Hi,

 

Just wonder if there is any "top of the line" Caravelle, Convair 440/880/990 or Airbus A310 with VC developed somewhere for FSX?

To my knowledge none of the above unless there is a freeware some where. What I wouldn't give for that Convair 440 or a Martian 404!

Caravelle: AFG, originally for FS9, no VC, http://simviation.com/hjg/downloads.htm
Convair 440: Calclassic, FS9 portover, VC, http://calclassic.proboards.com/thread/8774/download-basepack-convair-cv340-beta,
Convair 880: HJG, FS9 portover, no VC, http://simviation.com/hjg/downloads.htm
Convair 990: HJG, FS9 portover, no VC, http://simviation.com/hjg/downloads.htm
A310: Thomas Ruth, FSX native, VC, https://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=toma310.zip&CatID=root&Go=Search

That's all there is. If you want something better: DIY.

Closest really high end FSX add-on to the aeroplanes you listed would probably be the Simcheck Airbus A300 B4 200, the A310 is a derivative of the A300, so it's close in many respects. There is a review of the SC A300 (by me) linked below, as you can see from the review, I recommended it for a Gold Star Award although you don't have to take my word for it, it has received many such awards from various reviewers and is one of the most comprehensive and impressive simulations of an aeroplane you can get for FSX. Note that the Simcheck A300 was upgraded a bit after my review, so it has a few more options available these days, amongst these being an FMC which it did not have at the time of my review, only a Carousel-style nav system:

Review:

https://www.avsim.com/pages/0410/Simcheck/A300.htm

Product website:

http://www.simchecksoftware.com/

 

 

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Closest really high end FSX add-on to the aeroplanes you listed would probably be the Simcheck Airbus A300 B4 200, the A310 is a derivative of the A300, so it's close in many respects.

That's a bit of a stretch. It may look like a short-body A300, but the airframe features numerous wing, tailplane and rear fuselage mods while the cockpit (EFIS, 2 crew) isn't comparable at all.

 

You can try Tom Ruth's Airbus models to get a great impression of the model's development history and differences.

42 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

That's a bit of a stretch. It may look like a short-body A300, but the airframe features numerous wing, tailplane and rear fuselage mods while the cockpit (EFIS, 2 crew) isn't comparable at all.

Not really, the A310 was born from a study for a smaller version of the A300, that study being named the A300B10MC, and there's a clue in the similarities with that designation, in that the 'MC' bit of 'A300B10MC' is short for 'minimum change' and the B10 bit is why it ended up being called the A310. The bulk of the research and testing done in that study formed the basis for the smaller capacity widebody variant which several airlines had requested as a further development of the A300, since the A300 was intended to compete with larger trijets of the period such as the L-1011 and DC-10 but more economically so in having twin engines, but was a bit larger than what was required for many customers, hence the A310.

It might have had some differences but the resulting smaller new A310 was in fact so similar to the A300 in many respects that it was actually built on the same production line as the line where the A300 was constructed, which gives us an idea of just how similar the two aeroplanes were from a components standpoint. The A310 had a different wing and lighter landing gear, but the cockpit and sub systems were virtually identical, so much so that there is in a fact a dual type rating for the A310 and the A300, and you don't get dual ratings being allowed for airliners which don't share common aspects of both ergonomics and handling characteristics. We can see this sometimes odd state of affairs in Boeing having to be careful with the changes they've made to their 737's handling characteristics over the years to keep ratings similar, and those things actually do look fairly identical, whereas their 757 and 767, which nobody could make the visual differences between, shared a common rating.

The A300 does have a twin crew option too with automation of what had been the Flight Engineer's responsibility, in fact it was the first wide body airliner to do so, and even the early versions alluded to that when we see how the computer systems manage much of the functionality of the aeroplane. The A300 also incorporated CRT displays in later versions and whilst the Simcheck A300 is more akin to earlier variants with steam gauges, the addition of an FMC to it from Simcheck in a later patch does enable it to emulate much of the capabilities of the later A300s.

It was the similarities between the A300 and the A310 which were the precursors to the EADS ethos of commonality which has seen things such as a similar type rating for the A320/A321/A330 and commonality between later Airbus models too.

