>And Amelia flew a Vega across the pond too.Isn't she more famous for NOT flying across the pond? *grin*

>Isn't she more famous for NOT flying across the pond? *grin*:D

>This is certainly not to knock the buffs of the genre - >>-but->>Where were you? According to the "other" (long) series of>posts discussing the pros and cons of the age of the newly>included aircraft, lots of folks can't wait for, at least, the>DC-3.Vintage acft enthusiasts have always been here. Waiting. Not whining. (well at least as much or as vocally as selected other groups).>However, I'm compelled to wonder, then, with what me might see>as a latent but large community of fans of vintage aircraft,>why we haven't seen our library fill up with this type of>craft.>>Certainly it's not for lack of talented designers and>modelers. It is for lack of talented designers and modelers ...with the interest! (There's no way I'd put in the time and effort required to do a model correctly for a plane I didn't have an interest in). The few that are doing them are doing an excellent job. We just need more of them... I'd love to see the library filled with them to the point they eclipse the other genres I don't care for. *grin*>Certainly it's not for lack of information and drawings and>historical performance figures.As stated above... it is also for the lack of information and drawings, etc.>I think the idea that far fewer people are interested in>actually >flying< most of the historic aircraft than actually>looking at them.I disagree, but if this is so, it's reason enough to keep vintage acft models coming! I couldn't understand not wanting to just sit and look at a vintage acft. It's the reason that air museums exist. It's the reason various modelling societies exist (i.e. IPMS). Then you throw in the ability to pretend you're actually flying one and *BLAM* (adrenalin and/or excitement induced heart attack!), you've died and gone to heaven! (although in context of your original post, it makes me think of an old Night Gallery episode where the moral was one man's heaven is another man's hell *grin*)>I'll certainly try them out for the novelty, but to simulate>anything other than pretending I'm ferrying airshow material,>or flying them from simple curiosity, I'll be flying the more>modern stuff.What does the modern stuff get you that the vintage won't? You can't go any further (you'll still be sitting in a room in your house). You probably won't get as much use out of your joystick. You won't have less chance of getting the high altitude blurries/tiling. You won't get that feeling of "OH SH*T! ...TREE!" as often. You won't get to use the "go to airport" option near as much. You won't be doing as many hammerheads. You won't be doing many lomchoviks (sp?). You won't get a chance to use that old bottle of castor oil that's been around the house since your grandmother stopped by for a visit, to splatter on your face because the biplanes did. You won't get a chance to use that new and fancy spray bottle to simulate weather in an open cockpit. And of course, you will have no use for your really cool leather flying helmet and goggles (we won't mention the money you wasted on the sheepskin flying boots, thinking it was an Alaska Airlines Souvenir).Having said all that... enjoy your modern! More power to you! Enjoy the occasional vintage novelty! Because this sim is about doing what YOU like to do. (And I'll sit here and hope for more quality vintage military acft. *grin*)

>I think the idea that far fewer people are interested in>actually >flying< most of the historic aircraft than actually>looking at them.Not sure I fully comprehend the above statement from reply #0, but I absolutely am more interested in flying vintage aircraft instead of merely LOOKING at them!Trouble is, even if you are qualified and current to operate one of these dinosaurs, you have to be on REALLY friendly terms with the owner to get more than a chance to sit in the cockpit as far as the single seat types are concerned, a ride in the types that have more than one place to sit along with a little stick time isn't out of the question if - as I said above - you know the lucky/filthy rich b*****d that owns it, but be ready to pay for the fuel and other incidental costs that may arise.How many of us even know people who own a vintage aircraft, or are on a first name basis with them? After 30 years as a old airplane fanatic and former owner of a T-6G restored from a basket case to airworthy status I can count on the fingers of one hand the people I've known who were lucky enough to own a really interesting vintage machine (not counting GA types like Cubs, Luscombes, C-195's etc.) and most of them I haven't seen for years so the opportunities for joyriding or a chance at the controls are few and far between. I haven't flown a taildragger in 16 years, and that was a rental Aeronca Champ with a mighty 65 hp out front to pull me along at a sedate pace. Vintage yes, and certainly enjoyable on a warm summmers day in New England but not exactly the most exciting ride ever, more like a nap except for the landing. Regarding the larger aircraft such as the DC-3 et. al, even if your best friend owned a pristine example, the fuel and operating costs are too great to even contemplate flying to the next county for a hamburger on the weekend, and there are safety of flight considerations as well on all but the best maintained vintage aircraft, and would you REALLY want to pay for the fuel on a B-25? Same thing is true of a modern airliner. If you were really determined to fly - or simply deranged - I suppose a second mortgage on the old homestead could be worked out with your favorite lending institution, provided you could somehow successfully run that idea by the wife!That's why flight simulator is so indispensable, you can "fly" these unattainable aircraft without being a millionaire or airline pilot.Not the same as the real thing, but a lot of fun anyway! And MUCH cheaper!> You won't get a chance to use that old bottle of castor oil that's been around the house since your grandmother stopped by for a visit, to splatter on your face because the biplanes did. You won't get a chance to use that new and fancy spray bottle to simulate weather in an open cockpit. And of course, you will have no use for your really cool leather flying helmet and goggles (we won't mention the money you wasted on the sheepskin flying boots, thinking it was an Alaska Airlines Souvenir).:DFYI - in case you go overboard with the castor oil, the favorite stomach settler for WW1 pilots after a long flight with castor oil fumes and spray was brandy and milk which come to think of it can lead to other problems worse than the emetic and laxative effects of castor oil , oh well everything in moderation I suppose but more milk than brandy seems advisable!> Greg Pepper alone has released>the Beech 18, >I went for a joyflight in one of these a couple of weeks ago - and let me say that it was far more interesting and exciting than going for a flight in a B737!!

If you can't beat them, join them.... I guess I'll have to learn how to fly all over again, in the "FLYER"Can we get some repaints of this aircraft? Bye for now.. :-wavehttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/13386.jpg

An Aer Lingus repaint would be very nice or perhaps one of Phuket Airlines :-)Racartronit means something, but I just can't remember what

Hi telephile - Since you asked,>Where were you 20 years ago? I thought I'd let you know that I was 15, going on 16, and going for flights in small GA aircraft with neighbors (Cessnas & Pipers) whenever the opportunity arose. Maybe 15 times tops.Oh, and flying Flight Simulator. On my Apple ][...Andrew

Hi Bob,My point is not to "show Microsoft that they've made a mistake"; I think we can surmise that whatever mistakes they make will be made regardless of our comments here.What I'm questioning is why, before CoF was announced, I didn't read lots of vintage-related news about add-ons, and so forth, for MS, on these boards. Could be there are other boards where the percentages are flip-flopped.Also questioning why there were only older planes added, but, hey, what will be will be.Cheers,Andrew>Isn't this post and many others of similar message attempting>to show Microsoft that they've made a mistake?>>It has very little actually to do with user polls over which>airplane they like, or which genre is best represented or>anything else. The decision to market the product against the>century of flight theme was a Microsoft decision, made>probably a year or more ago, its not a topic that's up for>debate, So what could be the point of debating it? Especially>when you are debating with people that don't work for>microsoft?>>Bob Bernstein>>

Like what? The 777 is the most modern jetliner out there that's in production (not counting non-US products of course. Remember there's a contract where Boeing licenses their models to Microsoft. I doubt you'll see Microsoft including an Airbus, which would royally #### off Boeing and might mean no more 737, 747 and 777 in FS (plus serious drop in US sales).).

Correct. If all you have to go on are fading newspaper photographs and some oil paintings it's hard to do a really detailed job (and do anything less and you get bashed to pieces because the doohicky is 2 pixels too large and positioned 3 pixels too far aft).

yah. The museum at Duxford in the UK offers flights in vintage aircraft as a means of paying restoration of more aircraft.A 10 minute flight in a 1930s airliner will cost you over 100 pounds...

A few more up to date modern small planes.. sorry, should have been clearer!Andrew>Like what? The 777 is the most modern jetliner out there>that's in production (not counting non-US products of course.>Remember there's a contract where Boeing licenses their models>to Microsoft. I doubt you'll see Microsoft including an>Airbus, which would royally #### off Boeing and might mean no>more 737, 747 and 777 in FS (plus serious drop in US>sales).).

I fly mostly heavy jets in FS, have been fascinated by and fantasizing about flying them since first I could write my name. But I still enjoy strapping-in to the left seat of the Connie and firing up those big radials, one at a time, taking her out for a spin and just looking out the windows. It's difficult for me to imagine how those crews kept up their positions so well (without GPS, LOL!)especially in IMC, with VOR and ADF needles alone. It's a testament to what I still feel were better piloting skills back then, not necessarily better aircraft. How could anyone feel less secure in a 777? But what fuels this occassional foray into a vintage bird is my imagination. And that they are almost all available to me in this hobby blows my mind. I turn up the system sound and imagine I can hear the ghostly voices of second officers who have come and gone. I imagine they are sitting there in the right seat next to me, ready to lend a hand or offer friendly advice at a moments notice should my glass-trained piloting skills wane humbly in front of the cluttered dials in front of me.http://www.bwiairport.com/images/carrier_logos/co.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

For what it's worth, I don't think IMC using VOR/ADF alone has gone by the wayside, either in MS or "real life".There are plenty of "real" pilots who fly IFR without a GPS - I don't know if they'd have any issue with suggesting their waning piloting skills!Cheers,Andrew>I fly mostly heavy jets in FS, have been fascinated by and>fantasizing about flying them since first I could write my>name. But I still enjoy strapping-in to the left seat of the>Connie and firing up those big radials, one at a time, taking>her out for a spin and just looking out the windows. It's>difficult for me to imagine how those crews kept up their>positions so well (without GPS, LOL!)especially in IMC, with>VOR and ADF needles alone. It's a testament to what I still>feel were better piloting skills back then, not necessarily>better aircraft. How could anyone feel less secure in a 777? >>But what fuels this occassional foray into a vintage bird is>my imagination. And that they are almost all available to me>in this hobby blows my mind. I turn up the system sound and>imagine I can hear the ghostly voices of second officers who>have come and gone. I imagine they are sitting there in the>right seat next to me, ready to lend a hand or offer friendly>advice at a moments notice should my glass-trained piloting>skills wane humbly in front of the cluttered dials in front of>me.>>>http://www.bwiairport.com/images/carrier_logos/co.gif>Alex Christoff>N562Z>Baltimore, MD

Vintage aircraft is the main reason I buy these simms. Low and slow,VFR, no radios, dead reckoning seat of the pants. I have yet to download a moderen air liner type. I know that puts me in the minority around here and that is ok. On the other end I also like the low and fast mover military types, both propes and jets. To each his own I guess. I am glad to see more and more of the vintage aircraft showing up from some very dedicated designers and I look dorward to CoFSteve