Most Difficult to Fly: My Nomination

Those were pretty good, Matt. I don't think anyone has ever been able to recover from a flat spin in the F-104.... maybe Chuck Yeager did, but only by punching out just before the Starfighter turned him into another statistic. :blind:

BB686:USA-flag:
 
Moses03 said:
One that comes to mind is the Warbirdsim P-51B/C series for FS2004. The prop torque on takeoff can really pull you over if you are not on top of it. Landings can be bouncy.:cool: Wonderful model but a handfull to fly properly.
Click to expand...

Yep! The Flight Replicas Avia S-199 is almost as bad as the real thing was too. That big paddle prop combined with an engine that rotates the opposite direction the plane was designed for...
Once in the air it's OK, but on the ground brakes and rudder are barely sufficient to keep it on the runway.

One-oh-fours are difficult too, especially on landing. The real thing had a problem with sudden loss of lift on approach, as the engine didn't produce enough air to keep the blown flaps functional once it got below a certain rpm (88% IIRC?)

The Alphasim/Virtavia Tu-22 is quite hard too, with very high take-off and landing speeds and the turning radius of the QE2. No speedbrakes either..

Of course that was all before I got FsX, and the A2A Stratocruiser where you need to fly the aircraft, navigate and keep four R-4360 engines running smoothly at the same time..!
 
I'd have to vote for both the B-58 and the F-104 as the most difficult to fly, even with realism setting rather low. On the F-104, consider that the total wing area of the 104 is less than one wing of an F-16, lol. It stands to reason that on approach, unless you maintain a speed of at least 200kias over the numbers, it's gonna drop like a rock. You can't fly that airplane like a conventional fighter because it isn't one. You take off fast, fly fast and land fast. Pure aerodynamics, which the F-104 has very little of. . .it's a rocket with wings. The only Sim-104 I've flown is the Cloud9 version many moons ago. I was constantly putting it into the dirt on approach because I wanted it to fly the way I was used to, 150kts approach speed, 1 notch of flaps, gears down and about a 5deg nose up attitude. . . .squeak the tires on the numbers. Until I learned two things. . . .it has very little wing/lift area. . . . .and you cannot "float" the airplane onto the rwy, you must "fly" it onto the rwy, I had a heck of a time with landings. After I got those two things into my head, as weird as it felt to be heading towards the rwy at over 200kts. . .I was sqeakin' those tires and enjoying the F-104.

As for the "Hustler", don't even talk to me about the "Hustler", lol. . .I bought it, flew it twice and put it away. I don't even think I have the files for it any more, lol.:isadizzy:
 
falcon409 said:
As for the "Hustler", don't even talk to me about the "Hustler", lol. . .I bought it, flew it twice and put it away. I don't even think I have the files for it any more, lol.:isadizzy:
Click to expand...

The B-58 is a heavy bird, but what it's shortfalls are in that category, it makes up for in sheer power. As a kid, I always fancied the Hustler, thought it was a beautiful aircraft the very first time I laid me eyes on her. I bought the Alphasim model and found out real quick that, like the F-104, the Hustler needs to come in hot, about 210 KIAS. Then use all that weight to your advantage, back off the throttles and with a 5 or 6 degree nose up angle, cross the fence and let her settle on the mains... "SCREEECH!!" Like the F-16, keeping the nose wheel off the ground and allowing that massive delta wing to help you slow down saves on the brakes. Bear in mind that the B-58 needs a long runway for landings, even with a drogue chute.
Taking off is pretty much basic. Get her pointed straight and true, and punch it. Feel your body start to sink back in that seat. At 180 KIAS, pull back on the stick, lift off, retract the rollers. She will accellerate aggerssively in a 55 degree climb and reach 40,000 feet fairly quick. Flying the B-58 is a joy.

