Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

albar965

Airliners versus Bizjets FSX

Recommended Posts

I personally enjoy the Bizjets versus big airliners. I am glad to see the news for the Cessna Mustang. We need more these types of aircraft with new generation avionics to be developed by the third party Vendors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>I personally enjoy the Bizjets versus big airliners. I am>glad to see the news for the Cessna Mustang. We need more>these types of aircraft with new generation avionics to be>developed by the third party Vendors. Big DITTO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The newer glass cockpit systems are really revolutionary, and so far FSX has only exposed the tip of the iceberg on that topic. The downside is that these new sophisticated instruments tend to drag down frame rates. I'm with you, though, bigger is not always better when it comes to commercial aviation simulation.Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The newer glass cockpit systems are really revolutionary, and>so far FSX has only exposed the tip of the iceberg on that>topic. The downside is that these new sophisticated>instruments tend to drag down frame rates. >>I'm with you, though, bigger is not always better when it>comes to commercial aviation simulation.>>Jeff Shyluk>Assistant Managing Editor>Senior Staff Reviewer>AVSIMYou take two aircraft with complex simulations I think Smaller Jets seems to have better Frame Rates. I am not sure if it is because of the size of the Cockpit being rendered is smaller or what. At least that how I always felt. They seem to run smoother. Also these new avionics is much cleaner and removes a lot clutter of the cockpit that should also help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Another benefit of having aircraft with the new generation of avionics is that it carries over easier to the real world. For example when I play with the Mustang simulator I may later find myself flying a real Cessna 182 with essentially the same avionics set. However when I fly a simulated 777 it gives me much less relevant experience.Smaller jets also have another big advantage - you don't feel guilty by not taking them to say Chicago O'Hare or other mega-airports where performance issues will be big offender.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish PMDG did an advanced Bizjet. There are too few good Bizjets out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Smaller jets also have another big advantage - you don't feel>guilty by not taking them to say Chicago O'Hare or other>mega-airports where performance issues will be big offender.As the fractional ownership and charter companies are fold of reminding us, there are more than five thousand airports in the US that can handle a jet but don't have scheduled service. Many of these airports have fewer instrument approach options, and I like the challenge that presents.The other advantage to the bizjet (and this is in no way intended to denigrate the excellent FS2Crew series, which I think are essential when flying any of the aircraft Bryan covers) is that many of them are certified for single pilot ops, so they can be flown in the sim in much the same way they are in real life, right out of the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto...I recently bought the Wilco Citation X and I love this plane. Some advantages: 1.) I don't have to fly into major airports where FPS is an issue. 2.) I have all the systems I can realistically address given I do the vast majority of my flights alone. 3.) They are just as fast if not faster, the CX can cruise at .92Mmo 4.) I can fly to any airport and it wouldn't be out of place given its a private jet and I can fly where I want to! 5.) The fantasy is not longer me as the bus driver rather, I am piloting my own jet going where I please. :)I think this market segment is wide open for developers and represents a significant opportunity.I'd love to see more Bombardier bizjets namely the Global Express XPS and the Gulfstream and Falcon planes. Anyway, I am too impatient for pistons and I am now hooked on the bizjets. CheersButch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can just second all of your points. Flying the CX into these 4500ft strips is fun (and realistic - check FlightAware for some real routes).Here is another point:I hate long haul flights. They are just a waste of time. In the CX it is also real do do some 700nm hops and additionally you can use 8x time compression and the pause at TOD.Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alex, Spot on, shorter strips that typically do not have ILS's in bad weather are about as challenging as you can hope for in any flight. The CX can actually fly 3000nm @ .85m with NBAA reserves, that's LA to NY or London to NY. In all my years doing FS I have done one long haul flight and I slept through it too! I never fly more than 400nm, long haul is just not for me. The things that really interest me are takeoff, approach and landing. Its in those three phases that the work load in the cockpit are most intense and most enjoyable for me. So to the developers out there, please make more biz jets but with full avionics suits. Thanks,Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I can just second all of your points. Flying the CX into>these 4500ft strips is fun (and realistic - check FlightAware>for some real routes).>>Here is another point:>>I hate long haul flights. They are just a waste of time. In>the CX it is also real do do some 700nm hops and additionally>you can use 8x time compression and the pause at TOD.>>AlexAt ISA temp, sea level and a landing weight of 23000lbs with zero wind the landing distance is 2630'. So, I'd say chasing the runways that are less than 4500' in length requires a rather light 750. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is unfortunately no detailed information available. The manual only says 4500 ft or longer. That's already a challenge (at least for me ;-)).Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the long flights either. Especially I can not stand the ATC when it keeps giving the control back and forward in the same center. I am not sure if that is realistic at all. I did find a work around. Basically when you reach for crusing altitude, and the control center hand you over, just acknowlage but never call the next center. I just wait until 120-130 miles out final destination before I checkin. Again. ATC will just act like nothing happened and give you the decsent directions. Then you get aound 70 miles the ILS approach assignment. Also for those of you looking for more info about the airplanes just check out http://www.smartcockpit.com/ seem to be a good source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just getting into the C750. Loads of fun and flexible.Feelwise, it's a lot more like flying a Single than a jet. Controls are very light compared to the 767 and 744 that I've been used to in FSX.Admittedly I haven't even made it out of the pattern yet! Fat with gas- read as heavy, stopping is a major issue even with full reverse (granted density altitude was over 5k that day in Billings) on a 10k runway. I'd expect that to a ertain extent though. the brakes in these are tiny.Also since I'm transitioning from Boeing/Smiths to Honeywell Primus, it's familiar, but different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess ditto as well on biz jets. I'll only go as big as the 757 otherwise I stick to the Lear and Citations. Your list of airports suddenly opens way upI stay FAR away from the 747, A380.. I always land those suckers waaaaay too hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites