Classic Props

[Wim Mourits]

Hello ,

Can we add classic props like Lockheed Super Constellation and DC-3 to our fleet?

Rgrds

Wim

 

[Szymon Kurzacz]

Answered simmilar question earlier, but got no reply...

My question earlier was about adding some (at least) charter airplanes from categories:
- bizjet (Cessna Citation X; Learjet 45)
- heli (Bell 212 "Twin Huey"; Sikorsky S-64 "SkyCrane")
- bush (DHC-1 "Beaver"; Piper-Cub)
- small (Cessna 172; DHC-6 "Twin Otter")
- vintage (DC-3, Constellation, L-1011 Tristar)
- "minijet" (A318, BAe 146)

 

[Zeljko Budovic]

I asked about adding new planes already, here's what peter said:

To be honest, chances are rather small for the CRJ. We recently agreed that we will not extend the fleet any further, especially not include another manufacturer. Adding a new manufacturer or "brand" involves a lot of data adjustments in many places of the VA system. With all the manufacturers and aircraft types we have now, there will already be a lot of work, once we include the financial part. We will need a lot more performance data for each ac type than we are using now (and that's some, already).
So, I hope the new NGX will keep you busy for a while and help you get over the CRJ

I'm realy looking forward about new financial part, but I understand becouse of that it's very complicated to add new planes

 

[Peter Schindler]

Yes, what Zeljko wrote is the main reason why we will not include new aircraft types in the near future.

On the other hand we have always said that the VA has to be defined by its members, not by its management. If many pilots request a certain aircraft it will certainly be considered, whenever possible. There's just some guidelines we'd like to follow:
- including aircraft that are only used by a handful of pilots is too much effort for what it's worth
- we'd like to keep a certain character to the fleet, which is to feature a fairly modern airliner and cargo fleet
- helicopters will definitely not be included because of their completely different approach to flight logging and pireps

Anyway, there's some lovely retro aircraft out there - like the Conny - and also many nice prop planes for bush flying and/or commuter flights. We discussed a bush flying department of Air-Child already in the past, and the project has not been totally abandoned. However, here's my opinion on this: bush-flying, as well as classic/retro flights, should be separate departments, both in management and in style. That means I would personally prefer different websites (also because I could design some retro style site^^) where pilots can switch between departments but still keep one logbook and pilot record. Other opinions or suggestions are very welcome.

This could become a nice long term project but only after the other 100+ projects are done

 

[Svilen Vassilev]

....bush-flying, as well as classic/retro flights, should be separate departments, both in management and in style. That means I would personally prefer different websites (also because I could design some retro style site^^) where pilots can switch between departments but still keep one logbook and pilot record......

This sounds like the most adequate approach indeed. Something else to possibly consider though is that both the DHC-6 Twin Otter and the Dornier 228 re-entered production in 2010 after almost two decades pause, because of their huge popularity and market demand. So those 2 small props, even if they serve a certain non-mainstream niche in the aviation market can still be considered modern and actively used types, and would fit perfectly in say Nepal, Canada, Austria or Greenland hubs A separate division would perhaps make more sense, but in this particular case integration with the current air-Child infrastructure would also be viable. Good quality freeware and payware models are available for both birds.

Another defining element is the addon availability, so pilot demand for particular types is inevitably bound to follow the popular addon trends, regardless of operations realism For example QualityWings are currently wrapping up the development of BaE146 and it looks top-notch on screens and videos. After its release, if the product matches the expectations, you should see an increasing demand for the type, even if in the real world production stopped 10 years ago and even if the Jumbolino is a great plane with distinctive style and design, it's gradually phase out in RW in favour of more modern and fuel efficient types.

 

[Peter Schindler]

Something else to possibly consider though is that both the DHC-6 Twin Otter and the Dornier 228 re-entered production in 2010 after almost two decades pause, because of their huge popularity and market demand. So those 2 small props, even if they serve a certain non-mainstream niche in the aviation market can still be considered modern and actively used types, and would fit perfectly in say Nepal, Canada, Austria or Greenland hubs A separate division would perhaps make more sense, but in this particular case integration with the current air-Child infrastructure would also be viable.

I agree with you, Svilen. Especially the DHC-6 shouldn't be too hard to include, as we already have the 7.

I still didn't have the time to complete the announced road map for next steps, but one of the first things will be the reorganisation of the charter section. When that's done, we can include some Twin Otters there.
Adding new aircraft to the schedule will also depend on Norbert and Mario. They currently have to keep almost 3000 routes up to date. Validation is still (and probably will be forever) a manual process. We'll try to further improve and speed up the process, but it will remain a lot of work.