BB686:USA-flag:
 
I'd have to say my Firefly is the toughest virtual plane I ever flew. Paul " Bradburger" Bradford did the flight dynamics for me based on all the real numbers from his and my research. It's amazing. Milton brought up the point to me that it's possible not to enjoy the aircraft because it's too difficult. I think I can vouch for this. I crash it all the time. And the landings, what a laugh. One day, I just might make it to the concrete. It's super frustrating when you fly out of it's home CYHM for a few hundred miles, then mess up the landing. Thank goodness for autopilot..lol. But, I don't want to change it. I think he did an exceptional job getting the aircraft to "feel" heavy and sluggish until you level off. I'll just select another plane if I feel like flying with less effort.

The Wings of Power P-47 is pretty tough too.

Cheers
Doug
 
Perhaps not that difficult to fly, but definitely difficult to land; Wozza's GeeBee.

Cheers,
Huub
 
I always had problems with Tim Conrad's Helio Courier. Flying was fine cept for my landings - way too high speed on approach and always a little bounce, bounce, bounce. Only by trying things out in the real world on a similar type did my so called landings become something a lot more realistic.

Other contender for trouble was Mikko Maliniemi's Pitts S-1S. Always, always had a problem taxiing with this and virtually (sorry) gave up at times. On on a few occasions wondered how I became airborne in the machine and the same with landings, but taxiing a certain no no. Perhaps now with a lot more experience I should go back and have another go.

This thread has been a good read and it does make me think (had to have a sit down) about the authenticity of flight models. I presume nearly all payware and some freeware models have accurate characteristics, but for the majority of us out there, we will never know if they are correct as haven't had any real experience on type and therefore have to get by on magazine articles and books. I very rarely fly something in the sim, that I haven't flown in the real world and therefore only limit myself to a few types, which I know and somehow feel act in the way that I remember.

As part of a development team, we have always strived to complete a model that is as close as we can get to the real thing (within the confines of the simulator software) as we (Messrs Molyneaux, Horsey and Pengelly) like to present something that is worthy of the actual aeroplane. If I haven't had stick time, we have always consulted other owners and operators, used the flight manuals and pilots notes and on a last result used reference material. Sometimes it takes four or five versions to recreate something that little bit special, but then again it might not be to everyone's cup of tea.

One Auster model, the A2/45 had terrible handling characteristics in real life and there was no way that these were going to be wholly exected with FS2004. So, a compromise was made and a few of the vices were included and not all, as otherwise she would have remained a hangar queen gathering dust at the back of the hangar. With full flap deployed, roundout was not possible and a few undercarriage legs were broken in the trials.

Happy Landings,

Martin
 
Stefan - saw your earlier comments on the Connies you and the team built - one of the most enjoyable aircraft to fly in FS9 or any other sim. Genuine jewels! All of you deserve a hearty well done.

I have a candidate for difficult flying qualities - actually, taxiing qualities - the Abacus Flight Deck 5 E-2C Hawkeye. This thing knows only how to remain firmly welded to the deck or to taxi at 40mph - there's no middle ground. You wind up constantly toeing the brakes and nodding your way around the flight deck until you get where you want to be (approximately)!:mixedsmi:
 
Matt Wynn said:
i find the 'snake sez' a brilliant way of remembering key things in the 'one-oh-four'
Click to expand...

LOL, nice! I'm not sure exactly how the original saying went, but it was something to the effect: "Want a 104? Buy a field next to a German Airbase and wait a few days..."
 
Stuart is quite right that a computer game can never really hope to reproduce the feel - and responsibility - of being entrusted with a real flying machine...

That said, in classic aircraft on FS9, the Fokker F-1 is a real female dog to 'fly', possibly quite realistic.

In reality and flightsim (I flew it a lot in Il-2 Forgotten Battles) the FW190, especially its early types, is extremely difficult. the Luftwaffe lost many pilots, some very experienced, in training accidents; but when you get used to it it's a beautiful aircraft. Early German jets are also extremely realistically reproduced in Il-2 (especially if you get the 1946 add-on). You will die a thousand deaths, but patience and reading instructions carefully will be rewarded! :salute:
 
Ralf Roggeveen said:
Stuart is quite right that a computer game can never really hope to reproduce the feel - and responsibility - of being entrusted with a real flying machine...

That said, in classic aircraft on FS9, the Fokker F-1 is a real female dog to 'fly', possibly quite realistic.

