Deano777

I sooooo want a Q400. There is a massive hole in the market for a Q400. I fly the damn things for a living and have offered my services to PMDG unrewarded to ensure a top quality product. Now all we have to do is persuade them :-S :(

KLM_PILOTMaybe not everyone has read this thread in it's entirety. Lighten up, don't take it personally.

Those clouds are your standard fair weather cumulus caused by surface heating. The clouds take the shape of the ground and not the water if you look closely, also they are offset a little rather than being directly above the ground, this is obviously caused by the wind.The air rises, quite rightly stated above because of radiation heating of the ground (this is how we all feel warm air), it's the ground that heats up the air in contact with it causing it to rise up, the reason the moisture is present in the form of cloud is simply down to the fact that the "parcel" of air has risen high enough to reach it's dewpoint (or saturation point) and can no longer support the amount of moisture in the air thus turning it into visible moisture.

What's it like? where do I start...It's quirky to fly, very difficult to land, there is no "harmony" in the flying controls, for example, the control input in pitch and roll is different. At high dynamic pressures it is touchy in pitch and heavy in roll. At slow dynamic pressures it's quite touchy in roll and heavy in pitch. There's alot of inertia too, a couple of our pilots who have flown 747s says the Q400's inertia is the same as a 747.Bags of power in the lower levels, not so much in the higher levels.The biggest thing with it is if you mis-handle it, it'll bite you, if this happens it'll probably ruin your day. It has full EFIS which is a bonus, it could have a better FMS but it does the job, the VNAV is unreliable, there's no autothrottle, and because they kept it a common type rating with the 300 series there's alot of gotchas in the cockpit which they could have ironed out should they have made it a stand-alone type.Overall, enjoyable to fly, quirky, difficult, keeps you on your toes and can ruin your day.

Me too AlexI fly the thing for a living and it is one of the more common aircraft that has never, ever been modelled by a payware developer. I don't know why one would model the 200/300 instead of the Q400 when the Q400 offers much, much more to the simmer than the 2/300 model does. I guess PMDG must have their reasons. I am not sure I'd buy it to be honest, I already own the PSS Dash8, if I want to fly it I'll just boot up FS9 instead of FSX, but never say never :)

The Q400 is a completely different aeroplane in every sense, quite why it is even a common type rating is a mystery (well it isn't, it's all about saleability and cash) it'll take more than just an exterior add-on to make it work.

You and me both ;)

To be honest I have tried both, I am a veteran VATSIM user but tried IVAO because a friend flies on it. The single biggest problem with IVAO is the software interface, IVAP really is very poor. I started flying with a couple of mates and their aircraft are all over the ground/sky when in reality they are static (at the hold etc). Squawkbox with VATSIM used to be a little unstable but with FSInn I would say VATSIM is simply superb. FSInn is very good with FSX too, giving you contrails etc. The software is superb, you can basically edit everything, whereas with IVAP you were almost stuck with the models that come with the program (which are very poor)In short IVAO/IVAP is ok, but very unstable, aircraft are unstable, the software has caused me to reinstall Flightsim twice, so I won't use it any more.FSInn is rock steady, has more features and is more "editable". If you have FSX & FS9 then one version will work for both. You need FSInn & FSCopilot, Version 1.3 & 1.7 if you have FSX (or FSX & FS9 together)Dean

Are you sure about that? The reason I say that is have you seen the price of this? It'll be way outside alot of people's scope for a purchase, I fly the thing for a living so I want something realistic in flight modelling, but I will refuse to pay the price they will ask. Their Dash 8 300 (or is it 200?) is also poorly modelled (flight dynamics), and the FMS is not fully functional.At least with PMDG you get a fantastic looking model, a great VC and a fully functioning FMS. Also if they let me help them with the flight dynamics I am sure we can get it spot on. It'll also retail at a price that people can actually afford, particularly the younger members of the flight sim fraternity.

I was on the understanding it was not a Q400 but a Q300?

I'm 37, currently a Dash 8 Q400 pilot for a loco here in the UK, and a part time Flying Instructor (1 day per week)I still use flight sim (FS9 & X) but I have no enthusiasm to boot it up when I get home from work, so I have now moved into controlling on VATSIM in Australia just for something different.EnjoyCricketFootballSnookerBadmintonGymI also want to start playing the guitar but don't know where to start :)

Q400Massive gap in the market for this.

No, Flybe have 58 Dash 8-Q400s :)

Hi allBefore I go and spend some money on a set of Saitek Pedals is anyone aware of any compatibility issues with the CH Yoke? Personally I don't think there should be any issues but maybe you guys know of any?I am running Vista 64 bit.

Unfortunately for all, this forum isn't a democracy, it's PMDGs train set. There is no recourse, that's just the way it is with most forums.

ChrisI'm aware of the "When established on the LLZ, descend on the ILS", which is common over here, this still over complicating it to a point. The land after call is not the same as being cleared to land with an aircraft ahead. They are inherently different.

dbw1To be honest that is the best way of doing it how the Americans do it, sometimes over here you can be caught short because you are on the LLZ and going past the glide, ATC can't get a word in to clear you on the Glide. It is obvious you are going to go down the approach so why we don't just "clear a/c for the approach" is a mystery. The French do it, they even clear you to land when there is an aircraft ahead of you (in CDG). I just get the feeling we over complicate it over here waaaay too much.

dbw1Granted, but you said it yourself, quote - never hit the APP button till you're on the final vector for LOC intercept and have been CLEARED for the approach.What I was saying is that technically this is not quite right, because you can still hit the APP button when cleared to intercept the LLZ only, nothing is stopping this from happening. It is only your company's SOP that dictates you can't.It used to be my company's SOP to only hit LOC (or NAV in our case) when cleared to intercept only, but now it has been replaced with hitting APP when within 90

dbw1Not technically correct, Cleared for the approach is different to being cleared to intercept the LLZ, in both cases the APP can be armed. (But you mustn't descend on the glide without clearance)VololiberistaJust because you don't arm the APP (which is basically the Flight Director) it doesn't mean you are conducting a visual approach. You can quite easily fly a raw data ILS without the aid of the Flight Director & Autopilot. RobTry flying into Amsterdam Schiphol, it's a frequent occurrence ;)

The poster above is correct about being at the "Platform" altitude before capture. The FAP will be referenced to a DME distance on an ILS, so ensure you are outside this distance and at the correct platform altitude. This will ensure the GS is above you.To answer the original question the time to arm the APP (or APR) button is when you are within 90

Another feature of the abeam is if you are "off route", i.e. on a radar heading and you need to do a fuel check at a certain waypoint that you are not flying over you can put the "fix" in, then when you fly abeam it you take your fuel reading from there.

Peiter, you're right, it will be a good product, but I am more interested in the performance in it rather than the visuals, i.e will it give the correct climb rates in certain ISAs doing a Rate 1 climb? Will it cruise at Vmo - 10 with the power levers in or out of the Detent at FL250? Will it struggle in ISAs of +15 or more? Will it give give the correct rate of climb at 210kts at lower levels? Will it give the correct pitch attitude at Vref for a Flap 15 & 35 landing? yadda yadda. To people who don't fly it they won't know any different.If we can get it to perform how the real one does then it won't be a good product, it'll be a great product.

I fly the Q4 for a living and have offered my services to PMDG for free (obviously) but I can't seem to get a response from them. Not even so much as a "no thanks".Let's just hope the Q4 performs somewhere near the real thing, and that all the "quirky" gauges work properly. There is so much to work on with it I just HOPE they get it right.We'll see.

LuisRight click on your desktopSelect "Personailze"Select "Windows Colour & Appearance"Select "Windows Vista Basic" from the colour schemes drop down menu.Let us know if it worksDean

Are you running vista in "Windows Vista Basic" mode? Or are you in Windows Aero?