 

[Petr Sach]

Hi and what about jetstreem 41 from pmdg looks very nice . I thing you can get it with fs crew as well . 8)

 

[Szymon Kurzacz]

Adding new aircraft to the schedule will also depend on Norbert and Mario. They currently have to keep almost 3000 routes up to date. Validation is still (and probably will be forever) a manual process. We'll try to further improve and speed up the process, but it will remain a lot of work.

I think that next step will be to keep navaids and air corridors in db and generate valid routes for each flight needed on standby... That should not be big problem in comparsion to get working navaid db

 

[Peter Schindler]

Thanks to Tobias we already have a database with navaids, airways & waypoints, regularly updated with AIRAC cycles from navigraph. And that's what we use for validation. However, realistic creation and validation of routes is too complex to be made automatic. Norbert could probably give more details here.

 

[Norbert Woeller]

Szymon, as Peter wrote, we have an automatic validation. That means, the programm will show us automaticly all invalid routes after a new AIRAC is installed. But that's only one side of flightplanning.

To create valid routes is the other side. I don't know any programm, who will create automaticly valid routes. In most cases, thus programmes will create a route for you where you will have valid waypionts and airways. But is that route valid? Not at all! There are allways flightlevel restrictions, airspace restrictions and so on, and so on.
And sometimes thus programmes will create routes, who are more then 50% longer then the great circle distance. Because they haven't found a shorter valid route (and valid means only valid waypionts and airways).

So we will continue to create manualy routes for you, which are valid like in real.

 

[Szymon Kurzacz]

Check this site:

You do not have permission to view link please Log in or Register

I tought about some tool of this kind. All routes look valid for specified airac cycle. And in this or other way... As far as i can remember navigraph data contain (in diffrent files) informations about active runways, navaids, fixes AND routes between fixes, including available FL and direction of airways.

Bad thing is that script need recurent search via DB about available route via airway. VOR2VOR/NDB route is easiest to manage via scripting.

Need to learn one more thing to make working search route script, then only valid db will be needed.
And all that after finishing my graduation

 

[Peter Schindler]

Check this site:

You do not have permission to view link please Log in or Register

I tought about some tool of this kind. All routes look valid for specified airac cycle.

I have to disappoint you, Szymon - they're not Well, sometimes they are, but often enough not. Routefinder (at least the free service) is known for that. It's the same as if you have your routes calculated in tools like FSNavigator or FSCommander. They will follow existing airways (if navdata is up to date) but that's it. In real life many airways are only valid on certain flight levels and/or in certain directions (one way). At the moment we do not validate this for existing routes, because it's very time consuming and especially because the Eurocontrol CFMU validation service is no longer publicly available. However, vroute.net has still access to the service, and that's why we validate all new routes through vroute, now. That still doesn't mean these routes could be created through vroute, automatically.
Hope you get the point. It's a complicated world out there

 

[Norbert Woeller]

Check this site:

You do not have permission to view link please Log in or Register

route finder is one of these tools I'm talking about. If you want, try to find a route from Santiago (SCEL) to Accra (DGAA). ACH flight 9505!

In route finder you will get this route:
NEBEG UA307 ESITO UT650 CBA UA307 SIS UR554 VAS UM403 BSI UW10 REC UB623 FNO UN857 ORABI UA602 TITOR UG853 EGAGA UA572 LGI UV207 AD UB600 MIMTI
All valid waypionts and airways...

OK, now please go to vroute (freeware) and add the route. Start vroute, click on the 'route' button, then on the 'Add new route' tab, type in from 'SCEL' to 'DGAA' and press enter. (you will find one valid route stored in the database. B.t.w. this is the Air-Child route, because Mario and me are allways adding our routes to vroute since the last months. But that's not interesting for this explanation)
Type in the flight level range 250 - 600, and the route finder route in the route field. Press the ' Verify route' button and have a look at the 'Route Prieview' screen that will apear. You will be suprised...

That's what I mean!

 

[Szymon Kurzacz]

Lesson for me from that: pay more attention to route planning when flying as individual pilot, and stick to Your ACH routes

Idea for making job easier? Lets try to point "hub directors", who will check routes of his hub each month... Less job for everyone...

 

[Zeljko Budovic]

You can try this: http://www.euroutepro.com/fp/fp_main.ph ... age=en&dep
This one is much better than routefinder, It's updated regulary, I use it to verify airchild routes

 

[Peter Schindler]

euroutepro.com ... This one is much better than routefinder, It's updated regulary

It is, indeed. And if you think "hm, this looks a little like vroute" - the site belongs to Michal Rok, developer of vroute.info

 

[Zeljko Budovic]

It is, indeed. And if you think "hm, this looks a little like vroute" - the site belongs to Michal Rok, developer of vroute.info

I know, This is his old site. It seems to be the best for flight planing, I got there accidentally and I sincerely hope Michal Rok don't think about shut it down now when I published this great discovery! :champ: