>What about just jumping into a heavy and learning from there?>the way I figure it, if you can learn to master a jumbo,>everything else is a step lower. I never touch the autopilot>or other computer navigation except maybe tune into a high>altitude VOR to get a general direction of where I'm going...>I have been considering trying Jets. As far I understand it's notmuch to think about in this case. PMDG 737/900 is the best and for a buisness Jet one of eaglesofts.>repaints, you aren't going to find that many because of the>limited default models.>I don't understand the interest in repaints. You fly the plane and don't see it from outside>Also PMDGs 1900d is very well done, smooth VC, excellentI have it know.>looking and flying with tons of repaints. Framerates might be>a little slow but not sure how it runs on slower systems,Yes I have noticed this (also regarding the Meridian). The demand on computerpower is great. Both my paywareplane easely bogs down my system. But this is mostly because of harddrive access. I have 512M

>>What about just jumping into a heavy and learning from there? the way I figure it, if you can learn to master a jumbo, everything else is a step lower.<

>I don't understand the interest in repaints. You fly the plane>and don't see it from outsideAs far as I'm concerned, I'm being "faked out" by the computer to believe this is a "flying machine". Since I prefer to first see the outside of any "real" plane I fly.................. the same goes for the computerized model.................to help set the mood...P.S.----- I also spend a lot of time in spot view. The additional view is actually more authentic when looking for traffic. I also flew R/C for years, which makes spot view awful easy!L.Adamson ------ who knows why 850,000+ airplane enthusiests travel to Oshkosh every year to view planes from the "outside"

This is a good thread. I like the goal of having something faster than a C172 that actually requires "flying", rather than a glass-cockpited computer with wings that anyone can fly once they master the FMC, etc. Larry- you coming to Denver for the conference? Bruce.

>>Larry- you coming to Denver for the conference? >no...

"I don't understand the interest in repaints. You fly the planeand don't see it from outside"You see it from the outside when it's on the ramp though. Also it's more realistic to fly a plane whith the correct registration - there are some US registered planes in Europe but most are registered in a European country. If I'm flying in Germany I want D-, in the UK, G- etc. Just feels more real."Ahh... Not so, Grasshopper. Get Captain Sim's Yak-3 and prepare to be humbled!"Agreed. There are many planes that are more dificult/challenging to fly than the modern heavies; taildraggers, aerobatic aircraft, fighters, choppers, even old airliners such as the DC-3 or even 727. In fact, even GA planes are quite challenging because they are not automated like modern airliners so you have to fly them yourself.Also with bush type aircraft you can fly to some spectacular airports that are out of reach for the heavies, and, not a VOR in sight (or reach).

Depends how much of a step up you want. I would agree that a complex single is a good choice. But 200 kts + is a different kettle of fish. Approaches, descents and the circuit get very busy. I would recommend a 150 kt machine (or thereabouts). Would second the Carenado Cessna 210. Stable like a C172, but a complex a/c and much faster. The VC is really one of the best out there, only issues are the door view (too much door at default seating position), and the lawnmower like engine sound. I'd try that before going on to Meridians and fast twins and such like.