Possible new aircraft for PMDG to develop

[Guest The_Glideslope]

Want "Intel" on Airbuses???I can get a pilot to work with you guys. A A320 Pilot that is willing to share his knowledge and even test the aircraft for you. Need charts, references, weights, procedures, variables? I can get them for you. I can get myself into an A320 simulator in short notice.What more? Fly the real thing? I can sit on the co-pilot seat but that's as far as I can go...

[Guest s_L_Y_F_a]

>FACT:>Number of quality Airbuses:>>None>>Zero>Nada>plz dont say that. PSS made a good A340 with all the main features (FMC, AP etc.)quite accuratly modelled. But u r still right theres a big lack of high qualitiy airbuses for MSFS after all, so far as I know Airbus doesn´t like their planes being flown in MSFS

[Guest The_Glideslope]

>PSS made a good A340 with all the main features (FMC, AP etc.)This is your opinion, of course. Try to align the ADIRS... Simulate fire on the engines... Use your throttle with the detents... Simulate a pump failure and consequent bypass... Switch the information on the screens... Initiate fuel dumping... switch ECAM information from the upper or the lower screens... In fact... Try to Run a real Normal Procedures checklist from a A320 and you'll see what I am talking about.Even the 330 is an old product considering so much stuff PSS could update it with. They did 777 with the same (low) level of realism.PSS isn't the best doing Airbuses... It's the ONLY doing them with serious insterest. Wilco didn't try to achieve a quality product, they just copied and pasted info to FS2002 and the Fs2004. I mean, what's that 380?????PSS or Wilco didn't even realised that we don't just stick to seeing all these buttons (most don't even work), we want realism. This is were PMDG marks the difference...Just one thing PMDG, Try to incorporate a nice Doppler Radar on your products and you will be Masters! Perhaps the Collins WXR-2100 Weather Radar already added to products like the PSS 777 and the Wilco 737PIC. Or even the Reality XP radar added to Dreamfleet's 727. Think about it...

[eclipz 14]

>Use>your throttle with the detents... there is a module available on avsim to simulate it.. but it does not come from PSS.

[mburkhard 23]

>I can get a pilot to work with you guys. A A320 Pilot that is>willing to share his knowledge and even test the aircraft for>you. Need charts, references, weights, procedures, variables?>I can get them for you. I can get myself into an A320>simulator in short notice.>What more? Fly the real thing? I can sit on the co-pilot seat>but that's as far as I can go...Sir,you obviously did not care to read the forum rules before shouting out loud for an Airbus product... it is required to sign your posts with your real name.Now about that Airbus thing, PMDG would easily find pilots to help them, they could easily have access to several Airbus Level-D simulators, and with it every piece of paper that is out there for the Airbusses. But what they want and don't get is material DIRECTLY from the manufacturer. Data about flight testing, lots of numbers and curves. That is something you can't get from pilots but that is needed for the realism that PMDG wants. And a few years back Airbus officially said they will not help an 'American' company. Do a search for that, it was very well explained by Robert Randazzo. It's a few years back though so I don't know if you can still find it in the archive...By the way PMDG is NOT the only company doing quality airliner add-ons for MSFS, don't know where you got that idea from... :-hmmm Regards,Markus

[macpac22 0]

thanks for that markus, i would love to read what Airbus actually said sounds a bit anti US. Its a shame but fair play to Boeing for being open with their technical data.

[jon b 2,041]

The reason there seem to be so many Airbus 340s around now is partly down to economics.Most airlines are run by accountants and Airbus give such good deals its hard to ignore.My airline recently had to make a choice between the 777 and more 340-600s.It was a very close run thing,pilots and engineers were keen on the 777.But at the end of the day Boeing just couldn`t match the deal airbus were giving.I hear nothing but complaints from engineering now about the airbus and its faults,quite a few guys have left the 744 to fly the 340,because of lifestyle issues with bases and routes, and they are all complaining bitterly about the machine after flying the 400.The only people who don`t complain is the pilots already on it, but they wouldn`t would they.I think between a 320 and a 737 the 320 seems a better machine but a 340 and 747, no competition.I bought the PSS 340 a couple of years ago when I though I`d have to go over to the airbus for a command, it scared me, I couldn`t work out what the thing was up to,and using a throttle quad if the engines were slightly out of sync I`d end up going sidewardsregardsJon

[Guest The_Glideslope]

>you obviously did not care to read the forum rules before>shouting out loud for an Airbus product... it is required to>sign your posts with your real name.I find this phrase rather offensive. I am an educated man and I do not shout around. I DO CARE about rules, I think you should consider how you said the above. I will not answear to offenses.>And a few years back Airbus officially said they>will not help an 'American' company. Do a search for that, it>was very well explained by Robert Randazzo. It's a few years>back though so I don't know if you can still find it in the>archive...Well some people have access to other people and make things happen. I think the way you say this makes me return back to the old Cold War times when secrecy was Gold. Even if EADS would cut back some information that doesn't mean they are "agains't the americans" that is "thinking small". Some companies have more open policies than others. If Airbus didn't want the "Americans" to know their technology they wouldn't equip USAF with the new tankers, now would they? I don't want to doubt Mr. Randazzo, but I am sure that he did his best to make things happen. But believing we're loosers without even starting to race is certain defeat.>By the way PMDG is NOT the only company doing quality airliner>add-ons for MSFS, don't know where you got that idea from...Saying it's the ONLY company to make quality stuff I mean with the highest standads of quality, I am fan of CaptainSim and Level D. Try to read my post again and you won't see me saying that PSS, WIlco or others are bad, I just don't find the same qualityin their products. I do know their add-ons are in my opinion THE BEST and I would like to see an Airbus made by PMDG that's were I got my idea from.I can't understand this attitude. I am pro-aviation, thus I can't create such divisions. The Airbus A320 is a Landmark in Aviation History! The first Civilian Fly-by-Wire plane, fully automated and built aside from the monopolies that ruled its time. I am no fan whatsoever of Airbus itself, I'm a Boeing fan here. But I want the best on my hangar and next to the PMDG 737NG, the PMDG 744/744F and the PMDG MD-11 I would like the PMDG 320/330/340 Family. That's all.

