Project Tupolev's TU-154 is also very complex.

Interesting thread. I "fly" the Leonardo MD80 and love it, once you get to know how to manage the complexity it's possible to fly without having to resort back to tutorials or manuals. Similarly the MD11, where the complexity to me is the difference to the Boeing methodology.

 

But regarding the Concorde, which I don't yet have, I suspect if one could "fly" the B742 or DC10 with INS and relatively rudimentary avionics such as " round gauges", that might be a start. What I'm wondering is what the workload is if you use the virtual FE/FO to it's fullest implementation?

 

What I didn't see mentioned here is the CoolSky DC9 (which I also do not yet have), where one has to understand basic VOR / NDB navigation.

 

Thanks, Bruce.

Project Tupolev's TU-154 is also very complex.

 

yeah forgot about that one too

Interesting thread. I "fly" the Leonardo MD80 and love it, once you get to know how to manage the complexity it's possible to fly without having to resort back to tutorials or manuals. Similarly the MD11, where the complexity to me is the difference to the Boeing methodology.

Interesting points. I too was wondering why people thing the MD-11 is complex. It is different than Boeing in term of philosophy, but I don't think it's hard. The Maddog on the other hand, is much more involved, there are several items that you need to go through to even get air born, and the continuous monitoring once you are in the air. The MD-11 is highly automated, so for people who does not want to micromanage like me, a better plane.

Interesting points. I too was wondering why people thing the MD-11 is complex. It is different than Boeing in term of philosophy, but I don't think it's hard. The Maddog on the other hand, is much more involved, there are several items that you need to go through to even get air born, and the continuous monitoring once you are in the air. The MD-11 is highly automated, so for people who does not want to micromanage like me, a better plane.

 

I think what this comes down to is how much one really wants to master the airplane. Sure, if all one wants to do is mimic the tutorial flight like a Parrot and have no idea what all the buttons mean, then sure the MD-11 will basically fly itself. I don't have any fun though, just glossing over things and pushing buttons like a monkey, I want to actually understand what I'm doing, because I'm flying the plane, it isn't flying me. To get to that level where you truly feel like you 100% understand the state of the airplane at all times, I think it is fair to say that there is a substantial learning curve. You don't have that problem in a lot of planes less automated, because it isn't doing anything that you didn't explicitely tell it to do. I don't have any experience with the Leonardo Maddog, only that it won't even do VNAV SPEED correctly, because of a bug, and therefore I won't buy it...some don't think that is a big deal, but some seemingly little thing like that would completely destroy the feeling of continuity and immersion for me, as uptight as that may appear!

 

Will people also say that due to the high level of automation, that the upcoming FSL A320 is "easy?", just like the MD-11?

I think what this comes down to is how much one really wants to master the airplane. Sure, if all one wants to do is mimic the tutorial flight like a Parrot and have no idea what all the buttons mean, then sure the MD-11 will basically fly itself. I don't have any fun though, just glossing over things and pushing buttons like a monkey, I want to actually understand what I'm doing, because I'm flying the plane, it isn't flying me. To get to that level where you truly feel like you 100% understand the state of the airplane at all times, I think it is fair to say that there is a substantial learning curve. You don't have that problem in a lot of planes less automated, because it isn't doing anything that you didn't explicitely tell it to do. I don't have any experience with the Leonardo Maddog, only that it won't even do VNAV SPEED correctly, because of a bug, and therefore I won't buy it...some don't think that is a big deal, but some seemingly little thing like that would completely destroy the feeling of continuity and immersion for me, as uptight as that may appear!

 

Will people also say that due to the high level of automation, that the upcoming FSL A320 is "easy?", just like the MD-11?

Of course, pushing button without understanding what the heck you are doing can get you only so far. But at least, if you spend some times, you will get somewhere. If you have to tweak too much and if the procedure easily get you into the wrong path, the frustration will just get to you. In all of these airliner, you don;t fly the plane, you run the system that fly the plane. Try to hand fly the MD-11

Out of curiosity, does it take the realistic length of time (3.5 hours) to get from New York to London?

 

Of course, why wouldn't an accurate representation of the real airplane not fly a route just like in real life?