slow enough to make low speed low altitude passes directly over the runway, and again, still working on perfecting my taildragger landings. The corsair on the other hand.... to me, on the game handles like a dream. I've played alot of WWII simulator games, so I'm semi-experienced in what to expect with the speed and control of the airplanes from a gaming point of view, so trying it out on the sim is a nice way to see how a model would behave in the air. I think 'if' I wound up getting a warbird, the corsair or P-40 would be my choice. I was primarily wondering if I could immediately transpose my skills from the sim to the real thing, or if there would be some adjustment involved going from one to the other.

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

My wind figures were incorrect... it's usually 7 mph with 5 mph gusts, set to 10 degrees variable. That's a very windy day for our field when I fly. Most of the time the wind is less than 5 mph

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

The more I fly real planes, the less I like Real Flight. It just dosen't feel right, although it certainly is a very usefull tool.

Andy

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

Realflight G2 is a good simulator. That said, IT IS A SIMULATOR. The planes will USUALLY fly SIMILAR to the actual model. They WILL NOT fly the same unless you do A LOT OF TWEAKING to the plane and engine.

If your wind is 7mph with 5 mph gusts ????, I suggest the following settings for Realflight:

Set the wind to 8 mph with 11 mph gusts. Have the wind QUARTERING the runway (coming across the runway at a 30 - 45 degree angle ). Set the wind direction to a 20 degree variable and set the "gustiness" control at 75%. In addition, set the sim to REALISTIC for take off and landing.

Once you learn to fly the sim with those conditions, you will have few difficulties flying the actual plane.

Another "trick" I do when using Realflight, especially with warbirds, is:

I make sure that the total weight of the plane AND square inches are the same as the model I will be flying. THEN I ADD about 6 oz to the total weight of the plane - divided as follows 20% to the tail surfaces, 30% to the main wing and 50% to the fuselage. What this does is increases the wing loading. The plane is going to land AND fly faster and respond a little slower in the air. When you actually fly the warbird, you should not have any surprises at all (well maybe pleasant ones ) since you have basically setup a "worse case" scenario.

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

The sim won't include the interactive accumulation of inaccurate construction, set up & tuning problems that exist in the real thing, let alone accurately portray gusty, swirling, variable winds & temperature effects, plus first-flight nerves that just ain't there on the sim. I can fly a 747 on a sim, but I sure can't fly the real bird.

Sims are great for basics & practicing aerobatic routines. However, I sure wouldn't rely on sim experience alone before I launched an expensive & very unforgiving warbird. I would practice like hell on the sim, plus get an experienced WARBIRD pilot on a buddy cord to help me out, if I was in your shoes.

If you are not too proud to buddy-cord again, then you will probably be able to do it.

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

jshrade,

There are very few shortcuts in life. Use the sim for practice... BUT try to master a trainer and at least one type of low wing sport plane before you jump into the Warbird arena

Just my .02

RE: RealFlight question regarding different planes
 

Brtibrat hit it on the head. After experiencing the sims for my self I have also come to those conclusions. Take what you can from them and dont expect perfection you will be disappointed. Remember one important thing you will never have a plane to fly like one on the sim for the simple reason that you will never set your plane up to the exact specs that RF has theirs set up at. Sure the numbers and figures may be right on with your p-40 or p51- if you try to take em from the sim and transpose them to your aircraft. But computers dont read info on wing span hp readings and control surface deflection as we do. A computers language is completely different. Whos to say that the computer is simulating those exact inputs the way a real plane would. I guess experimenting in real life would be the only way maybe they have but in my experience with RF they havent. Planes are way to easy to fly in any weather. And either much easier to land or the exact oposite much harder than they should be. Take a look at the perameters of those downloaded planes form RF they are so unrealistic to make them fly the way they should at the field and even then its a disapoitment. If you have a specific purpose for using the sim other than say actual landing air to ground transition and what it would really feel like. I would say yes its a blessing. People getting used to rudder and how it affects their plane. which way to correct when the plane is comming at you. Those things can save you hundreds of $$ at the field. But their is no substitute for the real thing. I use AFP for practicing 3D even though it is so close to the real thing in its phsysics theres a defiante difference at the field but it is eaisly transferable IMO.