Jump to content

Future projects?


Colin Lenzner

Recommended Posts

Colin Lenzner

Hey all,

first of all, I do NOT intend to make this a serious post or even a request. I just want to know the opinion of others here. 

So, now that the sharklets are out there as well (although development is not stopped as there's probably a ton more features to come) I'd like to hear what you think will be/could be the next aircraft by FSLabs. I've always heard of FSLabs Airbus A3XX, so I could imagine an A330/A340 coming. I think the 350/380 are too modern and data is too hard to obtain. Same goes for the A320neo I'd say. Personally, I'd love to see a longhauler done by FSlabs, even more so an A340. Sadly the A340's are being retired in the near future but I still think it'd be a highly appreciated plane for the flightsims. I'd certainly love it to bits.

What do y'all think?

Link to comment
K_€_€_M___C_€_R_V_A_N_0

The next in the pipeline is the 64-bit Concorde. About time the Concorde gets some love.They teased it in one of the Sharklet videos.

As for the next A3XX they keep on teasing. My money is on an A330. But an A350 will be a nice surprise :D

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
4 hours ago, Colin Lenzner said:

I'd like to hear what you think will be/could be the next aircraft by FSLabs.

Concorde! Talking of which how about some news from FSL given there was a video shown a month or so back that showed it flying at supersonic speed. Two sentences in around a year is pitiful.

I’m trying to be patient but zero news in ages is hard to stomach. We are all mortal you know. It would be nice to fly it before I pop my clogs.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Stefan Busse

In my opinion, it make sense to continue whre you have the most expirience. The A340 and A380 no longer have a future irl. So maybe people lose interest, because the real plane is no longer seeing? I dont´t know. :rolleyes:

The A350 is still too new, i think. It´s hard to get any date for this. The layout and logics are also more advanced, then those of an A320. I hope the A330 makes its run, because it has a future in form of an A330-800/-900. I would also be happy of an A320NEO. 

Bye

Stefan

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Danny Moore
1 hour ago, K_€_€_M___C_€_R_V_A_N_0 said:

The next in the pipeline is the 64-bit Concorde. About time the Concorde gets some love. They teased it in one of the Sharklet videos.

As for the next A3XX they keep on teasing. My money is on an A330. But an A350 will be a nice surprise :D

I'm thinking the A330 would be a nice addition. Even though I have no interest in the Concorde I'll be purchasing the next FSLabs A3XX product. 

Link to comment
Rafal Haczek
2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

We are all mortal you know. It would be nice to fly it before I pop my clogs.

Love your wording Ray, it's so true. About everything else in life as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Colin Lenzner

Completely forgot about the Concorde. Although it kinda already exists. But why wouldn't they make a A340 due to it having no forseeable future when they're making a Concorde as well? :D

My guess is the A330, although I'm honestly kinda fine with the Aerosoft one. But having Datalink and so on would be a nice addition as well. I'd personally still prefer an A340 as there is no usable one out there.

320neo, A380 and A350 are quite unrealistic I'd say. Maybe a NEO, but they won't get the data they need for the A350 in the near future and I think the same goes for the A380. Although now that the A380 is coming to an end... maybe. It'd be a pity to not have had a flyable A380 during the time the plane was actually active. I always wanted to do the Lufthansa A380 flights :( 

Link to comment
Rafal Haczek
9 hours ago, Colin Lenzner said:

even more so an A340

2 hours ago, Marcus Barrett said:

A340 of the older varients would be amazing! 

36 minutes ago, Colin Lenzner said:

I'd personally still prefer an A340

I am very happy to see I'm not the only A340 fan around. B)

Link to comment
Colin Lenzner
24 minutes ago, Rafal Haczek said:

I am very happy to see I'm not the only A340 fan around. B)

 of course not :) 

10 minutes ago, Alessandro Loguercio said:

An A350 for P3D would be a dream come true... And I leave the word to this video

 

An A350 will happen, just not in the near future I'd say.

Link to comment
Peter Osborn

Thers not even a remote chance of a A350.  Data for this would come at hefty of a price., and for a small company like FSL, it would not be economical viable. We all know they wont build it unless it can be done accurately as possible.  Since data is readily available for A330, this would be the most logical choice for them.....

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Colin Lenzner
9 hours ago, Peter Osborn said:

Thers not even a remote chance of a A350.  Data for this would come at hefty of a price., and for a small company like FSL, it would not be economical viable. We all know they wont build it unless it can be done accurately as possible.  Since data is readily available for A330, this would be the most logical choice for them.....

or an A340 :P

Link to comment
Matthias Nuernberger

They will still let us know what they plan to do.
Small suggestion:
Airbus A300-600 / A310 would be an idea, an A330 I don't think, since there is already an A330 for the Prepar.