Anyway, back on the original thrust of the thread, I've  a suspicion Just Flight might get Aeroplane Heaven to make a Caravelle at some point, since they tend to have them do the older jets such as the Comet and DC-8 and the Caravelle is a good candidate for a fairly well known classic which nobody's had a good stab at.

3 hours ago, Chock said:

...

Thanks for the effort, but I maintain that suggesting an A300B4 is presumably not going to make someone asking for an A310 happy. Avionics and missions are just too different.

Why not try a really exotic bird?

https://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft1/dassault/dassault.htm

FSX native, freeware, virtual cockpit, complete systems simulation and very french.

Will even leave France if you trade a few passengers for fuel.

The Dassault Mercure is an interesting choice, and for a freebie, that one linked to is a very nice add-on.

Whilst technically the real thing was an impressive aeroplane, as you'd expect with something built by an experienced military aircraft manufacturer, in pure aeroplane terms it was actually a bit better than the DC-9s and 737s it was intended to compete with, having a wider cabin than either of those, but it was the victim of global economics in the early 70s and its short range; only about 1,000 miles as opposed to the roughly 1,500 miles of the DC-9 and the roughly 2,000 miles of the 737, the economics and performance ending up making it a bit too expensive to buy in the US and a bit short in range for US routes although apparently Hughes Airwest did come very close to buying the Mercure instead of the DC-9.

That said, in a flight sim one doesn't have to worry about either history or practicality and can enjoy the performance, which in the Mercure was pretty impressive. The real thing was fast, had a good rate of climb thanks to some fancy high lift devices and was notable for being able to come down from cruise altitude at extremely rapid descent rates (well over 3,000 feet per minute descent rates) without getting anywhere near its VNE, probably as a result of being designed by a company more used to knocking out fighter aeroplanes, but that too was probably why they didn't have a very good handle on how to design something airlines might actually want to use, so it ended up as one of history's 'also rans'. This is a shame because it was a very pretty aeroplane with a reputation for good reliability and - somewhat aided by the fact that only 12 were built - in service it had a perfect safety record with no accidents of any kind ever occurring.

But small numbers or not, a perfect safety record is still no mean feat. It was also the first jet airliner to be operated with an all female crew too, yet perhaps more interesting than that is that if you look very closely at its cockpit, you'll notice it is not a million miles away from the A300's cockpit, and so you could kind of view it as an ancestor of the A320. Just keep an eye on the fuel gauge.

At a comparable payload (~130 pax), range is roughly equal to the DC-9-50. And you can still bump the MTOW a bit in the aircraft.cfg, if need be.

 

There's going to be a paintkit for the Mercure, so expect a few "what-if" liveries.

Thank you guys.

I know about all your suggestions, but I was curious if there was something in the pipelines that I didn´t know about.

The planes I miss the most as a "high end top of the line" native FSX, are the Caravelle and A310(with the semi glass cockpit).

I have been flying AFGs Caravelle a lot in FS9, and I really miss that bird with a good VC.

On ‎02‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 6:04 PM, Chock said:

Anyway, back on the original thrust of the thread, I've  a suspicion Just Flight might get Aeroplane Heaven to make a Caravelle at some point, since they tend to have them do the older jets such as the Comet and DC-8 and the Caravelle is a good candidate for a fairly well known classic which nobody's had a good stab at.

I think I remember reading something somewhere a few weeks ago that Just Flight had dropped a hint that they may be about to develop the Caravelle. I thought I had read it on the Just Flight forum but a search just now didn't reveal anything, although I don't think I imagined this!

Bill

 

Incidentally, for anyone who has P3D, that freebie Dassault Mercure, does actually work in V4.1

3 hours ago, scianoir said:

I think I remember reading something somewhere a few weeks ago that Just Flight had dropped a hint that they may be about to develop the Caravelle. I thought I had read it on the Just Flight forum but a search just now didn't reveal anything, although I don't think I imagined this

Good riddance, provided their in-house team does the coding and FDE.

 

 

2 hours ago, Chock said:

Incidentally, for anyone who has P3D, that freebie Dassault Mercure, does actually work in V4.1

Yes, it does once you've replaced some incompatible gauges.