Very interesting replies. The difficult you do immediately the impossible takes a little bit longer. Magenta line makes it almost impossible to fly IFR to the South Pole Station NZSP have always used the GPS. In other locations ADF. NZSP is one of the most difficult approaches, landing and take offs in FSX. Elevation 9300 ft a very strange place.

 

Spent 14 hours today setting in the Jetstream reading the manuals and attempted to start the engines. "first attempt failure" have to get back to the books and the cock pit. 

 

Thank You and have a Great Day

 

Larry  

That little JS41 is a gem to have, and if, as Kyle wrote only pilots or aspiring pilots bought it, then it makes it a very under appreciated aircraft.

 

Buying that little thing saved me from becoming a how soon after lift off can I engage autopilot simmer. And it made it a lot easier for me to manually handle PMDG's 747 afterwards, even though I bought the 747 first.

JS41 is a beautiful aircraft she is still grounded not because of the aircraft more to my lack of knowledge in applying proper procedures. The manuals are very informative about the aircraft and regulations find very interesting. Hopefully we will get the engines started today.

 

 

Hopefully we will get the engines started today.

Have a couple of fire extinguishers ready!

Fire extinguishers not required did notify the fire department and they immediately dispatched fire and rescue support.  After the startup had to adjust the sound volumes do not think my hearing will ever be the same.

 

Beautiful aircraft and enjoyed the short flight looking forward to some longer flights.

 

 

When you are used to follow the magenta line and hand-fly only below 2000 feet, then yes, a jet would be easier to fly.

Who said anything about the magenta line and limited hand flying? A jet is easier to handle than a turboprop in any flight regime. No torques effects, no propeller effects, almost no need to worry about trim except the stabiliser.

 

The A2A sims are complex simulations but they aren't difficult to fly, except perhaps the Stratocruiser which demands good technique to operate properly. The PMDG J41 is the most demanding sim I fly in FSX. Atttention to detail the whole time, especially with engine management or your whole day is ruined. I don't agree that starting off with the most demanding sim is the best preparation, especially for a sim pilot who isn't getting live training.

 

It isn't how it works in real aviation either. The most junior airline pilots will usually start on the smallest aircraft in the fleet. Often, but not always, a turboprop. However these pilots have hundreds of hours experience and training before getting to that stage so they are used to handling small prop aircraft. A sim pilot starts off without that background. In real life you wouldn't be entrusted with a 737 or 777 with no hours in your log book, but in flight sim there's no reason why not and such aircraft are easier to handle and manage than twin turboprops. Therefore better to begin with.

 

 

 

Bingo.

See above.

 

 

See above.

 

Not sure where your disagreement is coming from.  I was speaking from a very high level.  I'm not referring to hands-on-controls feel.  I'm talking about overall difficulty, and I wasn't at all trying to put off that people should follow the real world progression in the sim, too.  You of all people should know that I readily dismiss the notion that large aircraft are harder to fly all the time in these fora.  It usually comes up in threads like this, or the usual "could a simmer save the world if something happened" threads.

 

My commentary here was only really to say "if you're the type of simmer who likes to throw the AP on ASAP and walk off, then the 777 is probably a better bet."  As you mentioned, the J41 requires too much attention for that kind of thing.

In real life you wouldn't be entrusted with a 737 or 777 with no hours in your log book, but in flight sim there's no reason why not and such aircraft are easier to handle and manage than twin turboprops. Therefore better to begin with.

 

I never said there was a reason why not.

 

I don't agree that starting off with the most demanding sim is the best preparation, especially for a sim pilot who isn't getting live training.

 

We both agree, but I argue that the JS41 is not the most demanding sim.

 

Who said anything about the magenta line and limited hand flying? A jet is easier to handle than a turboprop in any flight regime. No torques effects, no propeller effects, almost no need to worry about trim except the stabiliser.

 

I did, because this is how many new and long time sim pilots operate their jets. In accordance to real world ops mind you.

 

And now we again reach a point where it all depends on a persons approach to simming and what the definition of "to handle" is. While I see what you are saying, your arguments mostly pertain to the superficial operation of the aircraft.

 

But what about flight planning and systems management? These are just as important to know as the actual flying and the latter two points are less complex on a smaller and less complex aircraft. When I say, "flying a jet" I also think of FMC programming (and knowing its capabilites and limits) and knowing what happens "under the hood" when you push a button.

 

You must be able to fly the jet without the automation that is usually in place. What does Joe Pilot do once all his fancy computers start to fail and his starship turns into a flying cigar? You need to know and understand what the computers are hiding from you in normal operations and be able to do without them.

 

Of course this is not true for a sim pilot. We choose our own level of diffictulty and how deep we want to immerse ourselves into the tools that are given to us.

