12 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

We do not know the business contracts that FSL have in place. They could have a very lucrative training simulation deal with various customers for all we know, which is something that is definitely more suited to P3D. A lot of people seem to be critical of the lack of information being provided by FSL with respect to Microsoft Flight Simulator, but it may not be as big an issue for them as some forum members think.

Incredibly valid point if the consumer market is not their primary target however I don't see a large commercial training market opportunity for the Concorde 🙂   

I could absolutely see how the Airbus could potentially be targeting that market though.  Makes sense.  Didn't Milviz mention commercial contracts in P3D?  

4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

A330......which is probably the mystery A3xx product in P3D. I guess it could be the A350, but the A330 seems like the natural progression from the A320, and there are a heck of a lot of them around.

As much as I would love the A330, I think it may well be the A350. I have 2 reasons for this.

1) The statement that more data is becoming available for them to use. The A330 data has been out for a long time, the A350 not so much.
2) Mathias from Aerosoft dismissed the A350 in their development plans because of the lack of data available to them.

I can be very wrong but that's what I deduce from those two statements. Either way I will fly the love out of whatever FSL produces. Air Caraibes Livery on an A330 or A350 will make me happy. 

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Fair point Paul. It was idle speculation on my part thinking that what if v6 should go down the streaming / forced updates route but I do think that is a very long shot. The ESP code would require a significant rewrite and that could be outside the agreement LM have with Microsoft. So let’s assume that’s off the table.

Back to FSL the “coming soon” comment by Lefteris will hopefully mean some helpful screenshots of the virtual cockpit including the Flight Engineer’s panel. How that will be navigable with the help of ChasePlane is of great interest to me. The multiple 2D pop ups will be a thing of the past I guess.

Cheers Ray! 

I am thinking this is a bird I'd desperately want FS2Crew's assistance with LOL...  I can barely function as one individual let alone three... 

One thing I am certain of is that the FSL Concorde will be a masterpiece when released.  That I do not doubt!  How large the target market is for it in P3D in 2022 is TBD but I don't doubt what they produce will be spectacular.  

1 hour ago, psolk said:

I am thinking this is a bird I'd desperately want FS2Crew's assistance with LOL...  I can barely function as one individual let alone three...

There will be a Virtual FE to handle that for you. I used it for a few years until I felt brave enough to handle it myself. It’s very satisfying when you master it.

How steep was learning curve with using the Virtual FE to help?  I'm imagining something like the Q400?

My gut reaction to the FS Labs announcement is that they do not fear the P3D market as much some developers, or at least they have confidence enough to: (1) update the A32x series, (2) roll out a NEO (ok maybe it will be for MSFS too), (3) roll out an A3xx (I'm rooting for an A350), and (4) roll out the long-awaited Concorde.  Maybe they won't make a ton of money.  Maybe they will collapse.  Maybe they will just be a niche player. I wish them luck!!

Oh -- and nobody has cornered the MSFS market yet, and there is nothing to say FS Labs couldn't beat out other developers even if FSL comes later.  

Ok, back to my FSL A319 flight!

Edited March 12, 20224 yr by Iadbound

57 minutes ago, micstatic said:

How steep was learning curve with using the Virtual FE to help?  I'm imagining something like the Q400?

I used the VFE when I flew it in FSX, it took a lot of the workload off. The bulk of the learning curve comes with the initial setup and managing Concorde's rather unique flight profile. Once the flight profile is mastered (it took me a good couple of flights to master it) it's pretty easy to fly. Really the only thing you have to manage is the INS and your descent paths.

I imagine when the latest rendition finally releases I'll probably fly with the VFE for a bit to refamiliarise myself with the rest of the aircraft, then it'll be time to give the job a go myself!

Edited March 12, 20224 yr by SimeonWilbury

1 hour ago, micstatic said:

How steep was learning curve with using the Virtual FE to help?  I'm imagining something like the Q400?

If you mean flying Concorde as per the procedures it's quite a high learning curve because of the huge amount of power required. Remember she had no flaps so to get airborne was brute power. Full power + reheats for every take-off mean a rotate speed of 132kts for short subsonic flights and 195kts for LHR-JFK. The VFE will cancel reheats at 500ft for you after which it behaves more like a normal aircraft but with a specific flight profile. Turning on the VFE means you can leave multiple switches on the overhead for him to operate.

58 minutes ago, SimeonWilbury said:

I imagine when the latest rendition finally releases I'll probably fly with the VFE for a bit to refamiliarise myself with the rest of the aircraft, then it'll be time to give the job a go myself!

The first few times I tried it I ended up with unbalanced fuel probably because I hadn't set switches correctly. Engaging the VFE is the safety feature. He'll sort it out for you.

Typically the Reduced Noise Approach was flown, which was 190kts to 800'R and then back to Vref+7 which would normally be a little over 160kts. 

Concorde handled much better in turbulence than conventional aircraft - and had an excellent autoland/auto throttle system. The automatics actually did a better job in rough weather, and on a number of occasions got the aircraft in where other traffic was forced to divert.

28 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Thanks Andrew ... that's not much faster than conventional ... what sort of AOA are we looking at?  Is there any system that provides distance count 30,20,10...?

Cheers, Rob.

10° pitch up is required meaning an enormous amount of drag from the delta wing. Whilst the landing speed may have not been much higher than conventional aircraft the engine power required was much higher. Around 87% N2 was required. The FE called out the altitude from around 200ft if my memory serves me correctly. The VFE will do that for you.

At 15ft the autothrottles were cancelled followed by idle power and once the nosewheel touched down full reverse thrust engaged.

Idle reverse was in there somewhere and Andrew can help out there.

Rob, don’t forget the ‘e’ on the end. 😉

2 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

But I'm not French ... 😂

I believe the British Government’s response was the e stood for Excellence so graciously accepted it. 😁

I wonder what the FSL Concorde would be like for low level VFR flights around the UK?

@Rob_Ainscough, that’s nice to hear. 😁 I think you can be assured Concorde will be coming to P3Dv5. Andrew wouldn’t be posting here if they’d abandoned it.

Their products tend to be very robust on first release so I imagine that’s what is being worked on right now.

As for flights of 1-2 hour duration the JFK-MCO routing only takes 1.5 hours and is one I’ve flown many times in v3. Or if you want something a little longer LAX to Honolulu is 2.5 hours.

I did manage Honolulu to Auckland, NZ a few years ago but landed with fuel below the minimum allowed. That was a 4 hour flight and the maximum of Concorde’s range.

@Christopher Low, 🤣 nothing faster than 250kts please. 😉

10 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The FE called out the altitude from around 200ft if my memory serves me correctly. The VFE will do that for you.

At 15ft the autothrottles were cancelled followed by idle power and once the nosewheel touched down full reverse thrust engaged.

Idle reverse was in there somewhere and Andrew can help out there.

Height calls were from 1000ft - and used by the crew in the last hundred feet to target the correct descent rate. It's quite unnerving at first to fly with a descent rate of -750fpm all the way down to 15ft and trusting that the huge ground effect will dissipate most of the downward energy. The ground effect is an area we've put a lot of work into for the new title. In fact, the handling characteristics in general are vastly different to Concorde-X due to the new auto-stabilisation system - a primitive fly-by-wire system that was later developed for the Airbus, and allowed the crews to fly the aircraft with precision through the entire flight envelope.  

On a manual landing, the auto-throttles were normally disengaged at 50'R, and the PF would set idle at 15ft whilst holding the nose in position against the ground effect - in ideal circumstances, resulting in zero lift at touchdown. Idle reverse was selected on main gear touchdown - you then had to fly the nose wheel down before the reverse/brake systems could be used. The autoland system flew a more shallow descent through the flare to an extended landing point, as the system was slower to reduce to idle power. Never really an issue as the carbon brakes and thrust reverse were very sporty - more so than the takeoff. 

We've included a whole range of scheduled and charter routes - each one reconstructed to work with todays navigation aids. Some of the charter flights are great fun; navigating supersonic loops whilst trying not to bang somewhere. It's a very different experience to one that our Airbus customers are accustomed to.

17 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I wonder what the FSL Concorde would be like for low level VFR flights around the UK?

Three of us turned up at Shannon recently for some circuits on Vatsim. The controller was superb - even with some light traffic in the pattern he managed to make it all work. Some of the most fun I've had in P3D in a long time!