Yup, I agree that the CLS 747-200/300 is a good choice. It has a great VC and the selectable choice of a (simplified) FMC or more traditional navigational INS equipment, but is still complex enough to be fun, and one could always put the ISG Smiths FMC in there at some point and make it more complex. The CLS has a great cargo expansion pack too, that is inexpensive.Unless you faff about with it by adding updated instruments like I have, the Aerosim 747 is what you might call a 'beginner 747' in that it has a 'psuedo FMC' which is really just a means to load an FS flight plan in the guise of a glorified radio, but it is pricey for something that is a 'lite' simulation, although it is undeniably a nice model with a very pretty VC.Al

You guys really need to recommend a short haul aircraft for this guy to learn on and one that he will be using for a long time. Must people park their 747 in favor of small equipment for the type routes and time that they have.   I would recommend the Captain Sim or QualityWings aircraft.  These would be a good choices.  

captain sim 757 + mcphat liveries = lovely flights

Well, if you want something now I'd go for the Quality Wings 757. It's top-notch. If you don't mind waiting a bit, I'd hang on for the forthcoming PMDG 737, which should be a corker! Ian

The QW757 is your best bet. It has a nice level of systems simulation and it is far from light. In the end, you want to learn but you still want to be able to get the thing up in the air.

I have to agree, QW 757 would be my choice as well.

Yup, the 400D is a 747 that makes really rather short flights with high-density seating, unfortunately the only 400D you'll find for FSX is the Aerosim one, which is a fairly light affair unless it gets souped up with (of course) ISG instruments and a few other bits and pieces. I bought it and I have actually done those tweaks to it, which makes it okay, but it's still probably not what the OP wants as there is a bit of faffing about necessary to get it suitable for the kind of realism the he seems to have in mind.Most of what is necessary to get comfortable with modern jetliner systems is best achieved by planning and carrying out flights a lot, until one is used to it, so really, that means something smaller which you can make plenty of approaches and departures in the time you have available to do so. Good as PMDG's big birds are, the 737 or an MD of some description will be a better choice for that kind of thing.Al

Alan,Wouldn't the Ariane B737 be in line with your recommendation for a B737 with realistic systems?. I am courious because I am in a similar position as molleh.Thanks.

Alan,Wouldn't the Ariane B737 be in line with your recommendation for a B737 with realistic systems?. I am courious because I am in a similar position as molleh.Thanks.

Nope, it wouldn't. That's not because I don't think it is any good, but because it is expensive and you only get one model for that money. Also it doesn't feature all of the nav data in the FMC that other offerings have.For those who know FMCs and workarounds, that's not a big issue and the Ariane has some good plus points which balance against those shortcomings, such as the other aspects of an airliner it simulates and truly stellar frame rates in FSX, but as a recommendation for someone to learn cockpit stuff on, the last thing they need is an add-on airliner that is expensive and missing some features they may want to play with when learning, which they would have to work around by doing more advanced stuff such as placing manual fixes from waypoint offsets. It also takes some time to activate it via email, and when someone is eager to learn, that would be a disappointing thing to endure. It's good, but it's simply not the right choice in this case.So that's why I suggested the Wilco 737 instead. The Wilco 737 doesn't have VC as pretty as the Ariane or the iFly, but it is inexpensive, comes with three variants, has a faultless FMC, a really accurate flight model and very realistic systems. Several add-ons are available for it, such as a co-pilot utility and it's own FSX mission add-on which also serves to teach a new user how to fly an airliner properly via a fantastically-designed mission that shows you how , since it is based around starting a new career as an airliner pilot. That is of course hugely relevant to this thread. What is more, that Mission add-on has some exciting and challenging adventures to enjoy that will turn anyone into an above average airliner sim pilot in pretty short order.Add to that the fact that it works in FS9 and FSX and is apparently due for a facelift by Wilco at some point and you have a truly excellent airliner package which there are stacks of free add-on paint jobs available for too. For all those reasons, it is simply one of the best FS airliners a fledgling simmer could ask for when combined with the Mission add-on.Al

