FlightFX Hawker 800XP Review: Take control of the ram horns on this surprising “flying tank”

What is a study level aircraft? If you ask different people, you’ll get different answers. The general consensus is that a “study-level” add-on in Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS) is an extremely detailed aircraft or system simulation, built to replicate a real-world vehicle with maximum fidelity, meaning almost every switch, circuit breaker, and underlying computer logic works just like the real thing. And we did have many aircraft designed like this for MSFS, even though only a few could claim to actually achieve that “maximum fidelity”. The biggest question, however, is who do these “study-level” aircraft cater to? The general simmer? The hardcore simmer? The pilot in training seeking a cheap learning tool? The “rivet-counter” detail obsessed analyst?

This long preamble pretty much introduces my constant question about the new FlightFX Hawker 800XP when flying it these days. Who is this airplane for? Is it really a “study-level” aircraft? When introduced to the airplane, the FlightFX team explained that, aside from their technical team, this add-on was developed with real life pilots advisory, meaning that most, if not all, systems and logics, including flight behaviour, were developed with the advice of pilots. This generated a very, very in-depth simulation that truly intends to mimic the real life Hawker 800XP. If it doesn’t reach the status of “study-level”, it will get pretty, pretty close to it, once you have certified pilots involved. You see, they do need to “sign below” as subject matter experts (SMEs).

Needless to say, there will always be “sim-isms”. In other words, the simulator will always make sure to keep the simulation aspect in check, by constantly reminding us of its own limitations. FlightFX is no stranger to MSFS, by all means. In their portfolio you’ll find the fantastic best selling FlightFX Cessna Citation X (recently improved to V2) that topped the charts for months in the Microsoft Marketplace. You will also find other (milder) success stories from them, the Honda Jet HA420 and the Piaggio P.180 Avanti II. All of these have been praised enough, assuring us that FlightFX has a very good background to finally dive deep into the realm of “maximum fidelity”.

A troubled history

The FlightFX Hawker has been in production for quite some time. I don’t know exactly for how long, but the team mentions “years” in the making. You probably never heard anything about it, since FlightFX has kept it very well under wraps for all its production time. In this industry, this is a rare decision, mostly because companies need to generate the necessary hype. On the other hand, the Hawker 800XP is not exactly a “hot airplane” in the market. Bigger brands like Embraer, Cessna or Gulfstream would certainly generate more interest, no doubt. But you should never judge a project by the company’s size. This is even more important if the history of this unique airplane is so troubled.

The Hawker 800 didn’t begin as that. If you want to trace its origins, you’ll need to go back to the early 1960s when the British company de Havilland designed an obscure project called the DH.125 Jet Dragon. It was very similar to today’s jet, but it was, of course, still very classic in concept. By 1960, de Havilland had already become part of the Hawker Siddeley group, and launched production of the aircraft, renaming it to Hawker Siddeley HS.125, dropping the mythical animal callsign. This setting, of course, didn’t last long because in 1977 the group joined the famous British Aerospace group or BAe, renaming the plane, once more, to British Aerospace 125.

But the story certainly does not end there. When the jet was in full production, the American Beechcraft started to assemble an export version of the airplane for the United States, changing, yet again, the airplane’s name to Beechcraft-Hawker BH.125. Then, in 1994, BAe sold its entire aviation business to the Raytheon corporation (that already had bought the Beechcraft Corporation), introducing dramatic changes to the project and to its production line. By 1996, the Hawker was being assembled in the United States, while many parts were being produced in the UK after a huge divesting back to Hawker Beechcraft. After a long run, though, in 2013, Hawker Beechcraft declared bankruptcy and the Hawker 800, along with its variants -750, -850 and -900, along with several sub-variants, including military, was completely discontinued.

Currently, the ownership of rights and maintenance assurances (though not in production) is now in the hands of the very capable Textron Corporation, the parent company of Cessna and Bell Helicopters. Needless to say, being handed over to so many hands would certainly make any project chaotic. Surprisingly, though, the Hawker 800 is still considered one of the most successful British commercial aircraft ever built. In ’90s, the 125 was also “the world’s longest in-production business jet” (quoted from Flying Magazine). 650 Hawkers in total were produced. Although we don’t really know how many -800s were specifically produced from this large number, they were the most popular variants, with several upgraded revisions, including the simulated XP we’ll talk about.

“Would you like some Champagne, sir?”

