Generic cockpit

[murd0cun]

Hi!

I would like to know or ask everybody their opinion on a generic cockpit building.
By generic, I mean that it will not be a copy of any real plane cockpit.

I want to know which are the most important controls that I could include on such cockpit (panel) and how should I group them.

I will use the keyboard chip method combined with momentary to toggle switches method.

And finally, if someone has some drawings on this subject and wants to share the knowledge please do so.

Thank you!
Zoli@RO

[ruprecht]

I have a generic cockpit based on the Akers Barnes portable cockpit. This is a great way to start as it is modular.

Think about what all aircraft panels have in common - the "basic six", fuel, engine gauges, etc. Many switches are common across multiple aircraft types - landing gear, flaps, pitot heat, etc.

My approach was to choose some very different aircraft that I have an interest in flying: the C172 and SF260 bugsmashers, the Baron and King Air twins, the F-16 and F/A-18 miljets and the Tiger/KA50 helos. I looked at the cockpits of all of those and identified the common elements, and am building those first. I started with flight controls (HOTAS and yoke/quadrant) and continue to add things as and where they are useful to the majority of those types.

good luck!

[Trevor Hale]

Hi, and welcome to Mycockpit.

There is such a plethora of information on this site regarding Generic simulators.

Much research is required, as only you know what you want and what you don't want.

The following is my recommendation of required systems.

Autopilot Panel
Throttle Quadrant
Radio's
Control systems
instrumentation
FMC/CDU

Have a look in the photo gallery, you can take ideas from any of the photo's you see there. There are literally thousands of photo's.

And if you still have no idea. In the download section, you will find dimensions for many aircraft, however only you know how much space you have to work with.

Best regards,

Trev

[AndyT]

Ok, first off, what kind of plane?

Small planes?
Small Twins?
Small Jets?
Big Jets?
Helicopters?
Fighter Jets?

Or a mix of all the above?

[murd0cun]

Thank you all for such quick responses.
I will take a look at the download area for dimensions and examples.
I was also thinking about the fact that there are lots of similarities between different planes. I can see some problems with:
- multiple engines vs one engine;
- propeller vs jet;

All the best!
Zoli

[murd0cun]

For AndyT:

All of them except helicopters maybe.
I'm not so interested in combining planes with helicopters.

Have a nice day,
Zoli

[AndyT]

Well the easy answer to get you started is you will need everything you find in a Cessna and more. So inventory one in your sim ( FS9 or FSX ) and begin from there. Then add a half pedestal and an overhead and your in business.

Make your Throttle assembly removeable so you can swap it out for different kinds of planes.

[Jackpilot]

Zoli

I agree that an airplane is an airplane. A747 flies according to the same principles than a cessna 150. The airplane...Not the way the pilot flies it..
If you want to try them all from your cockpit you may, but will only scratch the surface of what each of them can or should do. And you may get bored very fast.
It takes a whole life/career to master different types of airplane in a real flying environnement, usually climbing the ladder from a single piston engine AC to a four engine Jetliner. To fly each of them safely, one has to know (and remember) all the systems, subsystems, performance data, speeds, procedures, limits etc..which is part of the fun and very rewarding. Getting those numbers right on a stabilized approach and feeling the airplane fly itself to a smooth touchdown is more of a thrill than pushing the Appr switch on the Autopilot.
Back to your question, the concept of "generic" is great because, if flying is more important than building, you will fly sooner (and cheaper). But I do not think that a somewhat realistic generic sim can encompass all the types of airplanes available with FS. You may have to narrow your choice to be able to fully enjoy this great hobby.
The cockpit can be as generic as you want but the flying cant..

Just my 2 cents because I do sit in my sim for 6 +hours when I do the Atlantic!! even broadcasting my lat long reporting points on an "ultra-generic" HF radio to Gander or Shannon!!...which may totally distort my judgment and sanity on what is realistic and what's not !!
Cheers and welcome to the club!

[mauriceb]

Just my 2 cents because I do sit in my sim for 6 +hours when I do the Atlantic!! even broadcasting my lat long reporting points on an "ultra-generic" HF radio to Gander or Shannon!!...which may totally distort my judgment and sanity on what is realistic and what's not !!
Cheers and welcome to the club!

You do that??? :shock::shock: I once asked the same question to Tim and he also said he sat there all the time even on very long flights. If I have to sit longer than ~ one hour, I have suicidal thoughts about the money I have already spent on this contraption just so I can monitor a few gauges, look at the nice FSX scenery and wait until I have something to do when I land. :roll: :D.