Yup, I agree that the CLS 747-200/300 is a good choice. It has a great VC and the selectable choice of a (simplified) FMC or more traditional navigational INS equipment, but is still complex enough to be fun, and one could always put the ISG Smiths FMC in there at some point and make it more complex. The CLS has a great cargo expansion pack too, that is inexpensive.Unless you faff about with it by adding updated instruments like I have, the Aerosim 747 is what you might call a 'beginner 747' in that it has a 'psuedo FMC' which is really just a means to load an FS flight plan in the guise of a glorified radio, but it is pricey for something that is a 'lite' simulation, although it is undeniably a nice model with a very pretty VC.Al

In any case, the Aerosim 747 will never be my primary choice for the 747 Classics famil. While I do agree that it has good visual exterior models and high framerates, the VC looks rather bland, and slightly unrealistic in several aspects. The VC looks rather cartoonish in fact. One stupid reason why I never actually intended to buy the Aerosim is all due to the lacking of a Garuda Indonesia livery. Dave.

You do know Aerosim aircraft have paint kits, right? That's how I did this on their 400D and their Triple Seven:I do agree that the Aerosim cockpit is a little on the 'cartoonish' side colour-wise though, but then again, that is also part of the reason why it zips along at a high frame rate. In any case, it wouldn't really be a good aircraft to try and learn complex avionics on as it comes. Good when it gets customised with ISG, but I doubt the OP would want to get into that. Probably one for the '747 completists' because of the 400D model more than anything.Al

You guys really need to recommend a short haul aircraft for this guy to learn on and one that he will be using for a long time. Must people park their 747 in favor of small equipment for the type routes and time that they have.  

There's always accelerated rate.I use my CLS 747-2 quite often, its a fun plane to fly, and I just go 4X on the longer routes to reduce the elapsed flight time.Regards.Ernie.

There's always accelerated rate.I use my CLS 747-2 quite often, its a fun plane to fly, and I just go 4X on the longer routes to reduce the elapsed flight time.Regards.Ernie.

Will Radar Contact or default ATC still function under accelerated flight? 

I can only speak for default ATCyes it does, however when you speed things up it tends to skip, etc so it is best to keep the ATC window open and following along as fast as you can.I've done it - it is possible but you will have to slow down once the instructions get a bit more complicated.

The initiator of this topis asked for a complex (cargo) aircraft for his brand new PC! PRO:PMDG MD11: complex, cargo and 1100 pages manual. PMDG B747: complex, cargo and more than 500 pages manual (I forgot the exact amount of pages).These aircraft are super stable and non tweaking bug free software products!Captain Sim B757: complex, cargo, good manuals, some minor buggs in it but once you have fixed those you will have a good stable running aircraft. Most advanced users prefer the CS 757 instead off the QW 757.CONTRA:WILCO PIC737: is old programming for Fs9 with detoriated looking panels.They call it "compatible FSX" not my peace a cake for a modern pc.CLS 747-200/300: Old programming and some very inconvenient bugs. You need a reinstall off the whole package from time to time.Captain Sim 727: old clocks, fantastic, not realy a long hauler and not the best choice if you would like to learn more about today's navigation systems.Captain Sim C130: Great but more an outsider for the thing you want. Its mostly military and this Herc has old steam gauges while today's C130's have modern avionics with ECAM, FMC, CDU,...Level D B767: Its a great plane for flightsim but the panel quality has passed its time.Simcheck A300: Is a good choice but the external view lacks a bit. Not what I want to see if I bought I new rig today.If you fly online on a network like IVAO or VATSIM than I advice you to choose for an aircraft with modern FMC above the old clock systems because sometimes you will get a "direct too" intersection and than you are lost with on old VOR or NDB needle.Now, about people saying here its a must flying heavy's for more than 6 or 8 hours..Well, thats crapp!Is a simpilot you fly where ever you wanna go. Even in Europe the heavy's fly short haul cargo flights to answer urgent demands off goods for the industry.

Now, about people saying here its a must flying heavy's for more than 6 or 8 hours..Well, thats crapp!Is a simpilot you fly where ever you wanna go. Even in Europe the heavy's fly short haul cargo flights to answer urgent demands off goods for the industry.

Its not crap .. a large majority of the avsim users try to approximate the RL experience,  So flying your 747 from Detroit to Chicago can be done .. its not realistic at all.   And dude, just because its not what you would consider as important doesn't make it crap .. thats something you will learn as you get older.

captain sim 757 + mcphat liveries = lovely flights

+ 1. Or their 767 - love this bird.