Mijitman

Gotta go with the 737, It's a classic and makes much more sense for short-hopping around in the limited time in the sim bay.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. The reception of the -8 has been a bit underwhelming overall, and the -8i even more so. Only six companies fly the -8i, and if you include the cargo variant, only 15 companies total operate the aircraft. That is compared to the over 70 companies that still actively fly the -400 today in all her different variants. As cool as the new tech is in the -8, you're really getting a lot more bang for your buck by buying the -400 variant first, you only have to understand that it isn't intended to be packed full of whiz-bang gizmos. If you're up for a challenge, try getting behind the stick of a more classic airplane like the L-1011, or to go even further back, something of the DC-6 era. I promise you the 747-400 will seem like a miracle of modern technology after a few flights chock-full of engine management and complicated descent planning based entirely off of DME and estimated winds aloft.

Thanks for doing this! I keep getting that the file is broken?

I shift technique day-to-day. Sometimes I want a flight to be easy, so autoland it is. Most times I'll click the automation off and just hand fly. I wouldn't leap to detract from those who want an ILS or autoland to be implemented however, as that's just either a realistic simulation of the bird (or not, in the case of the Q400.) If I'm going to shell out $20+ for an addon, it had better be able to fly an ILS! As we know, the weather isn't always perfect. There's also nothing like performing a 0/0 autoland sometimes just to mix up your sim experience. I don't think anyone should do it either "This" way or "That" way, it just depends from person to person, flight to flight. I used to autoland a lot more, and as I've become more comfortable with the various airframes I do it less and less.

Now I have never flown a real world P-51D (obviously) but I wouldn't be surprised by the turning tendencies if I were you. You're rotating an 11.2 ft propeller up onto the mains and even just your gyroscopic precession is gonna be going crazy. Are you using a joystick or rudder pedals?

Very much looking forward to this as well! Good on you Kyle.

This thread needs to be locked so freakin bad.

Except it's a French airplane! Great shots, enjoyed the second one very much.

Post Deleted.

If there's only one left and two ever built I doubt they'll model it. FS is a niche market already, to focus it to that extent to cover the even smaller number of people who would be looking for that specifically would likely be something of a waste. People are impatient enough as it is just to get the regular model. I could be wrong about all of this, but it just doesn't seem likely to me.

PFPX is great for planning, but it's also good to double check. Sometimes you'll file a "Turbojet aircraft only" SID or STAR in a turboprop, and that's a little embarrassing.

FAA approved for what? To what level are they "approved" to simulate? Could you get instrument current or an IPC check in them? Can you log it? I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just curious. FAA "approved" means a lot of different things, and if you're talking about a flight simulator meant for real world flight instruction and loggable time, I doubt they run primarily on either X-Plane or FSX.

I must say their website isn't filling me with confidence...

I'm torn.

I must be one of the only sods who's having issues with it. Whenever I boot (trial version) and do a flight, I suffer periodic lockups the entire time. every 15-20 seconds it'll lock up for 3-5. The moment I turn off ASN they stop. I'm at a loss, and I'd certainly like to partake in this apparently wonderful creation!

The media revered those pilots as heroes, but they'll be getting a call from their local FAA inspectors and with all that video evidence, I doubt we'll see them in the skies any time soon.

Congratulations, and welcome to a very exclusive club! Keep after your education, the safest way to fly is to approach every flight as a learning experience, even when there's no instructor pulling on your coattails. It sounds like you've got the right idea, so get out there and get endorsed, certified, and rated!

....wat

Wow! Most of those look real! I'll definitely be watching this one.

They don't. PMDG doesn't just do externals, the reason for the price point is that they remodel the flight dynamics and characteristics of the aircraft. The only exception to this rule is their 747-8, which is just a skin laid on top of the 747 flight model. That's also only $25 for the -8i and -8F models, which at that quality of depiction I think is a fair deal. If they were just taking the 777-200LR and putting a 300ER-200ER model on top it'd already be done. They've gotta test the new one, put it through it's paces, etc. so that's the cause for the delay. As far as the DC-6 is concerned, it's (so far as I can tell) back-burnered for now. They need to support and develop their most recent release in the 777 before they leap into another whole product line. Like has been said, this isn't Captain Sim.

I think it's probably about market size at this point... Not only do they not want to leave all the 777 customers hanging with the few known issues (Caution light and a few other known bugs) they also must continue to expand their product. There are lots of pilots who will fly the classic yeah and I'll probably have to take a stab at it at some point, but the reality is they're going to sell WAY more 777-300ER and 200ER aircraft. Just a truth. That's gotta be their market priority at the time, and when the other projects are at idle or released and those workers who are freed up by that have the time, then we'll hear more about it. Patience grasshopper. Patience.

That's weird. And I think I like it. Maybe for making the most sense in the English language the AL name should be Northwest Delta?

I've got big shiny airplane syndrome, so I really wish Gulfstream would life the veil and allow a dev to do a really solid a G IV, V and VI series.

Very very nice. And I bet you were locked at 30 frames too

While I'm with you on this issue, the sorta sad truth is that in this age of accelerating technology and computers, pilots are, in some scenarios, removable. Now I'm not saying that airline pilots will cease to exist, I think it'll be a cold day in hell when I or anyone else climbs aboard a 787 without any pilots, but the thing is in some industries (namely the defensive ones) sometimes a pilot is more of a hindrance than a benefit. The SR-71 pilots had to wear space suits when they flew, and while it didn't hinder their ability to fly the airplane too much, the fact that they were that close to the edge somewhat limited the airplane itself. This new Blackbird can fly insanely high without worrying about oxygen systems, accelerate at ridiculous rates without worrying about G-loading, and spend hours and hours airborne without having to deal with pilot fatigue. The other thing is that these aircraft are more capable of operating in our environment than some think. I fly near an AFB where they do extensive testing of drone aircraft, and I've flown right above Predators and Global Hawks in the traffic pattern. They fly a box and land just like everyone else. The final and most crucial benefit of course is that were anything to go wrong with the aircraft in a catastrophic way, at these huge speeds an air frame failure would result in the aircraft and it's poor pilot being effectively vaporized. We reduce half of that risk by removing the pilot. I don't like it either, but it's the way of the future, so we kind of need to get used to it.