Chock

In case anyone was wondering how the pushback driver knows where exactly to push the airliner out to, here's the little manual in the tug which tells us that. Unless ATC says otherwise with instructions for a 'non-standard push' to somewhere different, this is the guide we follow. As you can see, most prop aeroplane pushbacks are straight back, this is to avoid stressing the nose gear too much. You would think this would make prop aeroplane pushbacks 'easy' and a good one to start learning on when new to doing pushbacks, but in fact they are some of the harder ones to do because the view is not great with the aeroplane being so close to the ground, and smaller aeroplanes are a bit harder to control on a pushback because they react very quickly to small steering inputs. Big aeroplanes react a lot slower to steering inputs, giving you more time to correct things, and the view underneath them is very much better: Because there may be a requirement to not follow a standard pushback procedure, usually to make room for something else on the taxiways (especially on this bit of the airport, which we refer to as the 'cul-de-sac'), we monitor the ground frequency on a radio and can if we wish, clarify things by speaking to ATC. If we are towing stuff, we definitely have to speak to ATC because all aircraft movements, have an ATC movement 'strip' in the tower (including tows), so we get given a specific route and have to do readbacks etc, just like you do when taxying an aeroplane under its own power. Each tug on the airport has its own callsign, just like an aeroplane has, so the radio procedure is the same as with aeroplanes, where you say your ID, do readbacks and so on. You need an additional licence beyond the typical airside driving permit to drive one of these things, because that allows you to drive on the taxiways, the course for this permit trains you on radio procedures, identifying runway and taxiway signs and all that sort of thing. The tug driving/pushback licence is known as the 'M' permit. When towing, we connect the towbar to the rear of the tug, for pushbacks we connect it to the front. This picture shows the lower centre console on a tug; from the bottom on this pic you can see a perspex-enclosed card reader, this is for the telematics on the tug, it makes an annoying bleep tone until you touch it with your airside driver ID licence card (so there is a record of who was driving the tug), the large knob above it is the parking brake lever, and above that is the mike for the radio which is tuned to the ATC ground frequency: Below you can see the main centre console of the tug: You can see the radio is tuned to channel 1, which is ATC ground, the stuff on the panel is for lights, different steering modes and that sort of thing (most tugs can do two wheel conventional steering, four wheel steering, and crab mode, but we normally just use four wheel steering), the big joystick knob is the gear lever, the button on top of it switches between automatic and manual transmission, up selects forward gears, down selects reverse gears, it has four forward gears and two reverse gears. We typically push back aeroplanes in manual forward second gear, because first gear is a bit snatchy which would be uncomfortable for passengers on the aeroplane, you can see we are in neutral on this pic from the N showing on the LCD display: Below you can see how much aeroplane such as this ATR-72 restrict your view of the taxiway line, so much so in fact that you typically have to put a bit of a turn on the aeroplane in order to see where you are going. In this case I am waiting to push back off stand 16 at EGCC, which requires us to push pretty much straight back, although in fact we have to turn right a bit to go down taxiway Echo to end up on the centreline with the nose wheel stopping in line with the turnoff centreline for stand 5. Engine two is already running in Hotel Mode on the aeroplane (that's with the propeller brake engaged so the prop does not turn), but not all the GSE has been removed from the aeroplane yet, so the headset person has clipped the headset to the aeroplane, but has not plugged it in yet which is why you can see the jack plug dangling out. The access door where this will be plugged in, is also the access door for the ground power plug (or at least it is one of them, the aeroplane has two so it can use different connectors if necessary), but since the engine is now running, the power has been removed. This is pretty unusual actually, normally we get all the GSE clear of the aeroplane, then someone goes on the headset and supervises an engine start up in hotel mode, but the crew started the engine up without us doing that on this occasion, so we just went with it although it did mean that passengers were still boarding with an engine running, which isn't ideal:

Heard of MA Realturb? Yup sure, reviewed their RealVolmet add-on for P3D, and was impressed enough to also buy it for MSFS, so yeah, their stuff is pretty good and certainly does add some utility to your flight sims.

We all know that actually says more about how much pressure Boeing was able to put on the FAA to wangle a similar type rating so as appeal to its customer base's suits who wanted to save money on type rating training costs, than it does how similar the original 737 is to the most recent one. 😉

If they model the JT8D engines with a degree of realism, then it would be a welcome addition for sure with plenty of point to the fun that would open up. Not a great deal of that fancy FADEC malarkey with that old engine, so it would be fun to play about with the EPR for take-off calculations, not to mention that a well-modeled JT8D would mean they had a good basis for doing other stuff with that engine (and variants of it), which includes the A6 Intruder, A4 Skyhawk, B707, B727, DC-9 and MD-80, Caravelle, Mercure etc. Really one of the main points of a flight simulator including old aeroplanes is that it can offer us the chance to have a go at flying things which we could never do for real. It's a big part of their appeal for many people.

In fairness, I think some of it is user error. Not all of it, but it's worth bearing in mind that whilst the early variants of the Boeing 247 had Townend Ring cowlings, the later D model (which is the version depicted in this add on) had NACA cowling rings. These do cool the cylinder heads, but their primary purpose is to improve aerodynamic airflow, so they are not as effective in cooling as the opening cowling gills found on some DC-3s, (depending on whether they have Wright or P&W engines, and not always that great at doing the job either). Thus it genuinely was a consideration on the Boeing 247 with regard to engine settings to prevent overheating, as indeed it was on the contemporary DC-2 as anyone who ever had the excellent UIVER DC-2 for FS2004 will readily confirm. I wouldn't let this put you off getting this Boeing 247, in my opinion it is one of the best add-ons we've seen so far for MSFS, not least because it is very detailed, but also because it is not at all expensive and in fact is a real bargain which I would cheerfully have paid a lot more for. If you like things such as Big Radial's equally excellent Goose, you will certainly find a place in your heart for this thing. The 247 is literally my favourite aeroplane of all time, one which I've absolutely been in love with ever since I was a kid, and so if anyone is going to be picky about one for a simulator, it would probably be me, but I am really happy with it. If I had crazy billionaire money, I would literally spend every cent I had getting one of these things airworthy as my own personal toy! If I was being really picky, I'd have liked to have seen an early option with the raked forward windscreen, but you can't have everything can you? I think it would be cool if they did an expansion for it which featured that though, and yes, I'd happily pay a lot for that as well. With regard to some people having issues and what can be done to alleviate this, there are quite a few options. This sim options themselves can be used to disable any unwanted damage modeling effects, but the clipboard in the cockpit of this 247 also has options for this. There are three selectable choices on that clipboard which can be enabled or disabled: realistic starting, engine damage modeling, and electrical damage modeling. Supporting these choices, there are also clipboard and in-cockpit 3D model features which play a role in this too, including working fuse boxes with spare fuses available that you can literally change if you like, plus an A2A-esque set of pages on the clipboard to allow one the option of servicing the aeroplane, including selecting different oil grades and repairing stuff via a virtual ground crew. This is the kind of stuff you rarely see on an add-on which is coming in at less than 20 quid, so it's really impressive in terms of bang for your bucks. If you were waiting for something like an A2A add-on with all of those tinkering options to play with, then this will scratch that itch for sure. The need to start the engine using the actual methods on the real thing can therefore be done by yourself, or via the assistance of a virtual crew, or if one disables the damage modeling and realistic start options on the clipboard, the engines will fire up with Control+E, so there is no need to feel any of this stuff will stop you from enjoying the thing. However, using manually-cranked inertia starters was a common thing on aeroplanes even ten years after the first 247 flew (for example on the Stearman and the bf-109), so it is kind of fun and educational to have the option to do this, and it is very well implemented. In terms of how it flies, this too is very good. It may possibly have a roll rate which is perhaps a tiny bit nippier than the real thing had, but it's not far off it and for the most part it seems right on the numbers in terms of performance (the real thing could actually take off on one engine, which was a big safety feature of it). 3D modeling and texture-wise it ticks all the boxes too, with some good livery choices which are well done and it enjoys a model which genuinely does capture the look and feel of the real thing. So in my opinion its a no-brainer choice for purchase, offering as it does, the opportunity to fly the aeroplane which was literally the first modern airliner, the one which heavily-influenced the design of things such as the rival Douglas DC-3 and Boeing's own B-17 Flying Fortress, which took many design cues from the 247.

True, but this is depicting a late variant.

It should really have a visible autopilot to be honest; there was one on the real thing.

Site was glitching that badly last night when I was buying it that it inadvertently got ordered twice lol. Fortunately one order was cancelled.

Yup, hoping the 441 makes it into MSFS soon. It's a genuinely stunning aeroplane in real life; if I ever won the lottery it'd be what I would buy.

He must have been a late starter, most kids get into that when they hit about eight. 🤣 If all else fails, here is the perfect guide:

DCS would probably be a bit overwhelming for a young kid and its GUI is not the best for teaching someone some stuff particularly if they are young, whereas the big icon-driven 'console-esque' GUI of MSFS is pretty much ideal for showing it to kids and would be ideal if his parents subsequently decide to get him MSFS for the XBox, since he'll already know it. Keep in mind too that MSFS can restart the flight really quickly, which is also what you want. If you have a toy/model plane to hand, this is ideal for explaining what the controls do, since you can point to the ailerons and elevators etc, and/or move the model/toy to visualise what things do. You can even show your controller and move that, then move the model/toy aeroplane with your other hand to help visualise the movements of the controller with the movements of the plane. Kids are pretty smart and they'll pick things up fairly well if you do this - i.e. explain things visually - rather than going into long technical and wordy explanations and turning it into a boring school lesson rather than some fun. No kid who likes jet fighters wants to get bogged down with the Bernoulli Effect and all that stuff, so don't bore them with all that technical stuff. If you don't have a suitable model/toy plane, show them the control movements on the exterior view of the aeroplane and use the good old 'fighter pilot outstretched hand' to replicate the movements of the controls. Turn on all the 'assists' such as autorudder etc, and turn off things like stress and crash damage. And turn on the dials which show up on the external view, which I'm guessing is an option you've probably turned off. Pick an airfield which is easy to spot from the air and preferably one with a long runway oriented to a cardinal compass point to make lining up an approach easier. Liverpool John Lennon Airport in the UK (EGGP) is pretty much ideal for this, since it is right alongside the Mersey Estuary and the runway is parallel to it, so it's hard to miss and it is one of the souped-up airports in the sim, so it looks good as well, and it you head south from there, this is where the 'Mach Loop' is located, so you can blast around the Welsh hills at low level going over lakes and down valleys etc, where real fighter planes do that on a regular basis. The DC Designs F-14 can be a bit twitchy in the pitch axis too, so if you are planning on using that, maybe turn down the elevator sensitivity a bit. If you have the YSIM YSIM SUBSONEX JSX-2, or the Azurpoly Bede BD-5, either of these simple jets would be good fun to play around with, particularly the JSX-2, since it has a smoke system where you could do an airshow routine. Failing that, you can download the free Dornier AlphaJet which also has a smoke system and use that. See if you can get him to write his name in the sky with smoke. A good way to engage kids, is to say stuff like 'I bet you can't do this...' and then let them try stuff out.

It really depends on your point of view I suppose. Yes it can be perceived an overt advert for stuff, or if you chose to view it as a fun logo and a bit of a celebration of what the sim has achieved, then that's a legitimate viewpoint to have too. When we fly around in our sims and post screenshots of British Airways or Iberia A320s etc, this too is basically flashing a logo around, but lots of people do this and it doesn't seem to make them go in a zombie-like fashion to the BA website and book a flight, and similarly, they probably won't buy an XBox unless they really want one as a result of that livery appearing on the odd screenshot. I think most of us have a bit more self-determination than that. 🙂

I guess you could equally ask that about the Red Bull DC-6 or the Breitling display team's aerobatic aeroplanes, or any number of other aeroplanes with logos on it and there are plenty of those kicking around.

Well, technically you can have a dogfight, in multiplayer you just need to have a recorder going and yell 'fox 1', 'guns, guns, guns' or 'rifle' etc over chat when you think you have a firing solution on a target, then playback the video and agree/disagree that it was a kill, in much the same way as air forces do when they train. You could even have a 'moderator' (which basically the air forces have when they train) who tells you whether it was a kill or not and who sets up the fight scenarios. This is exactly what was going on when that F-15 went down into the North Sea a few months ago when the guy got target fixated and wasn't watching the fight's designated hard deck for the scenario. Beyond this, Captain Sim made their Weapon for FSX which is actually pretty good fun and will let you shoot missiles, drop bombs and fire guns. Then you have all that Tacpac stuff as well, which will let you bomb the living bejayzus out of anything you like. Then you've got carrier traps, which are good fun and challenging, intercepts, formation flying etc. And don't forget that the very first versions of Sublogic Flight Simulator (even before it was an MS product) had a Sopwith Camel you could dogfight with. You've got airshow routines you can do as well of course. Personally, I'd be inclined to use DCS or some other combat sim for this kind of thing, but these sims don't typically have the entire world in terms of scenery, whereas MSFS, P3D, FSX and XPlane do. For example, in MSFS, that Flying Iron Spitfire Mark IX which came out the other day would let you try and see if you could scramble from a UK grass airfield in Kent and intercept another aeroplane coming in from over France before it got to its target; you don't even need a Junkers 88 or a Heinkel He111 adversary model to try that, or even another player, you just need something to fly at a specific altitude and speed to replicate its performance, record it with a flight recorder, play it back and then off you go to try and get a firing position behind it before it bombs your favourite target in Blighty or whatever. Not saying I particularly want to do that myself, but I'm sure many people would.