The Hawker 800XP is a mid-range, mid-sized twinjet, aimed at the corporate branch of aviation, which is another, fancier way of saying this is a typical ‘bizjet’. FlightFX designed this aircraft with the original overall design -800XP, which means it won’t have the modernized cabin and advanced avionics or carry the striking winglets that increased performance of the -850XP. This is, however, the most modern -800XP bringing it very close to the other business jets of its mid-size class. No, it’s not sporting any of those modern huge glass screens with pretty graphics other planes of its class have. But it does integrate digital avionics, with a fully functional Flight Management System (FMS), along with some interior comfort and soundproofing upgrades since the original -800, making it fairly modern.

The XP also stands for “eXtended Performance”, meaning that this plane got an extra boost in its powerplant. The two Honeywell TFE731-5BR turbofan engines can generate 4600lbs of thrust each, giving the airplane a maximum cruise speed around 445+ knots or Mach 0.80, with a service ceiling as high as 51.000ft (limited to 41.000ft due to airframe limitations) and an average range of up to 2500 nm (4700 km). Yes, there are more impressive performance specs in some competitors, but consider this a 1960’s design with retrofitted avionics, improved engines and a modernized cabin. These are very, very impressive specs and I can very easily see why it was so popular during its production peak and why so many examples are still flying to this day.

The Hawker series had this reputation of being very reliable. We will see some of its little quirks and small annoyances (more on that next), because ergonomics and automation have done so much since the 60’s and even since its modernization in the early 2000s. But pilots do love this little plane and there are reasons for it. The most important item for a commercial plane is the ability to carry full weight and full fuel capacity. We all know this isn’t possible in most airframes, but the Hawker can actually take a full passenger load and full tanks. And it’s not like you need to burn fuel to be able to land on that small airfield. Due to its “lift dump” system, it can deploy spoilers and flaps at an impressive 75º angle, to really make it land (and stop) in short fields.

Passengers also enjoy a surprisingly ample cabin, while also feeling very safe flying it. You see, it has this reputation of being a “flying tank”, given that, even beyond the average airframe life, it’s still a “very tough cookie”. It “feels” very stable in turbulence and the heavy build with solid-milled wings and mechanical linkages makes it very forgiving to some “heavier handling”. This plane’s tough reputation was solidified in 1988, when a Botswana Air Wing BAe 125-800 carrying the country’s president was hit by an air-to-air missile fired from an Angolan MiG-23. The missile tore the starboard engine clean off, and the crew still managed to land safely afterwards.

The quirks and features you’ll learn to dismiss

Before I go into what I liked the most, I’ll start with some of those “annoyances”. Mind you, this is not my first time with the Hawker 800 series, I’ve flown it for a few hundred hours in the old (but gold) Fly! simulator (that I’m sure only a handful of you guys would know, thus making me a “simming dinosaur”). So I got used to some of the “quirks” this plane has, while others were just not simulated at the time. Furthermore, these are not FlightFX design decisions, these are actually mostly de Havilland/Hawker Siddeley’s decisions. Remember that, back then, the airplanes were not designed with ergonomics in mind. Well, not everything in them was, at least.

I’ll start by mentioning this EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrument System) is not at all like the modern Garmin systems you’ve seen in the recent competition for this aircraft. You will notice that the MFDs aren’t touch screens, for example, not a common thing back in the 90’s when this glass cockpit was designed. This leads to many of its controls becoming dispersed around the main panel, therefore creating some potential confusion to the inexperienced pilot. There are also a few interactions that aren’t really that intuitive, requiring some procedure reading, especially involving the FMS operation.

Other design quirks are just strange. The entire Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) operation panel is behind the captain’s seat, on a side panel. This forces the pilots to pivot around, maybe even stand up (the captain side, at least) to operate it. In modern jets, the APU is located on the right hand panel on the co-pilot seat or even on the overhead panel. But, hey, did you notice this? A mid-sized jet with an operational APU! Not all models in this class even have an APU. It may have been an afterthought, but it’s there.

Other “afterthoughts” are the Fuel panel and de-ice fluid refill. Yes, not all bizjets of this size do have a fuel panel, usually relying on a simplified intake. And finding a modern plane with a fluid de-icing system is also a rare thing. But the point isn’t the functionality. When de Havilland/Hawker Siddeley designed these two items, they really didn’t think this through. They probably just put these panels “where they could”, not really where they would like to. The fuel intake panel is located in the overhead bin above the entrance wardrobe. The nozzle to refill the de-ice fluid is right next to the door entry, up the stairs on the left. Both inside the cabin. Yes. Not the best place for either, and both really force the pilots to stand up to operate them… or the ground crew to get those filthy boots on the carpet.

