Most Difficult to Fly: My Nomination

[Fnerg]

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

[huub vink]

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

Cheers,
Huub

[T6flyer]

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

[SSI01]

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:

[aeronca1]

i find the 'snake sez' a brilliant way of remembering key things in the 'one-oh-four'

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..."

[Ralf Roggeveen]

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:

[Drzook]

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:

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.
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.
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

[Willy]

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.

[robert41]

How bout the Nieuport 17. Been awhile, but I remember it was a handful flying her.

[Dev One]

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

[Willy]

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

That's another with a reputation for having grenades for wheels.

[Sunny9850]

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 .

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

[EMatheson]

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.

[Willy]

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.

[Dev One]

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

[dandog]

I want to nominate Oliver Fischers Beucker Jungmann. It's touchy on the ground, in the air, and anywhere in between. :isadizzy: