I think you mean the EIS (electronic instrument system)? The EICAS doesn't have anythind to do with navigation. Just engine/system monitoring and crew awareness.

I know the EICAS does not relate to navigation. I was referring to the condensing and simplification of the various groupings of analog gauges found in aircraft such as the AN-225 into convenient digital displays that eliminated the necessity of a flight engineer.

Fedex primarily transport packages, and need speed and range for its service, hence the 777 choice. The Antonov's tiny niche is outsize loads. Something a nose loading 747F can also beat a 777 at. So Fedex's choice is not applicable to every cargo operator.

 

Regarding the multi-crew issue, other addon designers have simulated aircraft with a navigator and F/E, the A2A B377 for example, so it's not unheard of. Actually having those extra crew stations gives you something to do on long flights. But designers usually also provide options to automate the extra stations.

 

So it would be an interesting idea, though the An-124 might be more attractive in terms of livery options. But given the general American bias here I think a C-5 might be a better choice if they wanted to sell more units. Nice modern flightdeck too.

Something a nose loading 747F can also beat a 777 at. So Fedex's choice is not applicable to every cargo operator

 

Exactly not all planes are suitable for all operators, I was talking about the general term of size matters in all cases.

 

Regarding the multi-crew issue, other addon designers have simulated aircraft with a navigator and F/E, the A2A B377 for example, so it's not unheard of.

 

And I believe that the FS labs Concorde has a virtual FE for many aspects of the job as well such as fuel balancing although I haven't really flown that thing in a long time.

Hey, at least it's a new, interesting suggestion and not another "will PMDG do the 787" (of course they will eventually). It reminds us that boeing and airbus aren't the only people making large commercial aircraft. It got you all thinking didn't it?

 

Mainly about the OP's suggestion that PMDG are part of 'The Illuminati' ... :rolleyes: ...... Is that a good thing or useful?

 

I'd say this is another pointless and somewhat silly suggestion for PMDG to make a plane that is such a niche and small interest, that we all know it just would never happen .............

Regarding the multi-crew issue, other addon designers have simulated aircraft with a navigator and F/E, the A2A B377 for example, so it's not unheard of. Actually having those extra crew stations gives you something to do on long flights. But designers usually also provide options to automate the extra stations.

 

So it would be an interesting idea, though the An-124 might be more attractive in terms of livery options. But given the general American bias here I think a C-5 might be a better choice if they wanted to sell more units. Nice modern flightdeck too.

I just see a lack of purpose in modeling an aircraft in which over half of the crew duties (intended to be managed and/or monitored by the human crew) are going to be automated for most flights. It seems like a waste of resources that could be used instead for a different project with a wider audience, such as an Airbus aircraft. While modeling an Antonov aircraft could certainly be interesting, I think it would be better if PMDG focused on more-mainstream products for now.

Flying the AN-225 would be great fun, and I would take the challenge of flying several peoples jobs but................................... its PMDG so this is never going to happen.

And I believe that the FS labs Concorde has a virtual FE for many aspects of the job as well such as fuel balancing although I haven't really flown that thing in a long time.

Indeed. As did the older PSS and SSTSIM Concorde addons. Necessary because of the CG control system which couldn't be left unattended.

I just see a lack of purpose in modeling an aircraft in which over half of the crew duties (intended to be managed and/or monitored by the human crew) are going to be automated for most flights. It seems like a waste of resources that could be used instead for a different project with a wider audience, such as an Airbus aircraft. While modeling an Antonov aircraft could certainly be interesting, I think it would be better if PMDG focused on more-mainstream products for now.

On a modern 2 crew plane you have to do all that systems modelling, it just won't appear on a panel. It will be visible on EICAS or ECAM synoptics and mostly be automatic. So where's the basic difference? I haven't flown the B377 in a long while, but I quite enjoyed doing all the F/E management stuff manually. I used to takeoff and land in the pilot position and fly the rest of the flight from the F/E station. Obviously PMDG aren't going to make an Antonov, but that's not because of the multiple crew positions.

Gave up on the 377 a long time ago, no matter what I do the engines kept overheating.