In reality and flightsim (I flew it a lot in Il-2 Forgotten Battles) the FW190, especially its early types, is extremely difficult. the Luftwaffe lost many pilots, some very experienced, in training accidents; but when you get used to it it's a beautiful aircraft. Early German jets are also extremely realistically reproduced in Il-2 (especially if you get the 1946 add-on). You will die a thousand deaths, but patience and reading instructions carefully will be rewarded! :salute:
Click to expand...

When you mentioned the Fokker F-1 I thought it was a transport of some sort (like the Fokker F-II or F-VII). I then googled it.:pop4:
You are referring to the triplane fighter from WWI aren't you?
If that's the case I would wholeheartedly agree. With its narrow landing gear, lack of a vertical stabilizer, visibility problems in all the critical landing angles and rampant torque steer...man those guys were brave.:engel016:
After going through this thread I can't help but say (in my best Jerry Seinfeld voice):
What...is the deal...with German fighters?

I would like to add to the list...any airliner after flying single engine warbirds and light aircraft for several months. It really takes a lot of getting used to the extra weight and bulk and higher landing speeds. FWIW in over 20 years of flightsimming I have never successfully landed a 747. In fact the only widebody that I can fly with any modicum of confidence is the Ilyushin Il-96 :kilroy:
 
When it comes to jetliners, I don't fly many and could probably count those on one hand. I'm not much of a systems guy and prefer to leave that to the flight engineer. That's what he's paid for. And most of the add-on jetliners that I've ran into tend to very proud of all the systems you have to work with to fly the thing. Historic Jetliner's Group's aircraft are not that systems heavy so most of my jetliners come from there except for David Maltsby's Comet and VC-10.

Speaking of difficult airliners, I bought the Aviodrome DC-2 a while back. From the historical accounts I've read from pilots who flew the DC-2 for a living, the DC-2 was known to be a "stiff legged brute" and to humble unwary (and sometimes wary) pilots on landing. Don't get me wrong, I love that DC-2, it flies great like it should, but it lands as easy as a DC-3. I was expecting some bad behavior on landing and just wonder if I should count my blessings as I know my landing skills are not the best.
 
My vote would be for the 'standard' Microsoft issue DH88 Comet - I find it impossible to taxy without going into ever decreasing circles & digging a wing in! It seems to behave quite well once into the air, but getting there.........
Keith
 
Dev One said:
My vote would be for the 'standard' Microsoft issue DH88 Comet - I find it impossible to taxy without going into ever decreasing circles & digging a wing in! It seems to behave quite well once into the air, but getting there.........
Keith
Click to expand...

That's another with a reputation for having grenades for wheels.
 
Going by what I saw when the replica Dh-88 was based at L67 for new pilot training for a few month last year that seems to be a very accurate representation of the real thing :jump:.

The "poor chap" learning to fly the Comet did have his fair share of minor ground loops in the beginning.
This replica is true to the original in all but a few details that mainly affect the reliability and serviceability of the aircraft. It has constant speed props with modern governors so that the pitch of the blades can be adjusted back and forth unlike the original who could only make one pitch change per flight..

It also has a steerable Tailwheel instead of the skid of the original.

Having had a chance to sit in the replica I can also attest that forward visibility on the ground is pretty much zero thanks to that loooooooong nose.

Stefan
 
Really, the DH.88? That's one of my favorites, though it is a bit of a bear, truth be told...
Na, the one I couldn't handle was the Fokker D.vIII, the monoplane, whatever it was. I don't think I've ever got that thing off the ground in one piece. The Spitfire is a handful, too.
 
I guess one man's feast is another man's famine. I've yet to find a Spitfire that hasn't been a joy to fly.
 
Sunny,
I understand that the real DH88 was a bit of a ground looper, but mainly on landing - the tailplane was too low being the reason. I still think that the FS9 model though is much too sensitive - probably due to the contact points being incorrect. BTW, I also believe that my Uncle helped to obtain information & advise the builder of the replica in the US, as well as the original in the UK.
Keith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top