michal

I think it would be a folly to think that in order to replace one aircraft you have to build another one with very close specs. It doesn't happen like that in aviation world. There is a natural progression of technology and new aircraft are built and specs may overlap a bit with older aircraft but there is never 1-to-1 replacement. Airlines learn to live with it, they even like it because they generally get more efficient aircraft. In fact airlines are the main drivers of what type of equipment is really needed.

The biggest drawback of your method is that you would have to swing OBS twice almost 180 deg. Because first you are approaching the arc (IAF) with course = 283 then you switch to 110 (a big twist) then again while completing the arc and preparing to turn inbound you would have to set course to 016, another almost 180 twist. A lot of unnecessary OBS twisting therefore most instructors would find it less than optimal technique. In this other technique you would never have to twist more than an incremental 20 deg. avoiding drastic actions which in this peculiar IFR world are frowned upon.

For whatever it is worth - I described the method that you can find in a typical IFR text book as well as how an IFR instructor would teach you to do it. The idea is to fully utilize situational awareness that HSI offers. But sure, ultimately it doesn't matter for a skillful pilot.

actually you should reset it to around 300 (and keep reseting every 20 degrees). The idea is that the course pointer on your HSI should always be pointing towards the inside of the arc (towards the center) this way using HSI you have a very clear picture where the center of the arc is and that you are flying perpendicular to the radius. So first 283, 300, 320, etc...

William, there is no GS to speak of here. In such non-precision approaches it is always good idea to "dive" into yournext altitude, use say 500-800 fpm descent rate or whatever works in your aircraft category. If you can only reach your next altitude fairly quickly without busting it - your 'GS' is OK. Also - when to turn in the hold pattern - use your DME (if you have one).

Yes Paul, your statement that flaps increase climb angle was dead wrong. No amount of spinning Newtonian physics will erase it. That would have been a wrong answer on your written PPL test. Rob also noticed your error.

Like I said, I am not entirely sure about it, this chart alone is not clear. Perhaps you could skip the hold if you were properly aligned and your altitude was correct. Maybe looking at STARs would provide more hints - if you were coming from SNT/IRSAN at 3000 perhaps no hold would be required. Holds are often required to lose altitude - without them you would simply be too high. In real world if the situation was ambiguous I would inquire the ATC what they expect me to do.

I downloaded the LPMA charts but perhaps I am missing something - I don't see any Z,Y stuff.I see 2 NDB approaches - rwy 05 and 23. For the NDB approach I really don't see any coming from the 'north/south' (I did not look at STARs) - but regardless from which direction you were coming you have to fly over the NDB (IAF). Then you enter the racetrack pattern and since this is left-turns racetrack you may have to use typical holding patter entries depending from which direction you are coming. For example from southerly direction you would most likely use parallel entry. Once in this holding pattern everything is super standard - while in the pattern you commence your descent as in the published vertical profile. All other limitations (MDA, etc) apply as charted.Perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that there are no procedure turns here - familiarize yourself with holding patterns and how you enter one - there are many approaches that use such holding patterns in lieu of procedure turns. (some entries into a holding pattern do resemble procedure turns).VOR-DME is even easier when coming from the North - (you NEED DME here to find IAF and FAF!!!) - again no procedure turn but holding pattern instead. Also you probably can proceed straight from IAF to FAF provided you were already well aligned and your altitude was OK, so no racetrack may be necessary. I am not 100% sure on this last point, the charts are not of very good quality and finding info is not super easy. They lack clarity of Jeppesen/NOS plates.(Look at some free NOS charts examples in the USA that show approaches without procedure turns - since they are better drawn that could be instructional)

If you search this forum Robert R. in fact did comment on X-Plane as a potential future platform. Your (#2) is easy - I even believe they also had commented on developing/participating(in) new flight simulation platform is way beyond their risk-reward threshold. And frankly I am glad - you can risk existence of otherwise successful business by undertaking ill conceived ventures.EDIT: I watched the video in HD. Is it very good? Yes it is. Does it match PMDG's J41' cockpit in terms of visual rendering? IMHO I don't think so. If you really investigate it closely, it is not exactly so, even PMDG did comment on it. A lot of stuff had been written on this very topic on these forums.The subject of X-Plane returns every so often as a boomerang, this all had been discussed before.

Like Dan says, without viewing the chart it is hard to render final judgment.

Absolutely correct. Paul Smith is wrong 100%. There were quite a few deadly accidents when people attempted to takeoff from short grassy fields and they tried to shorten their takeoff by deploying more flaps - they often succeeded but then they could not clear trees at the end of the runway because their climb angle was too small. In one such accident a whole family perished a few years ago in British Columbia. It is enough to look up procedures for best climb angle in many smaller aircraft POH's - Vx - they all call for no flaps. The relation between more flaps and worse climb angle is pretty much universal, I personally would like to know if there is any exception to this rule.

I don't care for Ballmer one way or another (whether he is good or bad) but some simmers here must have too much time on their hands writing long tirades and spewing sour grapes only because a company failed to deliver (in their opinion) on their favorite game called Flight Simulator which is probably an utterly insignificant portion of Microsoft's total business. It is really up to shareholders and officers of the company to judge Ballmer's performance.

Definitely too old. The mandatory retirement age for controllers is 56 years these days, so considering necessary training there would be little time left for actual work.

Go to other discussion forums where you have many professional pilots (like pprune, etc.). Some of the pilots you meet there may actually be from your country and offer suggestions much better tailored to where you live.

Actually this is a good question but why do you limit it to RW pilots? I am a RW pilot and would never base my criteria of choosing headsets for FSX on my RW experience - what counts is whether the headset is affordable and made well. The realism of sounds will have little to do with the headset you get, it is primarily dependent on the simulation itself and how you tweak individual sound amplitudes.EDIT: I am beginning to think you are asking about real aviation headsets. I don't think any aviation headset can work with a PC. Sorry for misunderstanding your question. For real aviation headsets you should search this forum and/or go to other forums - this topic has been discussed many times - unfortunately there are as many opinions as pilots and the answer heavily depends what your budget is, often the more expensive the better. You may also check on the upcoming Ascend headsets from Telex which may offer interoperability you are looking for, they will probably be quite expensive however.

I think the person above meant "doesn't do VFR". I never heard about RC not doing general aviation - that would actually make little sense. I am not RC user but based on numerous posts from the RC forum it was clear that GA was handled just fine.

Because there is no such thing as "objective" opinion in this matter.Install both - that's closest to 'objective' you can get.

It does not matter. If you go back and scan all PMDG forum threads far into the past (before you even joined Avsim) you would see that 777 is absolutely the most requested aircraft. As a real PPL pilot I personally would benefit little from an Airbus - I will never fly an Airbus in my whole life. Would I benefit more from a Boeing - probably yes because Boeing is closer to a Cessna than an Airbus. I would of course benefit a lot more from basic turboprops, the lighter the better, so give me Socata TBM850. :(

You should not be surprised - this airplane received probably most requests from PMDG customers.And it is not difficult to figure out why 777 might appeal to so many - to this date it is the most sophisticated Boeing aircraft(not counting the yet not certified 787). And 777 has enjoyed tremendous success among airlines.I personally always prefer turboprops, only offer opinion why others like the 777.

Airbus makes very good airplanes.But definitely you can't say they have 'better' or more 'advanced' systems.They are different than Boeing's but they represent the same exact sophistication on technology basis.There were serious articles written about it - let's not trivialize the subject.

I personally consider it dubious trying to compare FeelThere products vis-a-vis PMDG products on a per dollar basis, not exactly an apple-to-apple comparison. Besides this is totally off-topic, if you have problems with what PMDG charges for their products you should open another thread.

This is how remember it - in MD-11 you have to be below 18,000 ft for the VOR tracking to work. It is only meant for flying approaches.

Both belong to vastly different categories. The first could indeed be classified as 'hard-core' simulator feature, the latter however is a 'gamy' or 'eye-candy' thingy. All real pilots know that windshield ice-up is not automatically triggered by low temperature and visible moisture. It is simply way overdone to please simmers and hence is far from reality.

Well, no SOP of any airline allows for FD being off (per my understanding). You developed taste for very weird way of flying and now complain .. I agree with Paul Smith, these are extremely minor issues.There is no question that if you started to flip all switches/levers in all possible permutations and compare how this sim compares with the real thing you would probably find many discrepancies. Does it mean this sim has BUGs that 99.9% of users would care about - don't think so.