On a modern 2 crew plane you have to do all that systems modelling, it just won't appear on a panel. It will be visible on EICAS or ECAM synoptics and mostly be automatic. So where's the basic difference?

I agree that it is conceptually the same and can see your point, but there seems to be something different that I can't quite articulate between a jetliner that's supposed to be operated by two pilots, a jetliner that's supposed to be operated by two pilots and a flight engineer, and a jetliner that's supposed to be operated by a crew of five people all with specific duties. I feel like the division of cockpit duties was something unique to the AN-225 and similarly aged classics, and one would lose the feeling of the busy cockpit if he or she operated a simulated version solo.

 

Obviously PMDG aren't going to make an Antonov, but that's not because of the multiple crew positions.

I also agree that there are other, more-significant reasons why, but never mentioned that the large crew was the primary reason.

I feel like the division of cockpit duties was something unique to the AN-225 and similarly aged classics, and one would lose the feeling of the spacious but occupied cockpit if he or she operated a simulated version solo

 

Air force 1 despite the technologies that is on board has a dedicated navigator which brings the cockpit crew count to 4, just one shy of the 225's five man crew.

Neither is operating any commercial airliner solo. Lighten up and have some fun!

 

PS: If flying a commercial airliner with one pilot was legal and safe I'm sure Ryan Air would have done it already! (J/K)

 

I'm not sure why you put (J/K) behind that sentence. Ryanair's CEO has seriously suggested flying with only 1 pilot on multiple occasions.

An225

I sent an email to Virtavia ask them about making the plane because i found out all there planes work with the mcp from goflight and that i sure it would sell.tThere reply was that they did not think so.

 

Thomas ruth i am guessing is the women who pain staking task of making the an225 in the avsim and there is an update but that was 2009 i beleive. I am not good extracting files and putting them seperatley into folders in fsx. I to was hoping that some one would do one. And a really detail good one . Maybe we get more replys to this someone out there would get the hint.

Mean while i ll go back and watch the one thomas ruth did on you tube lol

 

Captin Sim last year ask for ideas again some that where enter to them was the an 225

I am into the heavys that plane is still on top of my wish list.

 

It is the most awsome plane to have in anyones collection again lets keep this reply going some has got to get the hint.

 

Alan martin

Wanna be pilot lol

That's why I mentioned Asia. Unfortunately, it seems that ANA is retiring its B747-400Ds (including the Pokemon aircraft!). But it seems that the B747 is rarely loaded to its maximum passenger capacity, and the capacity it is usually loaded to is around (if not less than) the maximum capacity of the B777. For example, why load a B747 to 80% when you can load a B777 to 100% and operate it more efficiently?

That is true, I live in Japan so I`m privileged to flying on these short hauls routes. Last year I flew on the domestic ANA 777-300 flight from Tokyo to Sapporo (only an hours flight) and the load factor was only like 25%, the flight back was a 737-800 on the same route and the loads were 100% I guess nowadays is not the time for high payloads, and now I am getting a broader image of why boeing made the 787 so small

Thomas ruth i am guessing is the women

Thomas is a male name, though. In this case, I think determining gender based on the first name is more accurate.

 

Captin Sim last year ask for ideas again some that where enter to them was the an 225

Having Captain Sim (rather than PMDG) work on such an aircraft would be a better usage of resources.

 

ANA 777-300 flight from Tokyo to Sapporo (only an hours flight) and the load factor was only like 25%

I'm surprised that they allowed the flight to depart. Shouldn't there be a load factor minimum value (e.g., 67%), so airlines are able to maximize efficiency and save fuel?

Thomas is a male name, though. In this case, I think determining gender based on the first name is more accurate.

 

 

Having Captain Sim (rather than PMDG) work on such an aircraft would be a better usage of resources.

 

 

I'm surprised that they allowed the flight to depart. Shouldn't there be a load factor minimum value (e.g., 67%), so airlines are able to maximize efficiency and save fuel?

On a charter operation maybe, but a scheduled flight will fly. That aircraft will be needed at its destination for the next flight, possibly with a full load.

 

It's up to the airline to maximize their load factor by offering discounts, putting a smaller plane on the route, etc.