 

TL;DR version

Saying it is easier to fly a large jet over a small turboprop is only superficially true. And only in the sim.

 

PS

I am really sorry for hijacking your thread, Larry :blush:

Your choice of a PMDG aircraft was the right first step. The realism they provide is second to none in my opinion, so your sure not to be disappointed. 

 

Your choice of aircraft should be driven by the type of flying you want to do. For me it is the JS41 because I enjoy the high work rate in the cockpit and, as it is designed as a regional carrier, it is best suited to the shorter hops, typically airtime between 45 - 120 minutes. Manual control of the throttles in all phases of the flight means to me that there is more ''flying'' with this bird, and very short VFR hops are an option as well. The other difference is that the Jetstream can get into airfields that the 777 can not even consider, so this in itself opens up a world of opportunities.

 

If on the other hand you want to fly high and fast, and travel to diverse destinations carrying 100's of passengers then opt for the 777. As the guys have already pointed out these two birds offer a completely different experience. I suspect most people passionate about flight simulation have a variety of planes in their stable, and that is the beauty of flight simulation, you can get both experiences over time, which one you start with is dependant on your personal preferences. Happy flying

I never said there was a reason why not.

 

 

We both agree, but I argue that the JS41 is not the most demanding sim.

 

 

I did, because this is how many new and long time sim pilots operate their jets. In accordance to real world ops mind you.

 

And now we again reach a point where it all depends on a persons approach to simming and what the definition of "to handle" is. While I see what you are saying, your arguments mostly pertain to the superficial operation of the aircraft.

 

But what about flight planning and systems management? These are just as important to know as the actual flying and the latter two points are less complex on a smaller and less complex aircraft. When I say, "flying a jet" I also think of FMC programming (and knowing its capabilites and limits) and knowing what happens "under the hood" when you push a button.

 

You must be able to fly the jet without the automation that is usually in place. What does Joe Pilot do once all his fancy computers start to fail and his starship turns into a flying cigar? You need to know and understand what the computers are hiding from you in normal operations and be able to do without them.

 

Of course this is not true for a sim pilot. We choose our own level of diffictulty and how deep we want to immerse ourselves into the tools that are given to us.

 

TL;DR version

Saying it is easier to fly a large jet over a small turboprop is only superficially true. And only in the sim.

 

PS

I am really sorry for hijacking your thread, Larry :blush:

We agree hand flying is important to this, and yet you refer to my argument as if I'm ignoring that. Of course those who fly LNAV/VNAV and autoland all the time will find the 777 more comfortable. But I never mentioned that style of simming in my argument that hand flying a jet is easier than turboprop. So I don't understand why you raised the issue. The magenta line followers won't bother with the J41 as there is no autoland (or magenta line come to that). So they are not relevant to the discussion.

 

I was talking about hand flying, and that is generally easier in a jet than a turboprop. Flight handling is hardly "superficial operation" as you put it, it's basic airmanship. Systems management is important too, but it is required in both the 777 and the J41. If your systems fail, the hand flying will get you home. And that is easier in a jet.

 

As for automation there are two kinds. Full time normal automation which operates to reduce pilot workload, and optional, such as autopilot. Pilot workload without optional automation in a 777 is lower than in a J41. You can destroy your engines by inappropriate handling of power and condition levers in the J41. In the 777 the engines are protected by FADEC. You can slam them to the firewall and not worry about it. With the optional automation gets even easier in the 777 as the J41 autopilot is less sophisticated and with fewer protections than the 777. And there is no autothrottle so that is more workload.

 

Both have an FMC so programming that has to be understood for either type. But if you begin with the 777, you can transfer that knowledge to the 737 or 747 to a large extent. The J41 FMC has a very different user interface to get used to and which no other PMDG sim shares.

 

This isn't the real world of flying. We don't need a type rating or ground school to operate the aircraft. We don't have to have a full knowledge of what is under the hood to fly it. In the 777 if you enable failures and things go wrong, it will, for the most part, provide you with list of actions to perform to isolate the failure. But people starting out with the sim are hardly likely to enable failures to make life difficult for themselves. There is no shame in setting the pneumatics, air conditioning and pressurisation to auto and leaving it there. Any more than there is a point in setting it all to manual and controlling it the hard way.

 

Basically if your wish is to fly the PMDG 777 then it's better to begin with that. There's no advantage in starting with the J41 and "working your way up".

Not sure where your disagreement is coming from.  I was speaking from a very high level.  I'm not referring to hands-on-controls feel.  I'm talking about overall difficulty, and I wasn't at all trying to put off that people should follow the real world progression in the sim, too.  You of all people should know that I readily dismiss the notion that large aircraft are harder to fly all the time in these fora.  It usually comes up in threads like this, or the usual "could a simmer save the world if something happened" threads.

 

My commentary here was only really to say "if you're the type of simmer who likes to throw the AP on ASAP and walk off, then the 777 is probably a better bet."  As you mentioned, the J41 requires too much attention for that kind of thing.

The disagreement is because you quoted one line from Alexander's post

 

When you are used to follow the magenta line and hand-fly only below 2000 feet, then yes, a jet would be easier to fly.

and said "Bingo" as if you were in full agreement with it. His comment implies that a jet is only easier if you fly on AP and follow the FMC plan. You've contradicted that idea in your answer above (BIB). I maintain that jet handling (hand flying) is easier than turboprop handling, regardless of whether you follow the magenta line or not. Regardless of whether you use the AP or not.

 

If you are a magenta line/autoland simmer then the 777 certainly will be easier. But that does not mean that if you hand fly a lot and can depart from the FMC flight plan that you would be better advised to begin with the J41. There is no point in learning the additional difficulty of flying a turboprop if you want to fly a jet.

His comment implies that a jet is only easier if you fly on AP and follow the FMC plan.

 

I took it to mean exactly as you said:

 

 

If you are a magenta line/autoland simmer then the 777 certainly will be easier.

 

I'm pretty sure that was his basic point, but I do see what you're getting at, given his AP-off-at-2000' comment.

 

Regardless, I agree with you.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: 10,000th post.  Evidence that I truly have no life... 

I just say...pick the plane that interest you the most  and learn to fly it.  It really doesn't matter if its a Cessna 152 or a B747.  Its flight simulator after all, if you mess up just reset the sim and try again.

 

Now I personally think the modern jets are easier to fly than the regional prop liners because of the automation.  I only think this now because I started at the bottom and after a bunch of reading and understanding I realized that when you conquer one plane with a FMC....the rest are very similar.

 

-my 2¢

So I don't understand why you raised the issue. The magenta line followers won't bother with the J41 as there is no autoland (or magenta line come to that). So they are not relevant to the discussion.

 

A lot of assumption on your part and you obviously missed that they are relevant for the discussion, if only because I brought them up. And yes, "superficial operation" was used synonymously with basic airmanship.

 

If your systems fail, the hand flying will get you home. And that is easier in a jet.

 

My point was and is, that this pretty much depends on how many systems fail. Flying your 777 without FBW, thrust asymmetry protection and and without FADEC/EEC protection will be just as demanding as flying your small turboprop which does not have these systems in the first place - maybe even more demanding. Does such a degradation of flight controls occur often in a jet? No, but it theoretically could. I was abstracting to a basic level of what could happen to make my comparison.

 

As for automation there are two kinds. [...]

 

Correct. Yet again, on a basic level the FMS on the JS41 requires different handling but is also less capable, which makes it easier to operate in my book. Not necessarily more user friendly though. It has been a while since I last flew her. The point being that you can do more with the FMS in the Boeing and as such need to study it more, increasing overall "difficulty".

 

You can also damage your engine in any GA plane and your precious FADEC can still go haywire. Automation should not lead to complacency. The pilot should still monitor the engines, FADEC or not. It just offers another level of safety.

 

This isn't the real world of flying. We don't need a type rating or ground school to operate the aircraft. We don't have to have a full knowledge of what is under the hood to fly it.

 

I never made a point to the contrary. This is what I meant with "selecting your own difficulty". Some people want to have full knowledge and others do not. It is not my intent to tell people how to get enjoyment out of their investment.

 

His comment implies that a jet is only easier if you fly on AP and follow the FMC plan

 

It implies that a jet is only easier to fly with basic automation in place. The kind that serves augmentation of flight controls, i. e. FBW, FADEC, auto-trim etc., which I assumed would be easily understood, as these systems are exclusive to the 777 in this debate, while the A/P is present on both aircraft and may be useless during contingencies.

 

But I concede that you rarely will ever see automation fail on an airliner, so in general they are easier to fly - with the exception of the "heavier and faster" argument and all that it implies. And in the end my knowledge regarding turboprops stems from observation. The only flight time I have on them is in the back of a local Cessna 208 as a skydiver.

 

PS

Congrats Kyle! ^_^

It implies that a jet is only easier to fly with basic automation in place. The kind that serves augmentation of flight controls, i. e. FBW, FADEC, auto-trim etc., which I assumed would be easily understood, as these systems are exclusive to the 777 in this debate, while the A/P is present on both aircraft and may be useless during contingencies.

 

I won't quote the whole post, but this is the essence of where we disagree. You seem to suggest a jet is only easier to fly because of the automation. My point is that even stripped of all automation a jet is easier to fly than a turboprop. It's simple aerodynamics, stability and control. No propeller effects on trim.

 

 

EDIT: 10,000th post. Evidence that I truly have no life...

 

Especially given how long your posts are.  :Talking Ear Off: B)

 

Congratulations.