[Bill Grabowski 0]

Glideslope:You still haven't signed your name to your posting as requested in the forum rules, and... since when did the USAF give the tanker contract to the A330? Last time I checked, the decision was still a long way from being made.Bill

[Guest The_Glideslope]

I'm sorry, you were right I didn't place my signature, how's that?Actually the US Government did reject the project at first.http://www.house.gov/dicks/news/tankers3-2002.htmThen Boeing blew it and at last Le Bourget, Northrop Grumman joined EADS for a new proposal that is likely to win.http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/0...ption/index.phpHowever what I wanted to say was that If Airbus wanted to maintain secrecy they would never offer that bid with Northrop Grumman.

[mburkhard 23]

Jon,I did not mean to offend you. However you made a strange impression writing several postings about doing an Airbus and being completely anonymous. Believe me Airbus did indeed refuse to cooperate because they saw in PMDG an all American company. I agree with you that this is somehwat short-minded, but that's what happened at that time. But as I've said that was several years ago and I have no idea how that situation would be today. Now, let's all write to Airbus that they could at least give data about the A340-300, no companies would ever want to copy THAT aeroplane now would they? ;)Regards,Markus

[Guest The_Glideslope]

Like a good friend of mine would say " Apollogie accepted, captain Needa"...EADS was never short minded with us at Team Cormorant. Believe me, we are a Canadian based team, we have the full cooperation of Agusta/Westland in the person of a Flight Engineer. I also have excellent relations with Airbus Industrie for some work I had to do for some other company. Believe me, they gave me "intel" I didn't need actually, so much stuff... If Mr Randazzo needs, I can mediate the contacts. After all I have the first major thing in my favor: I'm European :).You can actually make tours inside Toulouse Airbus HQ. I don't see them as short-minded. But I believe in you. French are always suspicious so it depends a lot on the approach to things.

[eclipz 14]

>French are>always suspicious so it depends a lot on the approach to>things.>Rhoooooooo Airbus is not french, it's European... but i am french and surely very suspicious, all americans are spies, i know it ! lol :)To answer to jon_b, i fully disagree, you seem to affirm the A340 is a best seller... unfortunately, it's the opposite... considering orders, the A340 is a very poor seller and the 777 is a "must-have".About pilots and engineers complaining, i'd really like to know why... airbus planes are probably as reliable as boeing planes, a lot of pilots (from what i read) like to fly A3xx planes and flying an A320 or an A340 is almost the same... so why would they appreciate the 320 and not the 340 ? The only problem of the 340 is that it's more expensive to operate than a 777... 4 engines instead of 2... not really pilots or engineers concern...>I bought the PSS 340 a couple of years ago when I though I`d have to >go over to the airbus for a command, it scared me, I couldn`t work >out what the thing was up to,and using a throttle quad if the engines>were slightly out of sync I`d end up going sidewardsi assume you know that all "modern" airbus planes are equiped with auto-thrust systems so the throttle system of FS can't be used to have a realistic approach of this specific auto-thrust system... when you use a PSS plane, you must not use your throttles but keyboard keys to move from a position (Rev, Idle, Clb, Flex, Toga) to another one : '-' and '+'... as in the real plane, the PSS 340 has only 5 thrust positions.Vincent

[jon b 2,041]

Vincent,So you fly one of those with the autothrottle in all they way to the ground? Sounds scary!One of our 340-600 had a tail stike on landing a couple of years ago,because i think it was the case they had the AP in and AT out,or maybe it was the other way round, but as a pilot I like control of both.cheersJon

[eclipz 14]

>Vincent,>>So you fly one of those with the autothrottle in all they way>to the ground? Sounds scary!>One of our 340-600 had a tail stike on landing a couple of>years ago,because i think it was the case they had the AP in>and AT out,or maybe it was the other way round, but as a pilot>I like control of both.>>cheers>>JonIt's the same with a 320... so i don't really understand why you say that a 320 is better than a 737 (if you were talking from a pilot point of view). The length of the 346 can be a real problem talking about tail strikes. Airbus and Boeing planes are based on 2 different philosophies, not sure that one is better than the other one, not sure A or B planes are more reliable, not sure they are safer... then, like it or not is another thing, every one is free to have his own opinion and i understand those who dislike the "airbus philosphy" but i think we can't consider it as faults ("it's not a bug, it's a feature").Aren't we a little bit off topic ? ;)Vincent