But to get back on topic, I have now completely changed my mind & now I think a generic sim is the way to go if you really enjoy the flying part. Especially with FSX I think you can have a lot of fun flying the different adventures low & slow, high & fast, right side up or upside down, propeller or jet or heli or whatever suits your particular mood that day.

I know this is not being a purist and I do understand your point about acquiring flying expertise in one particular type, but if that is not the main objective, I think a generic, adaptable sim is definitely the way to go in my books. As much as I enjoy the 737, I wish I could just skim the tree tops in an amphibian or loop the loop in a decathlon or whatever else. I can still do these things in my sim, but it really feels like overkill to have all this hardware when I'm flying an ultralight.

And yes, I do appreciate the fact that you can get quite busy if you fly a jet and you follow all the checklists, procedures etc and in that case, you really need a co-pilot as things can get quite hectic. I don't dispute this can be fun too, but in my books, if I were to do it all over again, I would go totally generic and enjoy all types of flying machines :D

Maurice

[Michael Carter]

Different folks want different things out of their sim. You all know where my passion lies and I wouldn't have it, or want it, any other way.

I want to do all of the busy work, the flying departures & approaches, SID's & STAR's (correctly, or as correctly as I can), the nav problems, etc. I'm not a button pusher, or a babysitter.

I still enjoy a hop in the 206 occasionally, but then I'm back to desktop flying, but still it's fun for awhile, but not like flying the 727.

[mauriceb]

I want to do all of the busy work, the flying departures & approaches, SID's & STAR's (correctly, or as correctly as I can), the nav problems, etc. I'm not a button pusher, or a babysitter.




And you can do all those things in a generic sim just as well and maybe even better if you use an add-on such as PMDG which, in its own way, works better than PM software. The actual sim enclosure & hardware is just a wrapper and not essential to follow the procedures.

But as you hinted, different strokes for different folks. Nothing wrong with your approach of course... whatever works for you is absolutely the right thing to do :D

Maurice

[Jackpilot]

Mau...
as you do not need that Throttle anymore with your Twin Rotax engine ULM
I'll gladly help you to get rid of that motorized contraption!!!

You guessed right, I love that kind of Flying!! Takes me a good 30 min to prepare my flight plan with maps, feed it into the CDU (used as a copilot, who cares about the bugs), go through the whole checklists, etc etc. and BTW all that cruising leaves all the time needed to crosscheck everything, figure out fuel, TOD, prepare a list of frequencies, study the STARS to be ready for a manual approach and missed app. Fun!

On the topic:
I do not see "generic" as "a cockpit for all categories of airplanes" but as a "freedom of design" opposed to slaving to replicate even the most questionnable idiosyncrasies of the original.
example 1:throttles...
The 737 NG uses a proven but protruding, antiquated, ugly, impractical quadrant with flimsy reversers. Look at the airbus, CRJ, Embraer throttles...neat & lean . So (lol:despite what I said above) I do not see the need to painfully replicate that old clunker in a "new generation" machine.
Example2: Yokes .
My NG has no yokes!!! but Sticks, a la Airbus. Why not? . I saved legroom, tons of money, time and hardware tuning,etc. It's ironical, Boing did not go the Sticks route to stay within budgets, and we spend fortunes to replicate this cumbersom system. (note that the huge military Boeing C17 has a big stick in front of the pilot.)

Angus built a perfectly "generic" twin engine JET. Can be anything in that category, but would not be so great as a twin piston commuter and not really fit for
an Extra 300 flight model .

Shannon is yelling over the HF...have to go....you have control!!

[Jackpilot]

Mau do not read me wrong...I admire your work !! (throttle) but not being smart enough to do the same, I have to make up with big theories!!
Cheers Pal!

[mauriceb]

Mau do not read me wrong...I admire your work !! (throttle) but not being smart enough to do the same, I have to make up with big theories!!
Cheers Pal!

Trust me Jack, I am far from offended by anything you or anyone else might say about my work or anything else for that matter. I just love this kind of friendly discussion and exchange of opinions.

I also like to reflect on my own experiences building a flight deck. I was talked out of building a generic deck and I loved it at first since this is what I thought I really wanted after all. I still love the 737 and frankly, I also loved the idea of impressing my friends with a full replica (within limits) or a real plane.

