Under EASA it has to be flown multi-crew when flown under an AOC although its not designed (or certified) as a multi-pilot aircraft. Its not ideal since it is really designed as a single pilot aircraft with all the switches easily accessible from the left seat and not so much from the right seat. We ended up swapping seats, pilot monitoring was in the left seat, pilot flying in the right seat, otherwise it was difficult for the PM to even raise the landing gear 
.
3 Likes
Yeah I know what youāre trying to get at. There is a certain company whose name starts with āWā and ends with āheels Upā that may have evolved the perception of the use of this model.
I also agree with you that the amount of INOP on this plane is absurd. I donāt know what this plane is simulating. Almost like āmicrosoft flight deck jump seat simulatorā since you just watch the flight happen in front of you.
One last point regarding commercial use, letās not forget the stretch King Air: Beech 1900 Airliner.
1 Like
Now that I look at the MFD on the Collins Fusion image you posted, it does look at LOT like the MFD of the G3X, at least cosmetically. And itās a full touch screen that doesnāt require external touch controllers as required by the G3000. Also another trait shared with the G3X.
So I guess in a strange way, it makes sense that Asobo chose that for this plane. It was the least amount of work required to jam an avionics suite into it for launch. Although itās also a travesty how they took what could have been one of the best planes in the sim at launch, only of only 3 turboprops, and the only dual engine, and kicked it out the door in such an underwhelming state of completion.
2 Likes
Yes, weirdly not being designed to be flown multi-pilot as well with the cockpit largely the same as the 350. I also never understood the Kingair āfamiliesā the Beech 90/99/100/200 is one type rating, the 300/350/1900 is a single type rating (if Iām not mistaken, it has been a while).
The 90 and the 200 are quite far apart. The 90/99/100 should have been one rating. The 200/250/300/350 another and the 1900 separate.
Considering the other bad offenders wiht a lot of INOP, none even come close to the level of this plane. Thatās why I believe that it was rushed out the door last minute in a minimally complete state to meet launch deadline. And they just havenāt revisted it since.
2 Likes
If I remember right, and I might be mistaken because itās been a few years, the way to think about this is through design derivatives. The 90 and 100 series were directly derived from the Beech Queen Air. (Not just parts commonality)
It might also be based on GW
If you donāt have the ārightā avionics coded for the aircraft, why not use gauges that are readily available?
This is indicative of the King Airs I drove. No ābig screenā systems here.
8 Likes
Mass market appeal. Thatās the reason they chose to go with Garmin planes for the vast majority of planes. Give people easy to read glass panels they can easily get used to vs gauges that are more complex and take time to learn.
In any past sim, the steam gauge 172 was always a staple. In this sim, they made us pay extra to get it while including the G1000 as part of the base package.
That, and because its easier to slap a G1000 in everything instead of custom designing gauges.
4 Likes
In the case of the King Air, I can totally see that. In the case of the 172, they already had a gauge version at launch. It would have made better sense for simmers to have it the other way as it normally is - steam gauge version is available in the base edition, and you get the G1000 version with the DLC.
Although I have a feeling that was a decision made by marketing based on 2 factors - noobs will want the G1000 version, and more experienced simmers will prefer the steam gauge version. So you force them to buy the add-on if they want the plane they want to fly.
3 Likes
Elegant, concise, undeniable , polite and effective comment.
I agree with all above.
Additionally, I believe that users continue to display highly unreasonable expectations of Asoboās default avionics.
Simulating the G1000 accurately is a mammoth task, even with sufficient resource and expertise - let alone any other system with differing design philosophy.
Default aircraft should have been provided with the most basic avionics, allowing focus to be applied to the elements that Asobo wants to keep āin-houseā, e.g. flight, weather models.
1 Like
I have often wondered why they chose to try to produce extremely complex, integrated avionics in the default aircraft. We could have had fully functioning steam cockpits from day one, in stead of partially functioning glass. Obviously it would be inaccurate to have a modern Airbus with Sperry avionics, so I get the direction there, but the rest?
2 Likes
(post deleted by author)
Not sure how it works in the States but in EASA-land GA and commuter category aircraft fall under CS-23 while commercial aircraft fall under CS-25. The requirement to have have a classrating or even a type rating is not necessarily tied to the certification standard. For every turbine powered aircraft you either need to have a class rating (usually single engine turbine) or a type rating (multi-engine turbine). The Kingair needs to be flown multi-pilot when flown under AOC in EU.
Yes.
Creating a good rendition of a FMS is not a trivial task. Iām also pretty sure that licensing comes into place as well.
X-Plane built in only has the G530/G430, G1000, and its own generic but Boeing (GE Aviation) like FMS.
Iām hoping that with the WT team working for MS/Asobo we will see products like the Collins ProLine 21 avaliable for other aircraft other than the CJ4 similar to how ubiquitous the Garmin products are.
(post deleted by author)
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.