Whoa, Michael, now you'll open the flood gates!However, let me be the first to say how much I appreciate you posting. As you say, once you start cutting steel ...You don't need any input from me, anyway. As long as there are six fully programmable forward axes, that's all that worries me. Personally, I don't fly backwards. These people who fly jets that are too big for the runways they land on ought to try yachting one day. No brakes there.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

how about some metal parts instead of 100% plastic?...and how about a more robust/high quality finish to the parts that WILL be plastic? (take a look at some high-end force feedback steering wheels these days with metal gear shift levers/wheel spokes and leather wrapped wheels)...and a more "weighty"/solid feel to things wouldnt hurt either.A highly polished & correctly colored finish to the lever knobs was also something that was missing from the flightsim yoke (which pretty much fooled everyone (or at least ME) after looking at the marketing pictures shown by CH)personally im tired of the bland, drab look and lightweight feel of CH products...ive been buying ch for about 7 or 8 years now...and ive yet to feel really satisfied overall with look and feel...but then again it was usually the cheapest deal in town so i never complained....but im at a point now where im very tired of "cheap", and would rather cough up the extra dough for something that looks and feels alot more substancial...ive had enough of listening to CH springs wease and moan under stress LOL (seriously).not wanting to flame...its just my feelings about it...i realize ch fills a need in the sub $200 market...i guess im just surprised at what the market will accept as far as workmanship is concerned with a product you may still have to pay $120 or more for...if ch goes beyond $200 i would never bite...not until the quality fit/finish was drastically changed as an overall policy.I see CH products as being "functional", period..nothing more nothing less for me personally. Once im over $200 i want alot more than just functionality though.Dave

The pix I've seen vary on thrust reversers. For FS2K2 using FSUIPC they are employed on the throttle axis by setting the idle point above the axis bottom so below the mapped idle point reverse is engaged. This method would require a detent for idle, heck of a good idea.On some of the indicated quad pix on www.airliners.net it appears there are levers directly above the thrust levers that somehow engage reverse. I do not know how you could interface this at least to FS2K2 as extra axis.Available "optional" detents. perhaps using a knob-driven worm gear or whatever to extend the detent nib to cause it to hit a dimple in the lever arm, have a use on other levers such as turbo-prop condition levers for ground (beta) idle, flight idle, and fuel cut-off, and the prop often has a feather position. See the FS2K2 King Air quad pop-up.Whatever the design, it appears one or two gates are frequently used on the thrust levers on real quads.Anyway, thanks for your interest in getting user input.I have been thinking of putting a hinge or something to act as an idle gate on my CH USB Pro Throttle but a friction detent that you can push through or a gate that you van move the lever sidways around would be the best, the last appearing very realistic.

I like the way that the knobs can be changed to alter the configuration of the quadrant. As a result, adding thrust reverse levers would probably negate the flexibility of this design. The use of selectable detents on each axis would fit the design nicely by allowing the user to choose which axis has a detent.It would also be preferred to color code the knobs (blue for prop speed, red for mixture) so that they match their real-life counterparts.Peter http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/PeterR.gifBFU Forums ModeratorRenegade/Seawolf Design Group (RSDG)[table border=2 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=1][tr][td][table border=0 cellpadding=8 cellspacing=0][tr][td bgcolor=#6f0000]http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/logo75t.gif[/td][td align="center" bgcolor=#FFFFF6]Bush Flying Unlimited"At home in the wild"Looking for adventure? Come join us! * [link:bfu.avsim.net|Web Site] * [link:www.cafepress.com/bfu,bfu2,bfu3,bfu4|BFU Store] * [link:bfu.avsim.net/join.htm]Join!][/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table

I agree with Peter. Color coding is important. Also there is probably no way to replicate the lift-up mechanism for thrust-reversers that exist on expensive jets, instead a 'detent' approach could be employed which would fit nicely with how beta/reverse range works on most turboprops.I will definitely 'flood' MichaelCH's mailbox with some pictures.Michael J.

I really wish folks hadn't taken a shot at CH in this post. For several years they've filled such a valuable market position -- without them, there would have been no yoke & rudder options below $500. I upgraded to the world of $500 yokes but still haven't yet replaced my old analog CH rudder pedals, which have been a heck of a value.Having high standards is fine, but ripping CH as cheap junk is both inaccurate and detrimental to the flight sim community as a whole...

I really wish folks hadn't taken a shot at CH in this post. For several years they've filled such a valuable market position -- without them, there would have been no yoke & rudder options below $500. I upgraded to the world of $500 yokes but still haven't yet replaced my old analog CH rudder pedals, which have been a heck of a value.Having high standards is fine, but ripping CH as cheap junk is both inaccurate and detrimental to the flight sim community as a whole...

>I really wish folks hadn't taken a shot at CH in this post.I agree but I'm afraid that there will always be those that take shots when they get a chance--unfortunately but true.I applaud Michael (MichaelCHProd) for posting here. I hope that a few negative comments doesn't stop him from coming to the forums the way it scares off some others. Being in an end user forum always requires thick skin and good filtering skills. ;-) CH fills a need in a segment of the market and this is the place to find out how to make their products best fit that market.Peter http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/PeterR.gifBFU Forums ModeratorRenegade/Seawolf Design Group (RSDG)[table border=2 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=1][tr][td][table border=0 cellpadding=8 cellspacing=0][tr][td bgcolor=#6f0000]http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/logo75t.gif[/td][td align="center" bgcolor=#FFFFF6]Bush Flying Unlimited"At home in the wild"Looking for adventure? Come join us! * [link:bfu.avsim.net|Web Site] * [link:www.cafepress.com/bfu,bfu2,bfu3,bfu4|BFU Store] * [link:bfu.avsim.net/join.htm]Join!][/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table

