I’m getting quite comfortable flying the Bonanza, learning navigation with the G1000NXi.
I have my sights set on Just Flight’s upcoming Fokker F28, which is a highly detailed analog cockpit regional airliner from the 1970’s. That’s the one I want to do my around-the-world trip with (when I’m comfortable enough to do it properly.)
I want to start flying the Baron. Would I be better served getting the Black Square Analog version now, so I can get comfortable with simpler navigation instruments before jumping into a much more complicated plane like the D28? Or should I stick with the glass Baron, and then transition to a faster and more complex TBM, and then a twin jet like the Citation?
What about getting the Analog Bonanza first to ease my way into the Steam gauge world?
I’m a 737 and CRJ enthousiast. The PMDG 737 is great, it takes some time to get going but when you start to understand the plane it’s so satisfying.
Those two are bigger than what you mentioned but I thought I’ll share my experience. Talking about studying a plane the PMDG is worth looking in to…
1 Like
I would’ve suggested the crj /ejets 170/175 or even the ATR. -the pmdg 37 is wonderful, but I hesitate to consider it a regional, but others may very well do do- except OP seems to prefer steam gauges
1 Like
I’m not a fan of progression within sims, it makes sense in real aircraft, but in Sims the only real commodity we expend is time. Cost & risk simply aren’t factors for us.
I normally suggest find an aircraft you enjoy, and jump in with both feet. There’s no need to ease into things, and time spent gaining familiarity on aircraft you’re less interested in doesn’t make as much sense as focusing on the aircraft you actually want to fly
The bae146 is a steam gauges plane.
I can say navigation is easier with glass pit aircraft, tho it takes more setup work before takeoff
2 Likes
I understand what you’re saying. A big part of my flight sim experience is to pretend that I am a new pilot, progressing through the same steps that pilots are required to take in order to qualify in ever more complex aircraft. Call it a quirk…call it pointless. It drives my sim experience.
I own the Alouette III, because I like the old-school look. Same with the Fokker F28. Are there ‘better’ helicopters I could master, and better high-flyers that I could fly around the world? Absolutely.
The BAE 146 is a cool plane, but it’s not calling out my name. Same with the bigger automated glass cockpit airliners.
fly how you prefer to fly, if the idea of progression suits you thats great- but ive come across those who thought it was necessary rather than simply an enjoyable journey . to each their own
i prefer steam gauges in aircraft, as well, so i understand where youre coming from. its not a regional, but perhaps the md-80 series may scratch that itch for you till the fokker arrives. i havent tried it, but it looks like a solid offering
The MD-80 series looks nice, but again, those are big planes.
The added range (2400nm) would make longer round-the-world airport hops easier, but would also limit me to airports with 7500+ ft. runways. One of the things I like about the F28-3000 is that it only needs 3150 ft., allowing for a lot more small airports to be used.
I’m just thinking out loud here, and can easily change my mind next week. 
I appreciate your feedback.
Also, I’m on the wait list for the BlueBird Simulations 757. That’s the big modern airliner I really want to learn. Until then I want a smaller analog regional.
short take off/ landing roll, steam gauges, limited range: not many options out there. bn2 islander/ trislander, twin otter?
go for even shorter fields with the caribou or the an-2 , both have lovely seam gauge pits. unfortunately, last time i flew it, it appears one of the ubiquitous garmins has shown up in in the caribou, but its at the rear of the center console and easily ignorable. An-2 allows selection of a pit with garmins or without, although its radio navigation can be limited if i remember right, and rumor has it the garmin version has a better flight model, oddly enough
I have a Kodiak 100 for island hopping / back country trips. And I have an AN-2. Haven’t even turned the engines over in either one yet. That’s another part of this: If I jump into a ‘study-level’ cockpit, it’s going to take me many months to learn everything, program Spad functions into my peripherals, etc.
This is not an “I think I’ll just mess around with this PMDG airliner for a little while” kind of thing. It’s how I work. I want to master one thing, and buy everything, intending to learn it all someday. 
Maybe I’m seriously underestimating the ability of the Fokker F28 to actually make it around the world.
Seems I hear things like, “I’m going around the world in my C172” around here from time to time.
i started something like that awhile back. started at seattle made my way south. only took short trips in small aircraft, starting each one where the last left off. made it as far as colombia till i decided to change gears: japan is normally in daylight at the time i fly, and plenty of airports where i can fly larger commercial flights without it being a multi-hour ordeal
maybe eventually ill get back to colombia and continue working my way south
1 Like
If you must follow some progressoin for whatever reason ( just coz you want to is perfectly valid! ) then King Air ( analog or not ) and then airliner. A KA is more or less an airliner anyway, but it flies much like a big GA plane. The Analog King Air is one of my favourite things to fly regardless.
146 is always a good choice.
3 Likes
I will look hard at both of those. Maybe I’ll skip the Baron, and jump headfirst into the King Air.
If there is no penalty for blunders (like a .wallop on VATSIM), then full send, do whatever you want.
However, the reason for the real-life progression is not simply cost and risk, but speed and complexity. There are a LOT of fundamentals involved in flying an aircraft right. It’s very difficult to do things right without, instruction, education, and/or experience, even moreso when doing it yourself in something that’s going to task-saturate you like a high-performance, complex aircraft.
The sim complicates that because there isn’t really an effective method to gain the necessary knowledge and feedback as to whether you’re doing things right. That said, you can just as easily do things wrong in a C152 and never know the difference.
So in the end, it comes down to what you want to get from the sim and perhaps how many of the wrong things you’re willing to allow to slip by in order to get some specific ones down really well.
I can absolutely recommend the Black Square King Air. Super well made, it gives you quite an immersive experience. And being a two-engine turboprop, it will certainly keep you busy!
One last question:
I bought the Black Square Analog King Air, as well as their Analog Bonanza. It might be useful to learn analog gauges and navigation in a plane I’m othersise quite familiar with before jumping headfirst into the King Air.
The Flysimware Cessna Chancellor and that Xingu Embraer 121 has highest visual standards with excellent system depth if you like twin props.
The Flysimware Chancellor has even animated deicing boots and of course my legendary Amanda Clark moongazing-hare bunny-pillow interior overhaul, and functional circuit breakers. The new Embraer 121 is also of finest quality and will get many updates in the future so I recommend both…
1 Like
Yeah, the Embraer 121 looks great. I bought the BS Analog King Air yesterday, and I plan on devoting my time to it. Maybe the E121 down the road.
Haven’t looked at the Chancellor yet, but of course I will.
It’s too easy to buy too many nice study-level aircraft, and not spend enough time in any of them.
1 Like
As someone with everything in DCS, everything in il2, and a very solid selection in msfs…yet I only have 2-3 hours a week to fly, I concur completely on having too much to master
