Hi everyone, 

I've been loving the FBW A320 neo in msfs doing a few short flights around Europe for my VA.... But the time has come to do more long hauls with either the 747 (cargo) or something like the A330. But every thing Ive managed to find thus far has either been bugged out (salty 747, no efb) or just does not follow Lnav A330...... 

Can anyone recommend a good long haul flyer? and is there anything to be excited about thats about to be released? 

Cheers all

Kirk

When you say A330, which one do you mean? The PMP A330-300 or the Headwind A330-900?

The latter, and also the A310 are (IMO) the best long haulers available for MSFS. PMDG 777, TFDi MD-11 and Aerosoft A330 are still far away...

The PMDG 737-700 BBJ gives you aux fuel tank options, I quite like it. You can do roughly 12 or 13 hour flights, 6000 nm. 

Hmmm.. the A310? 

Thanks everyone 🙂 

Yes I meant the Headwind A330-900.... I've read a few complaints saying that the Lnav no longer works? 

How long are we talking for the pmdg 777. Any plans for a good 747? 

I'm flying on FsAirlines and need to be able to carry as much cargo as possible.

1 hour ago, Kgbow said:

How long are we talking for the pmdg 777. Any plans for a good 747? 

I'm flying on FsAirlines and need to be able to carry as much cargo as possible.

I’d be confident that the PMDG 777 will be out by 2030, though probably still without an EFB at that stage.

As for the 747, it’ll be substantially further into the future than the T7. I’m 98% confident that it will be done and released well before the heat death of the universe, though I’m not sure how long before that we are talking.

So probably go with the Inibuilds A310 for now, or fuel up the BBJ and pretend the corporate cabin is stacked full of pallets. 🙂

 

Edited April 29, 20233 yr by OzWhitey

PMP A330 still  one of my favorites. I think they are back in play with a recent(ish) update. Flew it yesterday and it tracks LNAV just fine. 

Edited April 29, 20233 yr by mobeans10
Spelling

The A310 isn't too bad for a heavy. The heavy division 787-10 ain't bad either. It will do some lite zig zag along the course. Don't spin the heading knob like I have a habit of doing, it will make the plane turn off course. It's ingrained in my mind to keep the heading bug aligned with the LNAV heading in the real jet, so I also do it in sim as well. Doing so will make the heavy 787 turn even though it's in LNAV😬. But, it will get you that long haul you want. I can't stand to sit at the computer for longer than an hour and a half for long hauls. But I can easily do it VR, especially VR in DCS where I'm flying, fighting and winning🤣

12 hours ago, G550flyer said:

The A310 isn't too bad for a heavy. The heavy division 787-10 ain't bad either. It will do some lite zig zag along the course. Don't spin the heading knob like I have a habit of doing, it will make the plane turn off course. It's ingrained in my mind to keep the heading bug aligned with the LNAV heading in the real jet, so I also do it in sim as well. Doing so will make the heavy 787 turn even though it's in LNAV😬. But, it will get you that long haul you want. I can't stand to sit at the computer for longer than an hour and a half for long hauls. But I can easily do it VR, especially VR in DCS where I'm flying, fighting and winning🤣

Heavy division 787 is still very rough and not really ready for an actual long haul flight.

Salty 747 is better, but still not good. 

We really do need a long haul Boeing. 

1 hour ago, OzWhitey said:

Heavy division 787 is still very rough and not really ready for an actual long haul flight.

Salty 747 is better, but still not good. 

We really do need a long haul Boeing. 

In the end, it all comes down to the eye of the beholder. When I first started flying real world, my first jet assignment after training was the mighty C-141B Starlifter. I flew that swept winged, T-tail, 4 engined, bug sucker to the four corners of the world at a blazing speed of Mach .74. It had the old basic INS system with a fancy FMS called an FSAS. It didn't have GPS and you could only load 20 points at a time. Fall asleep and stop loading points and the jet would turn around and return to waypoint 1. This actually happened to some folks crossing the Atlantic. You wake up and find the sun on the wrong side. There wasn't a NAV database so you had to name the point and hand jam the lat long. If the FSAS failed, you pulled the old INS head from the NAV station and dropped it into the center console. Both INSs drifted quickly, so you had to be on top your gross NAV check. It was common to see airliners offset from your course because they had GPS and better NAV systems. On the NATS, everything passed you up except C-130s. We had auto throttles, but they were only usable during low level flying. Though this jet will beat you up and was so noisy that you wore ear plugs under your Davy clarks, it was a long hauler. There was no EFB or fancy NAV displays. The RADAR display had a basic course and waypoint marks. It rocked back and forth during cruise flying figure 8s due to dutch roll.

Though that aircraft was a beast, it flew long hauls along with airdrops, low levels and air refueling. Imagine going from that through the DC-10 and finally getting to the GIII, GV and on to the fancy G550. I hear so many voices that complain about not having EFBs or not being able to import a flight plan. If they knew how many times I have set with the paper flight plan and hand jam every point name/lat long. Imagine being cleared direct to a point that's not in your flight plan and having to search it out in the charts and jam that puppy in. Those voices we hear wouldn't make it in aviation. In aviation, you fly what you are assigned to and operate it as defined. In that HD 787, I can takeoff, climb, cruise, descend and fly an approach to land. Heck, it has more capability than the old C-141B Star Lizard I flew🤣. You can fly anything long haul. I have flown the 5 hour legged GIII literally around the world three times.

20 hours ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

The PMDG 737-700 BBJ gives you aux fuel tank options, I quite like it. You can do roughly 12 or 13 hour flights, 6000 nm. 

I guess for some, 13 hours is not long enough.

57 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I guess for some, 13 hours is not long enough.

No, I think the flight duration is fine. It’s just that it’s a business jet, not an airliner. If you want to sim scheduled passenger operations, it’s the wrong tool.

43 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

No, I think the flight duration is fine. It’s just that it’s a business jet, not an airliner. If you want to sim scheduled passenger operations, it’s the wrong tool.

It is just for Rich passengers that want some leg room. .

Edited April 30, 20233 yr by Bobsk8

3 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

Heavy division 787 is still very rough and not really ready for an actual long haul flight.

Have you actually done a long haul flight in it? And, if so, what bugs did you encounter?

4 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Have you actually done a long haul flight in it? And, if so, what bugs did you encounter?

Yeah, I gave this and the Salty a good go about a month back. Did a cross the pond flight in the HD787. The problem is that the autopilot isn’t reliable, so you’ll have to monitor it closely. For long flights, I also miss the PMDG auto cruise function for the times when you don’t have time.

iIn practice, I enjoyed the Salty more than the HD, but I would t fly either one regularly.

Salty is easy to download via the FBW app these days, so give it a try if you haven’t - it’s not bad at all, it’s just not up to the standard that I’d like.