Cockpit modeling preferences?

[BHawthorne]

I am in the process of picking my next project to model in my Advanced Catia class in school. Anyone have any preferences in cockpits that I should model? I'm thinking 737-200, 737-800, F-16C, T-6A or T-38C? Any preferences?

[Lezam]

The 737 has many models out there, maybe pick one that hasnt really been touched? The MD11 cockpit is cool

[AndyT]

How about the Rockwell Turbo Commander.

[Tomlin]

I am in the process of picking my next project to model in my Advanced Catia class in school. Anyone have any preferences in cockpits that I should model? I'm thinking 737-200, 737-800, F-16C, T-6A or T-38C? Any preferences?

Wow, that sounds like a huge project.

I think that what makes it hard is the fact that you would prefer something that has lots of demensional data available, but not 'run of the mill', right?

King Air 350 or Pilatus PC12

[BHawthorne]

Wow, that sounds like a huge project.

I think that what makes it hard is the fact that you would prefer something that has lots of demensional data available, but not 'run of the mill', right?

King Air 350 or Pilatus PC12

Actually, my reasoning behind mentioning 737 is that so many of you guys do have dimensions I can refer to. The problem I see is that I'll pick something too obscure and never get it handed in for a grade. I'm most likely looking to do something that a bunch of measurements are available on. I'm getting graded on how I do my model and assemblies, not on dimensional accuracy. I'd rather it be pretty close, so people can make use of it though. That way it holds a dual benefit. I get a grade in school and others get a decent CAD solids model to refer to. :)

[Tomlin]

Actually, my reasoning behind mentioning 737 is that so many of you guys do have dimensions I can refer to. The problem I see is that I'll pick something too obscure and never get it handed in for a grade. I'm most likely looking to do something that a bunch of measurements are available on. I'm getting graded on how I do my model and assemblies, not on dimensional accuracy. I'd rather it be pretty close, so people can make use of it though. That way it holds a dual benefit. I get a grade in school and others get a decent CAD solids model to refer to. :)

Well, then to me it would make sense to do the 737NG since there are tons of info on it and so many folks building them.

[Paul G]

Actually, my reasoning behind mentioning 737 is that so many of you guys do have dimensions I can refer to.

This is really important. In your case your grade depends on it so you may as well go for an aircraft whose sim parts are in ready supply. The 737 must be the most well supported and manufactured type, in the amateur sim building arena. It's also a relatively easy plane to get used to, and one that you'd probably start on as a first jet, in a real job.

With a 737 sim you can just focus on assembly and configuration, whereas with most other types, you have to manufacture parts yourself, or scour ebay constantly for opportunities.

Good luck

[BHawthorne]

This is really important. In your case your grade depends on it so you may as well go for an aircraft whose sim parts are in ready supply. The 737 must be the most well supported and manufactured type, in the amateur sim building arena. It's also a relatively easy plane to get used to, and one that you'd probably start on as a first jet, in a real job.

With a 737 sim you can just focus on assembly and configuration, whereas with most other types, you have to manufacture parts yourself, or scour ebay constantly for opportunities.

Good luck

Very true. I live in Wichita, so I could very well be working at Spirit on the 737 after I graduate this semester. I think 737NG would be pretty straight forward and lots of resources both locally and online for reference.