Some other little “strange” decisions are much less relevant, but still strange. There is no external access to some luggage/cargo compartment. Instead, the luggage is stored internally… inside the loo compartment. I am not joking! Behind the vanity mirror where you can watch yourself… huh… enthroned… you’ll find a very cosy luggage and cargo compartment for your carry-on, backpack and… not much else. Forget those Golf clubs you were taking for the weekend. Unless you can “uninvite” one of your friends and take that seat for the clubs, of course. (sorry, Steve, my Golfing is more important!).

Just because it’s got a small trunk, doesn’t mean it can’t carry a lot of “baggage”

Yeah, you probably know by now I like puns…

Enough of the real plane. Let’s talk about the simulation replica. And indeed it features a lot, and I mean a lot, of big and small features. Much more than creating something “unseen”, just like what they did for their Cessna Citation X V2 that I enjoy so much, FlightFX preferred to explore all the possibilities Microsoft Flight Simulator offers. You will see this add-on doesn’t attempt to surprise you with some fancy new capability, but actually takes inspiration from, and improves on, a lot of MSFS’s own features, as well as other third party ideas. Most of the time, we don’t really want to see some new effects or animations, we want everything to work properly and be true to life (to some extent).

The external visual model is absolutely great. It has a handful of optional liveries, all created with high resolution, feature many effects and even include dynamic registration on the engines, vertical fin or both. It takes advantage of all the latest innovations and visual techniques you’ve seen in this industry, including some nice visual effects. Just remember that FlightFX recommends you do not use any visual or performance enhancing external tools, at least for now, because it may interfere with its advanced flight dynamics. To appreciate the 3D model, take advantage of the interactive walkaround features, like the chocks, covers and pin interaction, something you can also operate on the onboard EFB (more on that later).

The interaction is also available around the cabin, where you can open or close pretty much every single cupboard or closet. Curiously, only the main closet is not interactive, but what would you want in there, anyway? Hide? Be happy you can even open the small closet for the toilet paper, if you’re so keen on exploring. I sincerely enjoyed the overall lighting, obviously more evident at night time. A special word of appreciation for the amazing sound effects, again another fine creation by Boris Audio Works, who is becoming that “go to guy” for high end sound kits.

Of course the main show is happening up front in the cockpit. Before going into specifics, I will mention that this is a fully interactive cockpit… to some extent. There are several minor exceptions, like the oxygen masks, but others are significant, like the circuit breakers located on the walls behind the co-pilot seat. That single item makes me wonder if this plane does indeed fall into the “study-level” range we talked about in the beginning. Without “CB popping”, can you really train abnormal procedures? It’s not just about the normal procedures, an “educational” aircraft needs to emulate failures and mishaps too.

But, of course, the average simmer will be much more interested in interacting with the main panel, overhead and pedestal. All the essential operations in this cockpit are available. You’ll have a hard time finding any button or switch that doesn’t have any interaction. And each one has the correct logic attached to it. I won’t bore you with too many specifics, don’t hover above that “close window” button just yet. I’ll just say that following the real airplane manual (or just the extensive 464-page FlightFX manual), you’ll understand this isn’t a “half-baked” add-on. This is a work of passion, visibly focused on making this as realistic as possible. And that brought me hope to have that “study-level” simulation after all.

“Can I check my emails on this tablet?”

The Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) is now becoming a de facto standard when it comes to add-ons to MSFS. Some are more elaborate and more useful than others, indeed, but when you don’t have them, you do feel their absence. FlightFX’s previous EFBs were not at all the best, to be honest. But with the Citation X V2 and now with the Hawker 800XP, the company understood the message. The cockpit tablets are now truly a pilot’s companions, offering charts, performance, briefings, even weather, along with some settings and options for the add-on itself.

FlightFX took it a little further, though. Not only you do have your charts implementation (able to choose between the default LIDO charts or those from your Navigraph subscription), the essential SimBrief flightplan implementation with complete transference of data and weights to the aircraft and to the FMS, the very important flight map (that actually interacts with the cabin screens), a weights manager, ground handling and add-on settings and options menus are included. But, more importantly, you’ll find a Systems page and this is an impressive item.

If you want to “study” a plane, you’ll need to look into lots of tables and schematics. In the official product manual, you will be able to find all the relevant performance and limitation tables, which double as beautiful bedtime reading. But if you want to observe how most things work, the EFB will give you an interactive set of detailed schematics for the Electrical, Fuel, Pneumatic, Hydraulic and Engines, as well as a service and maintenance panel. This is not the first time we’ve seen this type of schematics, for sure, but it sure is impressive how detailed they are.

