​​​​​​​What aircraft of yore are you missing ?

[HighTowers 1,436]

Another one for MD-11.  MD-11 again for emphasis!

But 767 and totally revamped Embraer Ejets 170/90 (supposed to be in the works)  would be really nice as well.  

[gaab 111]

Convair liners. A new one for P3d is underway, a freeware  🙂
Thank to Jarvis from SOH 🤗

 

[Mengy 814]

Lake Renegade amphibian.  It's one of my all time favorite planes but there just isn't a modern model compatible for P3D.  Honestly there isn't a good model for any sim really.  I'd seriously pay an exorbitant amount of money for one if I could.

I got so desperate that a few years ago I tried to develop a modern model of a Lake Renegade myself for FSX / P3D.  I didn't get very far, turns out aircraft development is very difficult.  It did give me a whole new appreciation for all of the planes I have bought over the years though.

[Dominique_K 10,151]

26 minutes ago, Mengy said:

Lake Renegade amphibian.  It's one of my all time favorite planes but there just isn't a modern model compatible for P3D.  Honestly there isn't a good model for any sim really.  I'd seriously pay an exorbitant amount of money for one if I could.

I got so desperate that a few years ago I tried to develop a modern model of a Lake Renegade myself for FSX / P3D.  I didn't get very far, turns out aircraft development is very difficult.  It did give me a whole new appreciation for all of the planes I have bought over the years though.

Fond memories of the Renegade in Flight Unlimited 3 😉... The water physics of P3D is not very convincing though.

[Dominique_K 10,151]

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It's a brilliant aircraft to fly. Challenging? You bet. It's certainly not for those who are accomplished with the Cessna and want to take the next step. You do need to be competent flying large aircraft. The landing is the most difficult aspect because the delta wing is so inefficient at low speeds. N2 on approach is 87%. Anything less and you'll stall. Landing speed is around 155kts. Take-off speed is anything from 139kts (light load, short flight) to 195kts (London-New York, 100 pax, 95T of fuel). By the time the wheels leave the ground you're doing close to 250mph!

Fortunately there is a Virtual Flight Engineer who will handle all aspects of fuel management until you feel ready to tackle it yourself. It's not as difficult as it sounds because essentially you get the CG correct for take-off and then leave it alone until Mach 0.7 when you start to pump fuel rearward to tank 11 until the two forward tanks are empty.

There it stays until the decel point when it is moved forwards to the front tank. Remember Concorde had no elevator - so no trim. Balancing the CoG was done by moving fuel.

Easy peasy once you know how! 😁

Thats the high speed, high AoA landing which I find intriguing. We have that on some good military jets but Concorde was much heavier.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,032]

21 minutes ago, domkle said:

Thats the high speed, high AoA landing which I find intriguing. We have that on some good military jets but Concorde was much heavier.

From memory it had to pitch up to around 11° for approach and landing. Hence the need for the nose to droop otherwise the pilots couldn’t see the runway.

It’s perfectly possible to stall her on full power if you get the pitch angle wrong. I did that a few times until I learned to fly her properly.

Not forgetting too the nose wheel was 35ft behind the flight deck so taxiing was also another acquired skill. 😀 In short, lots of fun and bear in mind no flight was longer than four hours.

[Mace 1,948]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Not forgetting too the nose wheel was 35ft behind the flight deck so taxiing was also another acquired skill. 😀 In short, lots of fun and bear in mind no flight was longer than four hours.

10 years ago, I got used to taxiing an MD-11, which has the nose wheel pretty far back, too, so hopefully I'll be able to taxi a Concorde competently as well.

I do not have the previous version of the Concorde, so this would be my first time with this airplane.  Like Clint Eastwood said, I have flown about everything else that walks or crawls at one time or another.

[HighBypass 2,339]

I should have mentioned that I would like a Victor Redux for FSX:SE 😉 

Now if Sky Simulations would just acknowledge some bloody emails then both P3D and FSX users might get an improved version of the MD-11! 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,032]

7 minutes ago, Mace said:

I do not have the previous version of the Concorde, so this would be my first time with this airplane.  Like Clint Eastwood said, I have flown about everything else that walks or crawls at one time or another.

No idea when FS Labs will make this available I'm afraid. Polite requests for info go unanswered. When it comes to Concorde don't forget Clint's other well-known saying... "A man's got to know his limitations". 😁

[Paul K 1,362]

Plane Design's Avro Lancastrian, please. ( He won't though - he's too busy building rockets for Mr. Musk these days. )

[Christopher Low 5,381]

Quote

Fond memories of the Renegade in Flight Unlimited 3 😉... The water physics of P3D is not very convincing though

Flight Unlimited 3 had vastly superior water physics to FSX or P3D. It also had a better simulation of wake turbulence.....and thermals.....and ridge lift....and rain effects (both visually on the windows, and audibly on the roof of my plane). I could even argue that it had a better ATC environment on the ground, since I remember being asked to hold short of active runways when given the initial taxi instructions, and then cleared to cross them accordingly.

As for much loved aircraft of the past.....I miss the Beechjet 400A in FU3. It had the best simulation of thrust reversers that I had ever seen (or heard) at the time (thrust reverse in MSFS in those days was, to put it bluntly.....garbage). I loved that plane, and enjoyed flying it "low and slow" around the Seattle and San Francisco regions (this gave me the impression that both of those high resolution scenery regions were more extensive than they actually were).

I really miss Flight Unlimited 3

Edited June 18, 2019 by Christopher Low

[Dominique_K 10,151]

18 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Flight Unlimited 3 had vastly superior

FU3 was very innovative. I wonder whether we couldn't  force the FS2020 developers to play twenty hours with it before releasing their new sim 😈.

Edited June 19, 2019 by domkle

[SAS443 1,729]

Dornier 328 Jet

Saab 2000 (Majestic, please bite 😀)

Gulfstream IV (with original honeywell SPZ avionics)

[scianoir 610]

Good quality versions of any of these would be very welcome:

Airspeed Ambassador (must have those smoky Bristol Centaurus engines!)

Bristol 170

Bristol Britannia

Vickers Vanguard

No prizes for guessing on which side of the pond I spent my misspent youth as an airport kid (many decades ago)!

Bill

[Alan_A 1,650]

If we're talking about past flight simulator aircraft, as opposed to just past aircraft, then I'll put in a word for some of the really old, really classic RealAirs - the Siai-Marchetti SF 260 and the Citabria/Champ package. I logged hundreds of hours in those - they were really special, and I'd love to have a contemporary version. The Aeroplane Heaven Cessna 140 is very nicely done, and comes close to the Champ experience (but I'd still like to see a revival).  There's nothing that fully takes the place of the Marchetti.  Anyone?