But what I thought I wanted at the beginning has changed. I can understand that you get a lot of satisfaction that comes from planning & executing a flight while staying as close to real procedures as possible. No argument there, BUT, if you really like that part, you would have to admit that doing 6 one hour flights would give you a lot more procedural time than one six hour flight.

And to get back to this particular topic, I just wanted to point out that the end result should/must be taken into account before embarking in this adventure of building a deck, be it accurate replica, generic or simply a desktop with many monitors and a collection of switches. It is very easy to get lured bu the idea of having a beautiful fight deck and overlook what you are goiing to do once you have it.

Not too long ago, I saw a post by Jytte who built a vey elegant geneic sim:
http://simpit.christrup.net . When I saw that, I really thought this is what I should have gone for. In that setup, I'm sure she can fly petty much anything she wants, pactice pocedures, do transatlantic flights if the mood strikes and whatever else she wants to fly.

Had I done that, I'm sure I would have done a lot more flying and much less fiddling with trivial details like my throttle for instance. I did start with a couple of sticks, and somewhere along the route, insanity struck me and I decided I wanted a more accurate replica. Sure, I like it now, but it does not make the flying part that much more enjoyable now that I got over the 'magic' of motion. It is nice, but I seldom even pay attention to that anymore.

Anyway, this is just food for thought for the oiginal post from Zoli?? I wish I had heard my opinion earlier on..I could have saved myself a lot of grief :D

Maurice

[murd0cun]

Hi Everyone!
I'm glad to see that I got some people interested in this and thank you for your posts.
I think I need to calm things a bit and explain a little more why did I ask this question.
My interest is to build something fast and cheap. I don't have the time and space to fill an entire room with panels, 2 chairs, 3 monitors...etc.
Right now if I wouldn't live in a country dried out by politicians and work like a slave many hours a day I would buy everything that I can buy from here: http://www.desktopaviator.com/ (ok maybe not the trim wheel :) )
I like these as they didn't put so much accent on the looks but on the functionality and they would just fit nice on a simple computer desk.
I would like to remember you that I specified that I will start with the keyboard chip method and just want to know from other builders if they recommend some good specific tutorials. Something like: "here it is the documentation that I liked and it worked for me".
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate and take in consideration every message that is posted in this thread.
Thanks again!
All the best!
Zoli

[magicaldr]

Hiya,

My two penny worth :) Desktop aviator are great in their way. I used their panel to start my poster based Piper Warrior II, in fact its still fitted. Despite liking the piper my stuff is really generic based, I fly with a stick most of the time, despite having a yoke in the cupboard, and my chair is just an office one. My stuff is limited to desktop only as I have to work and play at the same desk, again this prevents me getting to stuck on one aircraft, besides I like them all :) Although the warrior is a favorite, I suppose as I have flown it in real life.

One idea you might want to try after going through our excellent photo gallery is a visit to airliners.net, have a nose through the cockpit photo's and see what bits you like then include them in your ideas :D

I am another lover of Jytte's cockpit design. Putting the instruments on a second panel as she has is the way to go if you want to fly generic, you can do anything you want if you don't mask it. Even though I chose to put mine behind a 3mm mdf wooden mask. I like the look of, but it does limit what I can do. I know a Virtual Cockpit these days is great, and I fly in VC all the time. However having the instruments repeated life size on my 2nd panel really helps me. While real instruments look great, and I would love to have them, my monitor shows the correct airspeed markings for my favorite piper warrior III, or the SF-260. It can even work in a 747 if I ever wanted to fly one, although the instrument holes in my panel only really support GA style panels.

For more flexibility above Desktop Aviator I would consider Leo Bodnars interface card, he has designed one for the Desktop Aviator site so you can get it there as well. For me in the UK I want to avoid import duty so will by from Leo direct once I have saved up.

More expensive, but good and worth considering is the Go Flight stuff, solid and reliable plus gives feedback. I have a GF-45 and RP-48. With them I can handle all the radios, and even the autopilot. The feedback with being able to read off the radio frequency adds a lot to the realism.

I also use a very small keyboard which allows me access to all the keyboard shortcuts, being so small though it still feels part of a cockpit, not a computer. Its made by keysonic and you can get them at maplin:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=47322&criteria=keysonic&doy=24m7

Any really small keyboard works from my perspective :)

Good luck in your planning, a lot can be done with a decent set of pedals, a joystick, throttle, and a couple of monitors without any actual cockpit. Equally its amazing how quick you can knock things up out of 3mm MDF, you can see my latest attempt here: http://gacockpit.blogspot.com/