Jump to content

A330????


Carlos Moreno

Recommended Posts

Ray Proudfoot
1 hour ago, Dmitrij Nazarenko said:

OK, I promise, last round of off-topic for me.

That's not how it works unfortunately, I.E. for EVRA-EETN route, you won't climb too high, usually it's around FL200-FL220, so you are not able to cruise at M 0,79 in 737. Now I'm no expert on Concorde, but I think cruise altitude would also limit its cruise speed.

And I'm not sure how much time you would actually win on short routes. I would say up to 1 hour it is pointless, as you have to take into account that you don't just straight up fly at M 0,95 from gate to gate. I just flew EVRA-ESSA. I cruised at FL300 for only around 80 NM. The rest is climb and descent. I presume the difference will be there only on flights starting from 1,5h.

Concorde can climb at far greater rates than subsonic aircraft. You have 4 Rolls-Royce / Snecma engines with full reheat used for take-off whatever the distance or weight. And after reheats are switched off it will still climb at 4000-6000fpm. You'll be up to cruise in no time.

With respect, you're comparing Concorde's sub-sonic performance with standard aircraft. It's in a league of its own. Not only can it climb quicker than any civilian aircraft it can descend at up to 6000fpm without any discomfort to passengers.

You would need to readjust all your cruise levels even on shorter flights simply because of the aircraft's performance. The Airbus is a Ford. Concorde is an Aston Martin, Ferrari or Lambourghini. Take your pick! :D

Link to post
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ray Proudfoot

    20

  • Daniel Reber

    10

  • Timm Rehberg

    7

  • Dean Johnston

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wow - conspiracy theories abound . The reason why we don't provide updates is that sometimes, our coders, modelers and developers all around have life intervening. Some of us do this as a full t

@Ray Proudfoot The Develoment of both the FSLabs XXXX-X and Concorde has started  Currently at the moment there is no study level highly complex long haul airbus aircraft available for P3D ,hopef

I think this topic has derailed from its original intent. I haven't done this in a long time, but I am locking this thread as there's nothing further to be added here.

Posted Images

Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er

when they brought the ford GT to Le Mans they beat ferrari pretty badly ray =).

Don't worry you'll get your concorde. Remember that we had to wait for 6 years while you were enjoying the concorde.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
30 minutes ago, Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er said:

when they brought the ford GT to Le Mans they beat ferrari pretty badly ray =).

Don't worry you'll get your concorde. Remember that we had to wait for 6 years while you were enjoying the concorde.

LOL! Were Aston Martin there. :D

I'm not so sure. Development has stopped but for how long. That's why some form of statement would have been appreciated. It give me the impression @Lefteris Kalamaras and @Andrew Wilson aren't really listening to us.

Link to post

You must be reading a different forum to me. Where does it say development has stopped? That's not said anywhere.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
15 minutes ago, Rob Jones said:

You must be reading a different forum to me. Where does it say development has stopped? That's not said anywhere.

This suggests it's stopped.

And when I asked some fairly straight-forward questions they were ignored.

Link to post
Joshua Williams

Its time to face facts. FSL made their claim to fame with an A320, its the flagship product so an Airbus line is going to come out. PMDG is a boeing heavy company and push out boeing aircraft over anything else. I get everyones frustration on not having Concorde available in v4 but the roadmap is there and its an Airbus heavy map.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
30 minutes ago, Joshua Williams said:

Its time to face facts. FSL made their claim to fame with an A320, its the flagship product so an Airbus line is going to come out. PMDG is a boeing heavy company and push out boeing aircraft over anything else. I get everyones frustration on not having Concorde available in v4 but the roadmap is there and its an Airbus heavy map.

Wrong. FSLabs first product was Concorde. That’s how they became well known. But finances dictated they needed another aircraft so that’s when they moved to the Airbus.

  • Like 1
Link to post
David Norfolk

Lol people who say the airbus is boring clearly has no idea what they're talking about or how complex and clever it actually is. Just because you can't see it. Doesn't mean it's boring. It's a very complex machine with many computers working at the sametime. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
5 minutes ago, David Norfolk said:

Lol people who say the airbus is boring clearly has no idea what they're talking about or how complex and clever it actually is. Just because you can't see it. Doesn't mean it's boring. It's a very complex machine with many computers working at the sametime. 

It might have lots of computers and very complicated systems but the fact remains it’s a twin-engined sub-sonic aircraft with a maximum speed of Mach 0.82 or thereabouts and a ceiling of 41,000ft. Pretty much the same as lots of Boeings.

Now look at Concorde’s specs. Mach 2.02, ceiling of 60,000ft. 23 miles a minute. It can overtake an Airbus or Boeing cruising at Mach 0.82 at 750mph. It doesn’t need lots of computers to make it impressive. Its looks and specs do all the talking.

Link to post
Dean Johnston
13 minutes ago, David Norfolk said:

Lol people who say the airbus is boring clearly has no idea what they're talking about or how complex and clever it actually is. Just because you can't see it. Doesn't mean it's boring. It's a very complex machine with many computers working at the sametime. 

Yep Indeed. Very Complex 'under the hood'.. Here's one of many computer racks in the avionics bay of an A330 I worked on recently.I believe there is between 90 and 110 individual computers all working together providing such a complex aircraft.

46328772524_c83e564777_o.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Too complicated perhaps for the unfortunate crew of the Air France flight from Rio to Paris who were fighting each other’s inputs to the controls which ultimately cost the lives of all onboard.

Complexity is not always best.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
David Norfolk
11 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It might have lots of computers and very complicated systems but the fact remains it’s a twin-engined sub-sonic aircraft with a maximum speed of Mach 0.82 or thereabouts and a ceiling of 41,000ft. Pretty much the same as lots of Boeings.

Now look at Concorde’s specs. Mach 2.02, ceiling of 60,000ft. 23 miles a minute. It can overtake an Airbus or Boeing cruising at Mach 0.82 at 750mph. It doesn’t need lots of computers to make it impressive. Its looks and specs do all the talking.

Yes indeed concorde was very fast. It was also a very beautiful aircraft however, you must understand that airbus was a huge game changer for aviation. The planes complete FBW meaning when you're flying and you turn the plane and let go of the sidestick the plane still keeps going in that turn untill input is made. I'm not pooping on concorde. It's a beautiful aircraft but personally for me. I'd go airbus. Yes concorde was also fast but that's all it was really known for. It's speed and looks. Airbuses continue to grow & get better. Either way, if you don't like them they are the future. Regardless

Link to post
David Norfolk
15 minutes ago, Dean Johnston said:

Yep Indeed. Very Complex 'under the hood'.. Here's one of many computer racks in the avionics bay of an A330 I worked on recently.I believe there is between 90 and 110 individual computers all working together providing such a complex aircraft.

46328772524_c83e564777_o.jpg

Lol dude, I flew in a A320 simulator with my airline. Absolute machine. Love it 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Alexandre K
4 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Too complicated perhaps for the unfortunate crew of the Air France flight from Rio to Paris who were fighting each other’s inputs to the controls which ultimately cost the lives of all onboard.

Complexity is not always best.

If I may intervene, I think this thread is derailing. You've made your point, you want the Concorde in v4 because you want to fly it (fair enough) and others have made theirs aswell, making clear that they prefer the Airbus liners.

After this statement, if it hasn't started yet, it will be the "who is the best airplane" battle, listing crashes and flaws of each aircraft, and I don't think it was OP's wish. Let's all say we hope for both Concorde and A330 in v4 one day, and sorry that your favorite aircraft is in queue and is not the full priority of FSL at this very moment, I understand the frustration.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Dean Johnston

@Ray Proudfoot 

Ray. The concorde was good at first to for 'world breaking records' reaching ''Mach 2.02,Ceiling of 60,000ft . 23miles a minute'' even if it could overtake an airbus or boeing, the concorde in the end became practically useless for airlines(BA or AF) due to the (Fuel/Maintenance costs/Operating costs/Profit) resulting in the concorde ending in a failure..Compared to twin engined sub-sonic aircraft which are still 'roaring' the skies today.Concorde is history and I do think that where it should remain.

Personally I dont think the specs do much talking at all now.I'd would think that there is much more a demand nowadays for a Airbus than a 'old INS tech' concorde for P3D.The concorde aircraft is cool but it doesn't certainly interest me for P3D..

Abit pathetic you would bring Crash of an AF 330 which crashed and all pax were killed onboard which has nothing to do with how complex the airbus aircraft is.I think you may be forgetting the various tragic concorde incidents.

I hope this topic can return to its original discussion of the unrevealed FSLabs XXXX-X aircraft and not talking about Airbus vs concorde any further, I am sure you can find other topics related to Concorde :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

David, FBW was first used on Concorde. It was ground-breaking in so many ways.

Slowing air down to enter engines at subsonic speeds. Carbon fibre brakes. Special heat-resistant paint. The list is long.

I know you don’t have any gripes against Concorde and if we had a 64-bit version we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

But the fact remains FSL have effectively refused to comment on work in progress and that is both frustrating and annoying.

Enjoy your 64-bit Airbus. I wish I could say the same for us Concorde enthusiasts.

incidentally, apart from being beautiful and fast she had cuisine that no other aircraft could match and a client list that included royalty, film stars and other notable people. There was nothing quite like her and there never will be again.

Link to post
Steve Prowse
2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But the fact remains FSL have effectively refused to comment on work in progress and that is both frustrating and annoying.

 

Absolutely correct,  I’m starting to wonder if anything is happening.  We all know FSL never give dates for the  release of their products, or provide much information about progress etc, but what we have here seems like a complete shut down!  

Some guys here really need to read the history of Concorde, and her many contributions to the development of aviation.  For a PC sim of Concorde we must thank Andrew, for the huge amount of work and effort he has made.  Not only with FSL but with SSTSIM.  Like Ray I don’t think there is anything left to say....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Marc Stanford

The reason FSL keeps quiet is because they know if they set a release date and for whatever reason it cant be made (i.e. delayed) then people are going to bitch and complain that they were let down.

Another developer PMDG does the same thing as FSL, rarely gives out details on development, every company has their own personality and I know FSL isn't like other devs like Leonardo Software house. Makers of the best MD-80 they are very talkative and love to share details on their facebook but thats them and their company personality, FSL is more secretive but their products are also of superior quality.

What is going on behind the curtains? I don't know and really don't care, however I will admit myself and a few other members are excited for the release of the A321X & Updates for the A320. If FSL has something to update they will post it, I have noticed a pattern of them posting every 1-2 months so maybe the fact that they haven't posted anything allows us to assume they are busy with updating the A320 first and then releasing the A321X. 

I can hope they will release it before this summer, now if that will happen only they will know and we will when the time is right.

 

P.S.

I know this went off-topic a bit so forgive me for that. I too am also looking forward to a A330, A340, A350 whatever FSL throws at us!

  • Like 1
Link to post

I think the  release order will be A320/319 update,  A321, and then concorde , after that it would be A330 .When A321 is released, FSL will give us news of Concord. I remember FSL's last post saying that news about 321and concorde  should be at a  later time , and always put 321 and Concord together. so don't worry Ray,  After all, the Concord plan was announced during the A320 development process, so it is definitely 320 get  high priority .

Link to post
Hugo Bicho
9 minutes ago, Peng Jia said:

I think the  release order will be A320/319 update,  A321, and then concorde , after that it would be A330 .When A321 is released, FSL will give us news of Concord. I remember FSL's last post saying that news about 321and concorde  should be at a  later time , and always put 321 and Concord together. so don't worry Ray,  After all, the Concord plan was announced during the A320 development process, so it is definitely 320 get  high priority .

320/319 then 321 and after that Sharklets with updated avionics. I personally don’t know when the concord will come on that timeline :).

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

Wow - conspiracy theories abound :).

The reason why we don't provide updates is that sometimes, our coders, modelers and developers all around have life intervening. Some of us do this as a full time job, some of us do it on the side and for those who do it on the side, more often than not, life throws curve balls. When that happens, schedules change and deliverable priorities change to follow. Imagine if we'd have to explain, each time, what happens in people's private lives to cause this or that to change.

This is not to suggest that something has changed significantly, but our schedules don't always follow our desires, is the truth. I'd have loved us to be faster in some of the work required, but rather than giving out schedules and then having to apologize for not following them, I've learned that it's best to provide updates when we have them.