Why make something that is already integrated in the market.
Why get upset about unlaid eggs :)

Link to comment
Koen Meier
Just now, Matthias Nuernberger said:

They will still let us know what they plan to do.
Small suggestion:
Airbus A300-600 / A310 would be an idea, an A330 I don't think, since there is already an A330 for the Prepar.

Why make something that is already integrated in the market.
Why get upset about unlaid eggs :)

Maybe quality. Why are there so many car brands out there as that creates competition which maled your products better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
phil highton

i am really sorry but it just has to be the A350, nothing else will really do ! or what about A220 ? but FSL did say something about bigger fuel tank 

Link to comment
Ben Kata
On 6/14/2021 at 5:46 PM, Matthias Nuernberger said:

They will still let us know what they plan to do.
Small suggestion:
Airbus A300-600 / A310 would be an idea, an A330 I don't think, since there is already an A330 for the Prepar.

Why make something that is already integrated in the market.
Why get upset about unlaid eggs :)

I mean the A320 series from Fslabs wasn't the first A320 to come to prepar3d. I am sure it was the last. aEach of them all have their place in the market and are all at different price points. Just beacuse theres an A330-300 with one engine tpye doesn't mean thers not a market for it another from a different dev. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Camille MOUCHEL
On 6/13/2021 at 6:26 PM, K_€_€_M___C_€_R_V_A_N_0 said:

The next in the pipeline is the 64-bit Concorde. About time the Concorde gets some love.They teased it in one of the Sharklet videos.

As for the next A3XX they keep on teasing. My money is on an A330. But an A350 will be a nice surprise :D

330 is too complex i guess, more like a 300/310 imo

Link to comment
Alexander Polcher

Really any real longrange aircraft, whether it is an Airbus A330-200/300/800/900, A340-300/600, A350-900/1000 or even the dead horse A380 including the current standard with GSX integration and Datalink capabilities would enable us for the first time to conduct real and proficient longrange operations.

Still annoyed and disappointed about about flying the 777-200ER today and missing everthing.

You want to tune the volume of VHF1? Not available. Weather via ACARS? Not available. CPDLC? Not available. Automatically triggered jetways, catering, boarding, fueling or even doors? Not available. Automated Simbrief uplink? Never heard of it. Switching between Tiller- and Rudderaxis? Working ground physics? You know the answer.

Seems I am really stuck to midrange until I can select the next time "ETOPS" for a calculation (if it's a two-engined aircraft).

Maybe FSLabs is just kidding us and they are setting up something we all want and need...

51230223870_45a6bb1478_o.thumb.jpg.1896e507f14213a985a4169efe481d6c.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
1 hour ago, Ryan Chapman said:

A350 over the concorde anyday, would get lots more sales.

Enjoy trundling along at Mach 0.83 in another flying computer when you could be flying the world's most iconic passenger aircraft capable of flying at Mach 2.03, 23 miles a minute and faster than a bullet 11 miles up.

FS Labs have promised a 64-bit Concorde and work continues. Any other flying computer will have to wait.

Link to comment
Danny Moore
4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

FS Labs have promised a 64-bit Concorde and work continues. Any other flying computer will have to wait.

I'm sure FSLabs can work on more then one project at a time. I'm guessing Concorde development was moving forward as they were working on the Sharklets. I'm looking forward to adding the A3XX to my FSLabs collection. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Alexander Polcher
18 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Enjoy trundling along at Mach 0.83 in another flying computer when you could be flying the world's most iconic passenger aircraft capable of flying at Mach 2.03, 23 miles a minute and faster than a bullet 11 miles up.

FS Labs have promised a 64-bit Concorde and work continues. Any other flying computer will have to wait.

It must be outstanding interesting to fly the wide variety of routes like LHR-JFK, JFK-LHR, LHR-JFK, JFK-LHR, ... :)

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
10 minutes ago, Alexander Polcher said:

It must be outstanding interesting to fly the wide variety of routes like LHR-JFK, JFK-LHR, LHR-JFK, JFK-LHR, ... :)

You couldn’t be further from reality. With Concorde Performance System I can load any flight plan and it works out v1, vR and v2 plus fuel load and reheat times.