Be mindful there are some important items that need to be managed. Servicing needs to be done, engine health deteriorates, even dirt accumulates over time. There are also failures that you can trigger, some are more trivial while others are more complex. You can set all these realism factors in the EFB, turning on or off the engine degradation, the component failures due to wear and tear and even the persistence of fluids and failures between power-on/shutdown cycles. FlightFX wants you to have a unique plane that reacts to your operation, not just an ‘always-pristine’ jet every time you sit in that cockpit. It’s up to you to accept that challenge.

“What the heck is that yoke all about?“

Yes, another quirk of this particular aircraft is the opinion dividing yoke, that the makers call the “Ram’s Horn” yoke, but I like to call it the “bicycle” yoke. You probably know Embraer adopted this design with some proprietary nuances. But the most famous airplane to sport this unique controller was the Concorde… which makes me believe someone in the British aircraft manufacturing business just wanted to “enforce” this design in the pilot’s preferences. Given the fact only Embraer continues with this design, one can say they probably succeeded. Once more, however, this is a design quirk of the original plane, not at all FlightFX’s choice.

But, picking up on the “ram’s horn” is truly a great introduction to your first flight. The “ram” here stands for the many years of accumulated evolution in aircraft simulation. You’ll be literally grabbing its “horns” by putting aside all the automations you learned to fly with and go “hands on”. The first thing I advise you to do is to turn off failures and accumulated wear and tear for obvious reasons, you want a “fault free” plane to learn it on its basis. Then, I suggest toggling a couple of features, at least until you fully understand this plane’s idiosyncrasies. These are optional items that I realised were necessary in the very first few hours learning how to operate this plane. These options are on the EFB preferences and you can turn them on or off at any point in time.

The first suggestion is to turn on the optional auto-throttle system (ATS) module. By default, it’s turned off since the ATS system was not a standard on the real airplane at all. It was an aftermarket retrofit that some owners decided to install, but the original planes relied solely on manual control. Throttle management in this plane is not really complicated, it’s just another layer of complication in a plane that can become a bit overwhelming at times. Remember, you’re flying solo here and every automation to help you during the most complex stages does help. If you choose not to have it, you may encounter overspeed or stall situations, simply because you didn’t adjust throttle properly.

The other suggestion I’ll make is to turn off the Advanced Flight Dynamics in the first few flights. Trust me on this one, these flight dynamics are awesome and you will want to have them. I honestly think you should fly with them on… but not at first. You see, these dynamics are great, representing how external forces realistically interact with the plane. However, deploying flaps and feeling the buffet, turbulent air that will make your plane shake or even depart flight (wake turbulence), the stall buffet, the advanced inertia and all the effects, can generate feedback you may not want while learning how to fly the Hawker. Do turn it back on later, but not while you’re on “training wheels”.

Just to reinforce this point above: The Advanced Flight Dynamics are a highlight of this product. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this type of advanced reactions. This is the work of FlightFX team member Marwan Gharib, and it debuted in the FlightFX Honda Jet to great acclaim. I didn’t have direct contact with that add-on so this was my first ever interaction with it and I was absolutely, positively surprised by it. It is the benchmark from now on for all other developers to claim to model advanced flight dynamics. My suggestion just comes from my personal experience while flying in one hand, the manual on the other, and looking up to see my plane depart flight due to an AI A320 that crossed my path ahead, ending my departure right there.

“Look at all those buttons and switches!!! Can I press them? All of them? At once?”

The Hawker 800XP is a very, very simple airplane to fly, but that simplicity is buried under a lot of complication. When modern “bizjets” are all complex airplanes buried under simplifications, this one took another route. And let me tell you, I was somewhat frustrated to find some unnecessary complexities and a couple of bugs to make things a bit worse. I was quite surprised FlightFX did deliver a very, very polished and robust testing build before release and, of course, they were working overtime to fix these small items before it reached the public.

The MFDs are a good example of how complexity can hide simplicity in plain sight. The interaction with them is too complicated, having a main interaction panel on the left hand side panel of the captain side, but also on the top glareshield. This division created so much confusion in my tests that I had to read the manual multiple times in order to memorise procedures. You can select the navigation source on the glareshield panel, but then the interaction for the menu and charts is on the left. Sounds simple, right? Except the menus aren’t exactly the same. And I am still wondering why you have MFD pushbuttons on the bezel if they have limited actions. Oh, did I mention you have more MFD interaction on the FMS itself? Yes, complexity kills vibes, sometimes.

