[jhb_airlines] Re: FS9 Falcon 50

  • From: Gerry Winskill <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:22:43 +0100

Just flown the modified FS2002 version, over the same route. An initial check shows I'd applied a 1.3 Thrust_Scalar, which probably explains why it now does M=0.8. On finals it's significantly steadier. Both offer the trap of getting behind the drag curve. With full flap and gear down, just before the glideslope, max throttle is needed for Vref of 125 kias. On the g/s and, if the speed drops to 120, full throttle is needed, rapidly, to stop speed decaying too far. That aspect is attractive; it keeps the driver on his toes. Must try the old Aircraft.cfg with the FS9 model, tomorrow.

Gerry Winskill

Gerry Winskill wrote:

Just finished my first flight in the FS9 version of the classic Falcon 50. What a let down!
Visually it's fine, allowing for the fact that the F50 has always, to my eyes, looked a bit dumpy.
When on the ground, with engines stopped, it's hooked to a generator and has engine covers and ground cones. At engine start, they disappear.
At the end of the flight, if lights are left on, when the door is opened it comes with red carpet, uniformed attendant and keep out corded stanchions. So much for the eye candy but the in between bits are way below par. Werner Schott's Checklists show a cruise speed of m=0.8. At FL300, the most I saw, at 100% throttle, was 0.67. One of the great attractions of the FS2002 model was its stabillity in manual ILS descent. This version is very twitchy and I had some difficulty in actually arriving on the runway.
Panel is of the same quality in both versions.
The only problem I've had operating the FS2002 version in FS9, fairly important, is the undercarriage refusing to appear.

I'll have a good look at both Aircraft.cfg files, in case there is some obvious difference. After that it's going to be trial and error, to see if the new version can be tweaked back in line with the original.

Gerry Winskill


Other related posts: