Hi, and a few Qs

Hi from NY. Awesome site here. So far I'm taking it slowly and reading a lot. I have a few Qs to the folks who have gone way ahead.

1. Most builders choose heavy metal - 737s, Airbus, etc. Very few build GA cockpits. On one hand this makes sense - for one, GA planes are slow. Also you can fly a real GA plane in real life so you may want something higher-performance in a sim. But doesn't heavy airplane detract from the actual feeling of flight? The more hardware we put between us and the sky, the more removed we get from the feeling of flight... is it just me or is anyone noticing the same thing?

2. Advanced aircraft are loaded with electronic gauges. I have a strange liking to steam gauges. For one, like an analog watch, they have a classic feel and intuitive utility. OTOH, advanced electronics require a lot of learning and programming. I do programming for living - when I get to fly a sim, I want to get up and fly... looking at more screens (MFDs) and doing more programming (FMS, GPS, etc) is the last thing on my mind... is anyone feeling the same?

3. So at the end of the day, has anyone found a right amount of systems replication, with time left for the actual feeling and enjoyment of flight vs operating a computer with wings?

4. The biggest drawback of serious sim I see is that can replicate only one aircraft faithfully. Generic cockpits detract realism unfortunately too much, at least for me. So the choice of aircraft is critical.. So, can someone recommend airplane models that have this combination of fast and slow, complexity and simplicity that can cover long distance while IFR and yet are reasonably light to go to small airports, do sightseeing and in general convey the feeling of flight.

Thanks!

Early model A-10 Warthog? There are actually a few people building sims based on it. You don't have to blow things up. It's small enough to get into small strips, will let you do NOE flying, and still go fast when desired.

Sounds to me like your looking for some kind of a business jet. Not a big heavy, yet big enough to do nice hops around the world.

Best regards,

Trev

How about a twin like a Cheyenne or a King Air?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toly

Hi from NY. Awesome site here. So far I'm taking it slowly and reading a lot. I have a few Qs to the folks who have gone way ahead.

1. Most builders choose heavy metal - 737s, Airbus, etc. Very few build GA cockpits. On one hand this makes sense - for one, GA planes are slow. Also you can fly a real GA plane in real life so you may want something higher-performance in a sim. But doesn't heavy airplane detract from the actual feeling of flight? The more hardware we put between us and the sky, the more removed we get from the feeling of flight... is it just me or is anyone noticing the same thing?

2. Advanced aircraft are loaded with electronic gauges. I have a strange liking to steam gauges. For one, like an analog watch, they have a classic feel and intuitive utility. OTOH, advanced electronics require a lot of learning and programming. I do programming for living - when I get to fly a sim, I want to get up and fly... looking at more screens (MFDs) and doing more programming (FMS, GPS, etc) is the last thing on my mind... is anyone feeling the same?

3. So at the end of the day, has anyone found a right amount of systems replication, with time left for the actual feeling and enjoyment of flight vs operating a computer with wings?

4. The biggest drawback of serious sim I see is that can replicate only one aircraft faithfully. Generic cockpits detract realism unfortunately too much, at least for me. So the choice of aircraft is critical.. So, can someone recommend airplane models that have this combination of fast and slow, complexity and simplicity that can cover long distance while IFR and yet are reasonably light to go to small airports, do sightseeing and in general convey the feeling of flight.

Thanks!

---

Welcome to the site.

You have inadvertantly described the early Boeing jets and just about any other first or second generation jet. 707, 727, and 737-200 are all still a lot of fun to fly with no programming involved nor required.

As far as building one, it can be done.

I have enough hours in GA aircraft and will never sit in the cockpit of an airliner, let alone a 727. This is what I chose to build based on my navigation experience and flying in general.

It navigates the same as any bugsmasher, it's just a very hi-performance aircraft that I had to learn to fly correctly.

You can get a 727 into and out of Key West and similar sized runways. London City is a stretch because of the 5 degree glideslope, it too can get in there. You can't ask for more than that from a large commercial airliner.

You might want to look into RJ or maybe even a prop job like the ATR72 or C130.

Thanks, folks! Indeed, I like Capt. Sim 727 and some turboprops. I'll check out the a/c you suggested in detail.

The Cheyenne is not a really fast aircraft, but Aerosoft has a great version of it that is currently being updated for FSX. Its a great plane and a nice cockpit with plenty of switches and other goodies to build. Its not a huge plane so you can still get into those small strips, but its big enough to be comfortable for long flights.

check this;
http://www.digital-aviation.de/crjsi...pa31_2d_11.jpg

Or this; (sorry about the two-tone picture... Its from the DA website.)
http://geocities.com/andytulenko/ima...31_cockpit.jpg