FSLabs wants to develop new Concorde for v4

[Guest]

I wouldn't go with the existing product updated (way too many issues with it in P3D V3), but I would go for an overhaul version that leverage the features in P3D V4.x, I'd even pre-pay for it that was an option to aid/speed up development.

I'd even pay extra for a fully rendered passenger cabin and GSX support and TrueGlass support.

Cheers, Rob.

[DavidP 1,411]

11 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I wouldn't go with the existing product updated (way too many issues with it in P3D V3), but I would go for an overhaul version that leverage the features in P3D V4.x, I'd even pre-pay for it that was an option to aid/speed up development.

I'd even pay extra for a fully rendered passenger cabin and GSX support and TrueGlass support.

Cheers, Rob.

I’d pre-pay if it was an option.

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, Nyxx said:

Concorde is my #1 all time favourite Airliner  but I don’t like flying long haul.

Don't forget Concorde also used to do 'experience flights' where they would take passengers out over the ocean and go supersonic. These would invariably come back to the departure airport too (usually Paris for the Air France ones). How many flights in other airliners are there where you can simulate a realistic scheduled IFR flight which lands at the same place it took off from, having climbed to 60,000 feet and done Mach 2 all in two hours?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,960]

32 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I wouldn't go with the existing product updated (way too many issues with it in P3D V3), but I would go for an overhaul version that leverage the features in P3D V4.x, I'd even pre-pay for it that was an option to aid/speed up development.

I'd even pay extra for a fully rendered passenger cabin and GSX support and TrueGlass support.

Cheers, Rob.

Rob, as someone who flies it regularly in P3D v3.4 I’m curious what are the “many issues” that prevent you from enjoying it.

I’m aware of a few fairly minor bugs but nothing serious. The update to v1.39 made substantial savings in VAS thereby allowing us to fly from LHR to JFK using 3rd party airports and not run out of memory.

[RedSpinnaker 35]

Excellent! Hopefully there is enough interest.

 

E-mail sent.

[Nyxx 6,993]

21 minutes ago, Chock said:

Don't forget Concorde also used to do 'experience flights' where they would take passengers out over the ocean and go supersonic. These would invariably come back to the departure airport too (usually Paris for the Air France ones). How many flights in other airliners are there where you can simulate a realistic scheduled IFR flight which lands at the same place it took off from, having climbed to 60,000 feet and done Mach 2 all in two hours?

Yer I remember well, Concorde came to my local airport EGNX and did just that. I went to  watch the take off and nothing passenger wise comes close to the sound and beauty of her, she went out over the North Sea, did her thing and came back. Something I will never forget.

I think her call sign was Speedbird 8 But it was a long time ago.

EDIT

just Googled it, it was 1991 and this vid came up and the guys scanner was the same as I had, well still have. I was the other side of Airport 

look at these old 73’s I loved that Airline company 

 

[Nighthwk 566]

Can you imagine Concorde with something like FS2Crew? That’d be glorious!

[Boomer 1,619]

Never flown this bird but given the 3 crew workload,  how does a single simming pilot handle her?

[joemiller 269]

Though I love the Concorde, I refuse to vote for a near future development of this aircraft, as I wold like to see them finish the Airbus series  as planned (A321, A330, and hopefully 340--... Unless they can work on both aircraft in parallel. 

[MartinRex007 390]

I would be interested in buying the Concorde, such a classic and with P3D v4x, it opens the door to add those mentioned features and not have to worry about VAS.

[RedSpinnaker 35]

34 minutes ago, Boomer said:

Never flown this bird but given the 3 crew workload,  how does a single simming pilot handle her?

With the virtual FE turned on, it’s not really any different than an older steam gauge/non-FMS airliner. However, once your proficient/comfortable, then you can start playing the fuel balance game. That ability to turn on/off the FE was one of the many things I liked about it.

[Nighthwk 566]

56 minutes ago, joemiller said:

Though I love the Concorde, I refuse to vote for a near future development of this aircraft, as I wold like to see them finish the Airbus series  as planned (A321, A330, and hopefully 340--... Unless they can work on both aircraft in parallel. 

They can, and it would be done in parallel. Rest of the A320 family is releasing in the coming months. Just send the email ;)

[spearmint_flyer 579]

I also am in the “No@ group. I say that for the same reason I didn’t buy the 747. To me it seems like an aircraft that has very little use for me. It’s now obsolete and to put all that time and energy into it will be in my opinion a wastebasket when we can focus on other aircraft that no one is paying attention too. 

 

Embraer E Jets, C series, ERJ’s. 

 

I will I’ll say if anyone will do it it will be them as they already have the original code they can develop further into from. 

[CFIJose 5,485]

The Concorde is legendary. Count me in!

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, Boomer said:

Never flown this bird but given the 3 crew workload,  how does a single simming pilot handle her?

Flying it would be not dissimilar to the way the virtual flight engineer on the PMDG DC-6 works, I.e. On the real Concorde you had the FE operating the throttles most of the time. The fact that it had an old INS which was quite often unable to hold all the waypoints of an entire flight, meant that you'd have to be inserting new waypoint coordinates en-route too, so again that requires some teamwork to be flying the thing whilst putting that stuff in. And when it comes to getting it to Mach 2, even that requires a lot of coordination with the FE, you can't just firewall the throttles and have it do that, especially since you can't have it go supersonic until out over the ocean. It really was a team effort to fly it. But in a sim, and as with that PMDG DC-6, you can jump between positions and use pause if you want to do all of the crew jobs, which is the advantage of a PC flight sim.

That's really what makes operating Concorde interesting though, it's more akin to operating something like an Apollo command module than a typical airliner of the era, since the technology of the time was contemporary with Apollo 11, in fact many of the engineers on the Apollo program have said it was tougher as an engineering challenge to create Concorde than it was to build the Apollo spacecraft in many respects. You can see an example of that with things like the MiG 31 and the SR-71; the crews on those things were wearing pressure suits, the people on Concorde were in tee shirts, and the SR-71 would leak fuel on the ground and continue to do so until it expanded and the gaps sealed up when it was at speed, whereas you could smoke a cig on Concorde.

When I was on Concorde, one of the crew showed me gap between the cockpit FE station and the cabin bulkhead, it was maybe 3mm wide, whereas at Mach 2 you could fit your hand in there owing to how much the aircraft had expanded in length with the heat of going at that speed yet you could balance a coin on its edge on the tables. It really was more like a spaceship that an airliner, but the coolest, prettiest and smoothest one.

Absolutely amazing achievement that thing was, and to those who don't want one developed because it is old and no longer in service, I'd say, the Spitfire and the bf109 aren't eIther, nor the DC-3, and don't tell me you wouldn't like to try flying one of those!