I've bought that "ugly" B377 with COTS package. Looking forward to my first flight with her.

The 377 is VERY ugly imo. The newer tubeliners look much, much better. I'm glad I wasn't around when those were still flying. ^.^

I've bought that "ugly" B377 with COTS package. Looking forward to my first flight with her.

Actually, if you buy the plane+accusim bundle, you are not getting the 25% off.

Actually, if you buy the plane+accusim bundle, you are not getting the 25% off.

 

Yeah, I noticed that too but its still a decent discount.

 

 

If you can handle the P-47, you can handle the others easily.

 

Thanks, TJ.  It was actually your message to that effect in an earlier thread - and also a screenshot you posted of the civilian P-51 cockpit - that helped push me over the line.

 

Now I've just got to set aside some time to download what I bought...

The 377 is VERY ugly imo. The newer tubeliners look much, much better. I'm glad I wasn't around when those were still flying. ^.^

 

I think it may be a case of, you had to be there.  My mother used to talk about Stratocruisers as the height of luxury.  I'm not sure she ever flew on one - she might have, once, short-haul, probably from Detroit to New York.  But the advertising that promoted the cabin experience and the downstairs lounge captured a lot of attention.

 

Me, I can respect them, though the problems with the engines, and the airframes that famously wound up in the ocean, both keep me from romanticizing them too much.  I agree there's a lot to be said for modern hardware.

 

 

I realize everyone gets their opinion. It's just that when I see these images, it kind of makes me have an obvious choice!

Well, and for propliner aesthetics, I'd take a Connie over a 377 any day.

 

But for a quality sim experience involving enormous piston engines, the Stratocruiser is the way to go.

 

Modern tubes are another matter. If we're talking looks, I'd go for a 757 or (slightly earlier) a DC-8-61. But the Dreamliner ain't half bad...

Well, and for propliner aesthetics, I'd take a Connie over a 377 any day.

 

But for a quality sim experience involving enormous piston engines, the Stratocruiser is the way to go.

 

Modern tubes are another matter. If we're talking looks, I'd go for a 757 or (slightly earlier) a DC-8-61. But the Dreamliner ain't half bad...

 

The 757 is my absolute favorite plane! It's so beautiful! I just picked the 787 due to its extremely modern look.

images.jpgimages (1).jpg

 

I realize everyone gets their opinion. It's just that when I see these images, it kind of makes me have an obvious choice!

 

You're right that the 377 isn't the most beautiful bird to ever take to the skies, but at least it looks very different from modern tubeliners, which all looks almost exactly the same to me. Yes, the 747 has a bump on the head and the 380 is uglier than a troll, but other than that I just can't tell them apart.

 

As a workspace I'd prefer a modern plane of course. The notion of having a good chance of actually getting there in one piece appeals to me very much. In a sim though I like it when there's something for me to do besides watching displays and occasionally pressing buttons.

 

Also for those who like to pretend they're big, cool airline pilots the COTS add-on will cater to them better than anything else on the market.

Rolf, you have a good point there.

 

How someone like Airbus could design and build such an ugly aircraft taking into account todays designs potential is beyond my thinking. The A380 is positively bad looking.

Rolf, you have a good point there.

 

How someone like Airbus could design and build such an ugly aircraft taking into account todays designs potential is beyond my thinking. The A380 is positively bad looking.

Well, I guess when you're pushing the limits of what's physically possible you can't afford to worry too much about the aesthetics. Anyway as far as looks go the Concorde will never be beaten so why bother, right? ;-)

I don't think airlines care what the plane looks like as long as it brings in the $$$. I agree that modern airliners are pretty generic looking. Nothing like a Concorde, Connie, Spitfire, Straggerwing, Starship...etc

 

The Connie is more beautiful than the 377 for sure, but I think the 377 was a little faster and had longer range, at least for a time. Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed were constantly 'one-upping' each other with later versions of their aircraft.

 

That being said, A2A 377 COTS package is awesome...really looking forward to PMDG DC-6

 

Cheers

TJ

 

 

The notion of having a good chance of actually getting there in one piece appeals to me very much.

 

See, that's what keeps me from getting carried away with nostalgia for past technologies.  Though I agree that managing those big, unruly engines makes for some pretty decent sim entertainment.

 

 

I don't think airlines care what the plane looks like as long as it brings in the $$$.

 

I had a rude awakening many years ago when I was working as a business reporter, and in an interview, an airline executive told me that the key consideration in aviation was the amount of revenue that could be generated per square foot of gate space.

 

I'd really rather not think about it... except that it happens to be true...

 

But I'd still prefer to stay devoted to airplanes, even if that makes me naive...

See, that's what keeps me from getting carried away with nostalgia for past technologies. Though I agree that managing those big, unruly engines makes for some pretty decent sim entertainment.

 

 

That is the funny irony of Flightsim. FS vs Reality. In FS a lot of times we want airplanes that really bite back, that keep us on our toes.

 

Night flight over the Rockies FS vs Reality.

 

FS Night flight over the Rockies in the accusimmed P-51. The thrill of potentially having to deal with an inflight emergency in a vintage airplane makes it really fun.

 

Night flight over Rockies reality....put me in a brand new DA-42 Twinstar with full Garmin glass avionics lol. I want it to be the most boring flight ever LOL.

 

 

Cheers

TJ

Saint-Exupery wrote - I forget if it was in Flight to Arras or Wind, Sand and Stars, I think the latter - that for something to be truly an adventure, it had to make use of all the latest and best technology available, that if you put yourself at a disadvantage by going without some sort of technology you could have used, then it wasn't a real adventure, it was just an ersatz.

 

He would probably have been in favor of your Twinstar over the Rockies.  I've also sometimes thought that he would have appreciated Airbus - I can hear in my mind's ear a passage about how the flight envelope protections and the several different kinds of law represented a collaboration between you as the pilot and thousands of other pilots, programmers and engineers - something that tied an entire community together.

 

Or maybe I'm just blowing Saint-Exupery-colored smoke...

 

Bring it all back on topic, I'll say this - the Accusim aircraft have taught me something I really didn't grasp before, namely that the piston engines of the 1940's were at or beyond the limit of what the technology and the materials could sustain.  The development of turbines wasn't just a nice, arbitrary bit of progress - it was an absolute necessity.  I don't recall ever having read about that, or if I did, it didn't stick.  Accusim made it real, for me at least.