3 hours ago, Captain Kevin said:

I know the 737-200 had this capability with the gravel kit, but can the 737NG do this?

Probably not recommended, but yes, it could do it, and (sort of) has demonstrated that it is possible, courtesy of a problem which the CFM 56 engine used to have before its intake spinner was redesigned. The problem was discovered in 1988 when TACA Flight 110, which was a brand new 737-300, only in service for about a week and a half at the time, had both engines shut down when going through a rainstorm whilst en route from Belize to New Orleans. A severe rain storm near New Orleans swamped the engines and caused them both to flame out. The crew were initially going to try belly landing the stricken 737 on a river, but as they lined up for that, they saw a grass levee which looked flat and so at the last minute the Captain lowered the gear and decided to put the 737 down on that levee, which he managed to do without damaging the aeroplane at all; probably one of the best landings anyone has ever made in a 737. Boeing engineers initially thought they might have to dismantle the aircraft and put it on a barge to get it out of there, but instead they replaced one engine on the aircraft in-situ and cleaned out the other one, then with minimal fuel on board, they flew it off that levee to New Orleans. It was subsequently checked over and went back into service, eventually ending up with Southwest airlines, with which it continued to operate right up until late last year, when it was finally retired, so it was evidently none the worse for having had that adventure. The take off from that levee can be seen on this video, at 1 minute 25 seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwQKzlXrMWA

This just goes to show how tough aircraft such as the 737 actually are given that the aircraft in question did not have that unpaved runway kit since it was only made available for the earlier 737 variants and a few other aircraft such as the Boeing 727. This is even more amazing when you consider that he unpaved runway kit for the 737-100/200 variants involves quite a lot of modifications to the aircraft, among them: a gravel deflector on the nose and main gear, shrouds over the landing gear hydraulics, fibreglass reinforcement plates on the flaps, teflon paint on the underside of the fuselage and the wings, reinforced antennas on the underside, a retractable anti-collision beacon, vortex dissipators on the front of the engine nacelles which blast out compressed air to break up turbulent air from the ground, mesh reinforcement screens in the wheel wells, some slightly different switches in the cockpit, reduced tire pressures, reduced gear extension speeds etc. Even with all those modifications, 737s so fitted had increased maintenance costs from things like more chance of getting paint chips etc. So you would think an NG, with its larger diameter CFM 56 engines would have no chance managing that sort of thing, given that its engine nacelles are much closer to the ground. But the NG's layout in terms of where the engines are, is essentially similar to that of the 300/400/500 series 'Classic' 737s, and as you can see from that video, if a 737-300 could do it, then an NG almost certainly could too.

Learn the 737 first, and the 747 and 777 will seem like a piece of cake.

My vote goes to the 737 NGX. Especially because it is less automated. You will have more to do and the flights are shorter. The mix of analogue and digital gauges makes the flight deck somewhat interesting and you need to pay attention to a few items, that no computer will do for you, i. e. you get away less for not paying attention or omitting check list items. 

If you want a deep system study, the larger aircraft are interesting, because behind all the automation on the 777 there is still a complex array of simulated systems with correct interdependencies and all. 

3 hours ago, richcam427 said:

47 minutes ago, MorsAbAlto said:

My vote goes to the 737 NGX. Especially because it is less automated. You will have more to do and the flights are shorter. The mix of analogue and digital gauges makes the flight deck somewhat interesting and you need to pay attention to a few items, that no computer will do for you, i. e. you get away less for not paying attention or omitting check list items. 

Learn the 737 first, and the 747 and 777 will seem like a piece of cake.

I agree that competence in the 737 will make transitioning to the 777 or 747 relatively easy, and that the NGX has more that requires attention.  But the OP wants to know the easiest to learn -- seems to me that would be the 777. 

Mike

As I spent many of my 26 years in the Air Force as an Instructor in various capacities (alongside my primary career field) I have to agree with Chock's assessment the OP asked which aircraft would be the best one to LEARN.  And I would also select the 737 NGX in that case. 

It may not be the EASIEST one for a new sim pilot, but if they are willing to put the required EFFORT into their learning process, they will get the knowledge and experience required to "move up" to the 777 and 747.  In essence, as some others have mentioned, just because something might be automated (like in the 777 and 747), it doesn't mean the user DOESN'T already need to have the KNOWLEDGE level of what the automation is doing (and why), but they also need to know how to "fix" it by having acquired the manual SKILLS to use the equipment in the aircraft to make everything work when the automation goes tits-up on you (which is also something that can be simulated in the PMDG aircraft...failures!!!). 

If the user doesn't want this stuff, fly a default aircraft with a default GPS and a sim created flight plan.  No PMDG aircraft is a plug-and-play addon.  You should view purchasing one as "Going to Flight Simulator College" and plan on studying the aircraft if you really want to LEARN it (the original question of the OP).

26 minutes ago, FalconAF said:

As I spent many of my 26 years in the Air Force as an Instructor in various capacities (alongside my primary career field) I have to agree with Chock's assessment the OP asked which aircraft would be the best one to LEARN.  And I would also select the 737 NGX in that case. 

It may not be the EASIEST one for a new sim pilot, but if they are willing to put the required EFFORT into their learning process, they will get the knowledge and experience required to "move up" to the 777 and 747.  In essence, as some others have mentioned, just because something might be automated (like in the 777 and 747), it doesn't mean the user DOESN'T already need to have the KNOWLEDGE level of what the automation is doing, but also how to "fix" it by having acquired the manual SKILLS to use the equipment in the aircraft to make everything work when the automation goes tits-up on you. 

You may be confusing real world training with making choices in the sim.  RW, one would typically start with a Cessna, perhaps move to twin props, then jets.  No-one would go from zero jet experience, or no prop experience, into the cockpit of a heavy jet.  And of course no-one would be permitted to fly a heavy jet without knowing extremely well what is going on "under the hood", so that when an automation failure, or any other kind of serious failure occurs, s/he knows how to handle it.

But in flight simulation we can choose how realistic to make our flying.  My own flight simming is kind of a-- backwards from real life.  I spent hardly any time in a Cessna simulation or a light jet.  I went pretty quickly to the T7.  (Even starting with the NGX, which does require more systems knowledge to make it work, is only a little closer to RW training.) Any of the three aircraft can be set to never have a failure, to have predictable failures, or to have many unexpected failures.   In part, it's a question of time.  For someone who doesn't have the time to go in-depth into understanding systems, it is perfectly acceptable to choose not to have failures or the required in-depth understanding that having failures active requires, and it is perfectly  acceptable to choose an aircraft that is the easiest to fly (failures not activated).  I practice some preset failures in the 777, like engine failure on takeoff.  But I don't have the time to frequently set up random failures, as I can't constantly  sit in front of my computer.  So most of the time I set my aircraft to not have failures.  (I did suggest to PMDG that they introduce a "pause on failure" option, similar to the "pause at TOD" option, but have no idea if it will ever be implemented.)  Likewise I might have chosen to set up my NGX to load with engines on, IRUs calibrated, etc. (although I didn't).  It's a matter of how much time I have to delve into the depths of the simulation, something not really relevant for a RW pilot.

BTW the OP asked which is the easiest to learn.

Mike

 

4 hours ago, Chock said:

The problem was discovered in 1988 when TACA Flight 110, which was a brand new 737-300, only in service for about a week and a half at the time, had both engines shut down when going through a rainstorm whilst en route from Belize to New Orleans. A severe rain storm near New Orleans swamped the engines and caused them both to flame out. The crew were initially going to try belly landing the stricken 737 on a river, but as they lined up for that, they saw a grass levee which looked flat and so at the last minute the Captain lowered the gear and decided to put the 737 down on that levee, which he managed to do without damaging the aeroplane at all; probably one of the best landings anyone has ever made in a 737. Boeing engineers initially thought they might have to dismantle the aircraft and put it on a barge to get it out of there, but instead they replaced one engine on the aircraft in-situ and cleaned out the other one, then with minimal fuel on board, they flew it off that levee to New Orleans. It was subsequently checked over and went back into service, eventually ending up with Southwest airlines, with which it continued to operate right up until late last year, when it was finally retired, so it was evidently none the worse for having had that adventure. The take off from that levee can be seen on this video, at 1 minute 25 seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwQKzlXrMWA

Alan, your vast depth of research and knowledge never ceases to astound me. This is a terrific fact-based piece of research. I'm impressed.

Now wonder your absence within this Community was missed for a while back there.

Redundant comment, ignore...