Not wrong, Frantzy. For Michael to post requesting input and then have a certain poster talk bananas about cheap products blah blah blah is not only inaccurate but downright rude.For the most part, these forums are wonderful, but sometimes I wish people would keep their opinions to themselves where good manners are involved. I repeat that I have hammered my CH equipment and think it's great value for money. Would I rather the new quadrant were to be under $200? Of course, but CH will know what they can sell for when they've worked out their tooling costs. Let's not jump the gun. Give the man useful input, folks, and quit moaning, oddballs.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

Michal, I am reposting (with some edits) an email that I sent to Debby yesterday:Hi there,I've been looking at the Quadrant prototype pictures again this evening, and I've realized that there's one thing about it that is sub-optimal for how I would want to use it - i.e. the table edge mount as is used in your Yoke. (I don't have my Yoke anymore, as I've decided I like flying with a joystick better.)My Pro Throttle seems to do fine with its inherent weight, and never slips around in use. I'm assuming that the task of moving (for instance) four throttles at once on the Quadrant might move the thing around, but I wish that problem could be solved in some other way - i.e. a way that lets the bottom of the unit be flat. Can't high-grip rubber feet solve this problem? Or - and yes I know they have their issues - even suction cups if necessary?I would think that not having to do the table edge grips would save some cost.And oh by the way - the front switches are neat but probably not necessary. (If anything, I'd rather see rudder and aileron trim wheels. I have the GoFlight module that includes a trim wheel, and it's wonderful.) I say this because a lot of the feedback on the Avsim forums (MS-Flightsim and Cockpit Building) says that $200-250 is too much. I personally don't agree, but ultimately we (or at least, I) need the throttle quadrant part more than the switches - again, that would bring the mfr'g cost down.EDIT - NEW COMMMENTS:This is mostly aesthetic, but I think the quadrant would look more attractive if it was more wedge-shaped, rather than "boxy" - i.e. sloping up toward the rear slighly, with the throttle shaft slots being on the sloped edge.Thanks for listening to my feedback.cheers,Dave BlevinsSan Jose, CA

Ditto on the customizing.As someone who is thinking of trading up to a twin-depending on what model I end up with, or which I fly I would like to be able to switch mixtures etc. easily. I am not sure if the present models on the market allow this-but I haven't gotten that impression.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

I've seen the pictures of the CH quadrant and while it doesn't look much like the real thing it does seem practical. I've been trying to start building my own throttle quadrant for lack of an afforable ready-made, but I think it would look awful compared these pictures.About the features: I think that the use of detents for thrust reversing is the most sensible. First of all I think it's cheaper to make, while keeping the design simple and more rugged. Secondly I think this will make the quadrant very configurable, as long as all levers have detents. that way, you can use the detents not only for thrust reverse, but also for prop-feathering and fuel cutoff. The only thing that I don't like about having detents is that they may wear out too soon.I really liked the idea of configurable idents, especially if you can have more than one detent per lever. This way, you can use one for just thrust reverse, and two when you also want an afterburner setting. Configurable idents would probably make this the most configurable throttle quadrant on the market. I don't know if this is feasible though.

>how about some metal parts instead of 100% plastic?...Frankly I think combination of plastic and metal would be a mistake. It should either be all metal or all plastic. But if someone has appetite for some heavy duty metal forgings I suggest this offering as your basic quadrant with the price tag of .... $1395. By the way it comes with the proper lift-gate reverse mechanism.http://www.beechhurst.com/turbo_2x.JPGMichael J.

>Michal, I am reposting (with some edits) an email that I sent>to Debby yesterday:>>Hi there,>>I've been looking at the Quadrant prototype pictures again>this evening, and I've realized that there's one thing about>it that is sub-optimal for how I would want to use it - i.e.>the table edge mount as is used in your Yoke. (I don't have my>Yoke anymore, as I've decided I like flying with a joystick>better.)>>My Pro Throttle seems to do fine with its inherent weight, and>never >slips around in use. I'm assuming that the task of moving (for>instance) four throttles at once on the Quadrant might move>the thing around, but I wish that problem could be solved in>some other way - i.e. a way that lets the bottom of the unit>be flat. Can't high-grip rubber feet solve this problem? Or ->and yes I know they have their issues - even suction cups if>necessary?>>I would think that not having to do the table edge grips would>save some cost.>>And oh by the way - the front switches are neat but probably>not >necessary. (If anything, I'd rather see rudder and aileron>trim wheels. I have the GoFlight module that includes a trim>wheel, and it's wonderful.) I say this because a lot of the>feedback on the Avsim forums (MS-Flightsim and Cockpit>Building) says that $200-250 is too much. I personally don't>agree, but ultimately we (or at least, I) need the throttle>quadrant part more than the switches - again, that would>bring the mfr'g cost down.>>EDIT - NEW COMMMENTS:>>This is mostly aesthetic, but I think the quadrant would look>more attractive if it was more wedge-shaped, rather than>"boxy" - i.e. sloping up toward the rear slighly, with the>throttle shaft slots being on the sloped edge.>>Thanks for listening to my feedback.>>cheers,>>Dave Blevins>San Jose, CADave,Or you could use two bits of blu-tak on the desk to stop slippage and hold the device both horizontally and laterally. My only problem is tha the CH Products arm that goes under the desk is slightly too short to catch the full width of the frame on my office desk, which has a typical one inch overhang between the desk edge and the frame.Allcott

Hi fellas!Just a quick thought about color coding which I agree would be nice, but remember that those six levers will have different functionalities depending on who you ask, i.e. a 747 pilot would like a spoiler/speed brake on the left followed by four throttles and then a flap lever on the right. Obviously someone flying a twin is going to have a different setup...EDIT: Ahh, just say the piccies and now understand that you