EGCC-LPPT takes 1h 25m. It takes an hour longer in the Airbus. :D

Honolulu to LAX in 2.5hrs. Around 6 in an Airbus I believe. ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Koen Meier
56 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You couldn’t be further from reality. With Concorde Performance System I can load any flight plan and it works out v1, vR and v2 plus fuel load and reheat times.

EGCC-LPPT takes 1h 25m. It takes an hour longer in the Airbus. :D

Honolulu to LAX in 2.5hrs. Around 6 in an Airbus I believe. ;)

But you can only do supersonic above bodies of large open water. Fly to a destination not near water and we fly the same time.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
3 minutes ago, Koen Meier said:

But you can only do supersonic above bodies of large open water. Fly to a destination not near water and we fly the same time.

Er, no we don’t. Concorde can fly up to FL340 at Mach 0.95 which is 90kts (100mph) faster than an Airbus.

In a simulator there’s nothing to stop you flying >Mach 1 over land but the enthusiasts stick to subsonic.

I have routes I only fly in Concorde. Heathrow to Tenerife in 2 hours. 4.5 in an Airbus.

Ben Gurion to Malaga takes less than 3 hours for the entire length of the Med. Plenty of routes. You just have to use your imagination.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Jamie Whiting

Ray, you had the words out of my mouth. Also, as a virtual bus driver I can only dream of .83,  .78 is the most I get to look forward to, more like .81 if the airline is being generous :P 

 

  

Link to comment
Koen Meier
3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Er, no we don’t. Concorde can fly up to FL340 at Mach 0.95 which is 90kts (100mph) faster than an Airbus.

In a simulator there’s nothing to stop you flying >Mach 1 over land but the enthusiasts stick to subsonic.

I have routes I only fly in Concorde. Heathrow to Tenerife in 2 hours. 4.5 in an Airbus.

Ben Gurion to Malaga takes less than 3 hours for the entire length of the Med. Plenty of routes. You just have to use your imagination.

That is all fun when you do not fly for a virtual airline. 

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
1 minute ago, Koen Meier said:

That is all fun when you do not fly for a virtual airline. 

That’s why I don’t. I prefer the freedom to fly where I want, when I want. ;)

Link to comment
Miguel de gonzalo
2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You couldn’t be further from reality. With Concorde Performance System I can load any flight plan and it works out v1, vR and v2 plus fuel load and reheat times.

EGCC-LPPT takes 1h 25m. It takes an hour longer in the Airbus. :D

Honolulu to LAX in 2.5hrs. Around 6 in an Airbus I believe. ;)

Yes yes whatever , the Concorde burns the same quantity of an A321 full of fuel  in one hour , please lets be smart. ;)

Inefficient , noisy and don't respect the environment at all , the future are airplanes that are efficient even if they are slower I bet I can  wait  1 hour or a bit  more from Frankfurt to Tenerife lol , I can handle ;) lower price to book it and also for the airline.

 

Love Airbus , big life to Airbus lol ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Jamie Whiting

The Concorde cannot do what the Airbus does, and the Airbus cannot do what the Concorde does; they present two entirely different philosophies. Ultimately the Airbus won the argument, but as a piece of design and engineering the Concorde was a tour de force, and there has never been a better supersonic airliner [and I mean a proper airliner, not a jumped up commuter or biz jet]. The modern Airbus owes much to the lessons learnt between BAe and Aerospatiale during its construction, and many features that are standard today such as FADEC and indeed anti lock brakes owe their origins to the Concorde. 

The fact that is was designed on literally on paper in an age before he immense processing power we have today makes it all the more incredible.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Markus Burkhard

Guys,

it's not like Concorde only ever flew EGLL-KJFK or LFPG-KJFK during the decades it operated passenger services :). Of course, those city pairs are the ones it flew 99% of the time. But there were plenty other segments done during it's time in service, even if some were short-lived or one-time charter flights. 

Furthermore, this being a simulator, it wouldn't need THAT much deviation from reality to maybe fly to a different city on the US east coast.

Oh and even though it was loud and thirsty, they did do base training as well, for it did not handle the same as your average airliner does, requiring quite a bit of hands-on training to master it well.

Remember, the Mach 2 feature was not the only thing that was special about Concorde in terms of flying it. That delta wing needed to fly slow too, which presents its own set of challenges and things to admire. And you guys know that FSL will give you something that will not simply be a fancy 3D model to look at... You'll be able  broaden your horizon, learn a thing or two in flying high-performance aircraft with accuracy AND do it in style B)

What better way is there to get a bit of a change from flying highly automated Airbusses :) 

  • Like 9
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...