That said, we are working hard - on all aircraft that we've already announced so far. And yes, we do have internal plans for the future that we've not yet discussed, when it makes sense to do so, don't worry, we will.

I am very happy, however, that we have you, our loyal customers, pushing us so hard to keep up with the work! Thank you for that!

  • Like 22
Link to post
NilsUnger
3 hours ago, Lefteris Kalamaras said:

I am very happy, however, that we have you, our loyal customers, pushing us so hard to keep up with the work! Thank you for that!

Haha, well played. :lol:

You're welcome.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
4 hours ago, Lefteris Kalamaras said:

Wow - conspiracy theories abound :).

The reason why we don't provide updates is that sometimes, our coders, modelers and developers all around have life intervening. Some of us do this as a full time job, some of us do it on the side and for those who do it on the side, more often than not, life throws curve balls. When that happens, schedules change and deliverable priorities change to follow. Imagine if we'd have to explain, each time, what happens in people's private lives to cause this or that to change.

This is not to suggest that something has changed significantly, but our schedules don't always follow our desires, is the truth. I'd have loved us to be faster in some of the work required, but rather than giving out schedules and then having to apologize for not following them, I've learned that it's best to provide updates when we have them.

That said, we are working hard - on all aircraft that we've already announced so far. And yes, we do have internal plans for the future that we've not yet discussed, when it makes sense to do so, don't worry, we will.

I am very happy, however, that we have you, our loyal customers, pushing us so hard to keep up with the work! Thank you for that!

Lefteris,

Nice to hear from you. It did take some pushing. I hope you know me well enough my now that I fully understand each of you in FSL has private lives and needs time away from coding etc. for a break.

The reason I was getting agitated is because Norman posted that development on Concorde had been slowed (or stopped perhaps?) because Airbus work was taking priority. That was what caused me concern because unless we hear otherwise I assume development on Concorde in particular was continuing given you had enough takers to make the project feasible.

If work had stopped then wouldn't that be sufficient reason to make that announcement otherwise people may continue to think work was continuing.

Perhaps you can clarify if work on her has stopped, slowed or continues at a reasonable rate where a release might be expected this year. Note I don't stipulate a public release  - a beta would be encouraging enough.

Remember the old incentive in workplaces... "floggings will continue until morale improves". :D

Link to post
Joshua Williams
On 2/10/2019 at 12:34 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

Wrong. FSLabs first product was Concorde. That’s how they became well known. But finances dictated they needed another aircraft so that’s when they moved to the Airbus.

Well time have obviously changed and the Bus is very popular (I also never said first product, I said flagship which means the product that's put at the forefront). Whining and complaining isn't going to get you a Concorde. Let them work and be happy they are considering it. You don't see me complaining that the A320/321 have taken forever to come out. You have to wait just like everyone else. If you're that desperate for Concorde it still works in FSX/P3D v3

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
15 minutes ago, Joshua Williams said:

Well time have obviously changed and the Bus is very popular (I also never said first product, I said flagship which means the product that's put at the forefront). Whining and complaining isn't going to get you a Concorde. Let them work and be happy they are considering it. You don't see me complaining that the A320/321 have taken forever to come out. You have to wait just like everyone else. If you're that desperate for Concorde it still works in FSX/P3D v3

 Concorde was the flagship product because it launched FS Labs. I don’t disagree that the Airbus is now a bigger seller.

Your suggestion that I will have to wait is just stating the bleeding obvious. Well done for thinking that through. I don’t appreciate your comment about whining and complaining. Asking for very occasional updates is not whining. It’s entirely justified.

Yes, I’m well aware it still works in P3D because I still have that sim but with the VAS limits it’s heavily compromised.

Link to post
Joshua Williams
1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

 Concorde was the flagship product because it launched FS Labs. I don’t disagree that the Airbus is now a bigger seller.

Your suggestion that I will have to wait is just stating the bleeding obvious. Well done for thinking that through. I don’t appreciate your comment about whining and complaining. Asking for very occasional updates is not whining. It’s entirely justified.

Yes, I’m well aware it still works in P3D because I still have that sim but with the VAS limits it’s heavily compromised.

Well I don't know what else you want. You're demanding some news when there is none. You're tagging developers to answer you're questions. There's a reason they don't answer questions about when and what is going on. Give it a rest, there is obviously no news. You're asking a small team of people to ramp up production when some of them don't do it full time. I can see you obviously have it set in your mind that you're going to be the one to get answers after countless others have tried. Have fun, I have nothing else to say to you.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Zsolt Monostori

I honestly hope the next product from FSLabs after the A321 is going to be the A330, including both the -200 and the -300 variants with engine options. One of the most popular widebody aircraft of present days yet no developer so far has managed / desired to deliver a high fidelity simulation of it.

I am so much into this aircraft that I promise, if and when FSlabs gives us a 330-200 (and -300) I will:

- stop biting my fingernails
- stop constantly playing drums on my lap
- stop singing aloud under the shower

Now this is something, right? :-P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Marc Ehnle
1 hour ago, Zsolt Monostori said:

I honestly hope the next product from FSLabs after the A321 is going to be the A330, including both the -200 and the -300 variants with engine options. One of the most popular widebody aircraft of present days yet no developer so far has managed / desired to deliver a high fidelity simulation of it.

I am so much into this aircraft that I promise, if and when FSlabs gives us a 330-200 (and -300) I will:

- stop biting my fingernails
- stop constantly playing drums on my lap
- stop singing aloud under the shower

Now this is something, right? :-P

at least the last promise might give some relief xD

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

 Concorde was the flagship product because it launched FS Labs. I don’t disagree that the Airbus is now a bigger seller.

Your suggestion that I will have to wait is just stating the bleeding obvious. Well done for thinking that through. I don’t appreciate your comment about whining and complaining. Asking for very occasional updates is not whining. It’s entirely justified.

Yes, I’m well aware it still works in P3D because I still have that sim but with the VAS limits it’s heavily compromised.

@Andrew Wilson @Lefteris Kalamaras

7 hours ago, Joshua Williams said:

Well I don't know what else you want. You're demanding some news when there is none. You're tagging developers to answer you're questions. There's a reason they don't answer questions about when and what is going on. Give it a rest, there is obviously no news. You're asking a small team of people to ramp up production when some of them don't do it full time. I can see you obviously have it set in your mind that you're going to be the one to get answers after countless others have tried. Have fun, I have nothing else to say to you.

Guys,

Look, let's just give FSLabs the time that they need to finish whatever they're doing.

When it's time for them to move on to a new project like the Concorde they will, besides they maybe even working on the Concorde alongside the A320-X as well.

It's better that they work on one thing at a time which right now is the A32x family, let them finish it and they'll move on to the Concorde.

BTW... FSLabs is mostly using C++ for the A32x. Personally I've been programming and learning C++ as well (in fact C++ is first programming language I've been learning) and I'll have to say it is HARD, HARD work. C++ isn't easy.

So let FSLabs do whatever they need to do right now.

For those friendly developers like Andy or Lefteris do you have any comments that you would like to add?

 

Best regards,

James

Link to post
peter kelberg
On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 7:31 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

It might have lots of computers and very complicated systems but the fact remains it’s a twin-engined sub-sonic aircraft with a maximum speed of Mach 0.82 or thereabouts and a ceiling of 41,000ft. Pretty much the same as lots of Boeings.

Now look at Concorde’s specs. Mach 2.02, ceiling of 60,000ft. 23 miles a minute. It can overtake an Airbus or Boeing cruising at Mach 0.82 at 750mph. It doesn’t need lots of computers to make it impressive. Its looks and specs do all the talking.

how  many  concordes  flying  today   compared  to  airbuses;)

Link to post
On 2/11/2019 at 8:02 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

incidentally, apart from being beautiful and fast she had cuisine that no other aircraft could match and a client list that included royalty, film stars and other notable people. There was nothing quite like her and there never will be again.

Ray,

This may interest you https://boomsupersonic.com/

Link to post
  • Lefteris Kalamaras locked this topic
Lefteris Kalamaras

I think this topic has derailed from its original intent. I haven't done this in a long time, but I am locking this thread as there's nothing further to be added here.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...