How did PMDG arrive to the conclusion that the DC-6 would be the next product?

[darth_damian_000 8]

I'd like to hear opinions of users as well as from the developers themselves. After being a member of the community for a relatively short time, I noticed that people like various planes, whether or not they're obsolete. But how was it decided that some old propeller airplane will be the plane that PMDG would dedicate it's time and resources to it?

 

Needless to say, PMDG does not half-&@($* anything. Despite not owning the DC-6 nor X plane, I can say with confidence that the product is very precise. But why the antique?

[MDChase 6]

As both a real world premiere lot and software engineer I think the simple answer is the fact that a plane like the DC-6 is sophisticated and nuanced. Both of those things require expertise and attention to detail. While a jetliner has a sophisticated FMS a DC-6 pushes the limits of propellers, oil, imperfections, all of the things that are much harder to do than drawing a Nav screen which they have before.

 

I fly an older model C-130 and replicate it for fun in my free time and the challenge of replicating an antiquated system often seems to be harder then replicating a computer driven one.

[DEHowie 269]

I'll answer from the perspective of someone who has been flying for 31 years and an A-330 and A-320 Captain plus flown Boeing as well.

First the aircraft are not "antique" as you put it.

The DC-6 and DC-4 plus a whole pile of others are still earning a living in various parts of the world flying into airports no A320 or 737 would ever considered safe going.

The aircraft are far more challenging to fly for several reasons.

No FMGC to make life easy and you actually have to "know" how to fly to fly it.

The aircraft is far more sensitive to operate. Try ramming the throttles forward on a DC-6 and see what happens with no FADEC to protect the pilots ham fistedness.

The aircraft is far more interesting to operate with complicated fuel system and multi stage superchargers plus fuel temps oil consumption etc.

Finally no modern aircraft other than the C130 can pull the payloads into these incredibly poorly equipped airports in some of the most remote places in the world.

In short no other aircraft modern or otherwise is anywhere near replacing them so far from being antique they are still the most cost efficient reliable means of large payload transport we have today.

Oh and they are brilliant aircraft.

If you want "antique" just look at the 737 Max overhead panel now that is a true antique a disorganised shambles of switches scattered from side to side and top to bottom.

Anyway you may want to try Xplane it handles far better the "feel" of flying an aircraft compared to the other one and I spent a lot of years playing and testing on it.

[yidahoo 365]

A quick search through these very forums will reveal PMDGs reasoning for it. But in short it was partly a labour of love for this type of plane and partly because it gave PMDG the opportunity to develop a new plane on a new platform without having to delve into the complexities of modern glass cockpits and as test bed to port a product developed for X-Plane over to FSX/P3D rather than vice versa

[vc10man 732]

A fantastic post, dehowie. A revealing perspective from the seat up front, and in real life too. Great read.

[jonesrob 96]

And PMDG had access to the real aeroplane, which was perhaps the catalyst.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

A quick search through these very forums will reveal PMDGs reasoning for it. But in short it was partly a labour of love for this type of plane and partly because it gave PMDG the opportunity to develop a new plane on a new platform without having to delve into the complexities of modern glass cockpits and as test bed to port a product developed for X-Plane over to FSX/P3D rather than vice versa

 

Best summary possible.

 

Well said Jason!

[darth_damian_000 8]

Very well put dehowie. Thank you. A quick search gave me a quick response, not as elaborate as the ones I see here.

[r_stopnicki 92]

Hello all:

 

While "out of topic" for this topic, I just want to note the post of dehowie, who says:

"I'll answer from the perspective of someone who has been flying for 31 years and an A-330 and A-320 Captain plus flown Boeing as well"

 

and Damian, who says: "I fly an older model C-130 and replicate it for fun in my free time".

 

Isn't that great? Real pilots, go home and "fly airplanes" to relax!!

 

Some time ago, one of the principal controllers on the VATSIM network, was the chief of a north Florida ATC centre.

To relax after work (and I am sure ATC controllers need relaxing after work!), he used to go home, spend some time with the family, then went to his computer and started controlling on the VATSIM network!

Passion for aviation, which speaks to the realism of the hobby!

 

Just wanted to mention it.

 

Cheers

Roberto

[vc10man 732]

Excellent post, Roberto. I doubt any of us looked at it from the angle you saw it from. Just goes to emphasise the 'low profile' real jocks(hope they will not mind me calling them that)keep and how they unwind with something we mere mortals can only limit ourselves to.

[BlueStar 323]

 

 

Best summary possible.

Well said Jason

 

Kyle,

 

I thought it was to get ready for the first swept wing airliner, the DC-3. :smile:

 

blaustern

[be77solo 125]

A quick search through these very forums will reveal PMDGs reasoning for it. But in short it was partly a labour of love for this type of plane and partly because it gave PMDG the opportunity to develop a new plane on a new platform without having to delve into the complexities of modern glass cockpits and as test bed to port a product developed for X-Plane over to FSX/P3D rather than vice versa

Except for the fact they first revealed it to us all in FSX.....

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/361760-secret-project-1-this-one-is-a-classic/

 

So, I guess a FSX --> XP10 --> FSX/P3D port?

[jbassue 181]

Except for the fact they first revealed it to us all in FSX.....

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/361760-secret-project-1-this-one-is-a-classic/

 

So, I guess a FSX --> XP10 --> FSX/P3D port?

 

I believe development started in FSX, but was ultimately finished in XP10. It was actually brought to attention in a recent post if you can bother to find it. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Except for the fact they first revealed it to us all in FSX.....

 

Revealed the model, sure. The rest? No.

I believe development started in FSX, but was ultimately finished in XP10. It was actually brought to attention in a recent post if you can bother to find it. 

 

 See above.

[OldFlyboy 30]

I'll add my 2 cent worth. I was lucky enough to fly a few hours in the C-54 back in the late '50s-early '60s. To me, all jets sound alike, feel alike, but planes like the C-54, C-47 have that great sound and feel to them. A B-47 is just noise inside while those other birds let you actually enjoy the sound and the feel when throttles are adjusted and trim is changed. Plus, you actually had to FLY an approach, usually a GCA, because ILS were few and far between.

Argggghh...Take me back to the good old days