Speaking of the FMS, you have two Flight Management Control (FMC) units that can be operated separately. Funny enough, the Captain side MFD seems to be mostly dedicated to navigation but watching videos of real life flights, the co-pilot FMC seems mostly dedicated to radio tuning. You see, there are no radio panels to be found, there’s a standby radio on the co-pilot side, sure, but blink and you’ll probably miss it on the corner. All the relevant tuning is done on the FMC and that will inevitably somewhat limit the second FMC usage. Otherwise, radios, transponder or TCAS, will not be interactive. Needless to say, that can be a problem in controlled airspaces.

The Flight Guidance System (FGS) along the FMS is, of course, the core of the autopilot system, completely managing your airplane in the essential climb, cruise and approach phases. It has that layout you’ve probably seen on most General Aviation airplanes, a bit more complex than modern FCUs (Airbus) or MCPs (Boeing). I honestly prefer this more hands-on approach to how vertical speed or lateral navigation is handled. The only downside to it is that you don’t have digital screens for the values or even any condition lights, those are reserved for the Primary Flight Display (PFD).

Operating the FGS and the FMS is nothing you’ve not seen before. With the option to fully send the SimBrief flight plan automatically to these systems automatically, you’ll see everything preset for you. The only exception is the need to insert OAT and complete weight & balance with the block fuel, in order to calculate performance correctly. You can, of course, ignore this automation and do this yourself, which is something I honestly advise you do a couple of times to understand how all this works in case SimBrief importing fails. In fact, the manual states this can happen occasionally with some wrong or missing waypoints. Do understand how to handle this before it happens.

One thing that I missed on the EFB is a performance calculator. I know the FMS does the V Speed calculations quite competently, both for the take-off and the approach. However, there is no calculation for the trim setting. You do have a “green band” on the trim wheel indicator, but that’s a very vague value to just “put in the ball park”. The plane is very forgiving to trimming, fortunately, but a simple performance calculator would be awesome to just know the correct value. The same with the V-Speeds, by the way. Even though the FMS does this quite well, I would still like to calculate variations, like wet, dry or ice runways, take off from intersections or selection of landing distance calculation to try to get to certain exits.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, don’t worry! I’ve never left a passenger up there, ever!”

Complexities aside, flying the Hawker 800XP is an awesome experience. Don’t get fooled by the airplane’s size, by the way. This doesn’t “feel” like a small “fighter jet” like some other planes of its class. It is quite reactive and responsive, just as you’d expect it, but somehow acts like a “big” jet. Especially with the advanced dynamics on, you’ll notice that strong winds, some turbulent clouds and even the little mishaps you provoke by exceeding the plane’s aerodynamic limitations, barely make a “dent” on this shiny little bird. Like its reputation, this is a “flying tank” in all aspects, even when you do that fortuitous “hard landing” you always deny you do, turning around to your guests and saying, “butter, right?” Everyone frowns, you sweat, the plane holds.

I did several flights, mostly short or mid hops around some of Europe’s most well known airports. My experience was great, through and through, I sincerely enjoyed every flight when it came to flight preparation, management and overall procedures. ILS and RNAV approaches are a breeze, I didn’t miss the usual automations we come to enjoy on other simulations and if these were the last lines of my review, you’d be running towards the Microsoft Marketplace with that credit card at hand. But hold short of that runway, buddy. I’ve not finished here.

I can’t go around the already mentioned “complications” this plane offers. FlightFX did a tremendous job making all these systems come to life, quirks and all. You will encounter non-forced issues and errors if you mishandle the plane. You will get the proper warnings if you fail to follow procedures. That’s great and I loved the immersion. But, to simply add a simple chart to the ND, attempt to navigate it or even replace it, to customize your PFD or ND symbology and make it “yours”, was an incredibly complex task, demanding some trial and error. I also encountered a small bug that worsened this interaction that compounded some of my frustration. At the time of writing this review, the team was working to release a fix for this little item, but I think this isn’t enough.

It is a bit of a more complex topic to talk about. I am unfamiliar with how all currently flying 800XPs work, so I won’t say FlightFX did anything wrong. But I do know some current planes have touchscreen retrofits. Is that a proper justification to “change” these deep logics? I am unsure, I am not even sure if these touchscreens would definitely remove the little interaction annoyances. However it’s arguable that some real life panel complexities on some older planes are not compatible with modern simulators, using mostly mouse clicking interaction. I wouldn’t suggest ‘touchscreens’ by default for this plane, which would be unrealistic, but I would offer them as an option, or at least provide some kind of ‘adapted’ interaction to make operation less cumbersome.

Of course, all this depends on several factors, it’s not just a matter of adapting to the audience. Maybe the team only had access to this specific model documentation and/or panel data. Maybe this particular retrofit wouldn’t justify the focus shift. Maybe. But we’ve seen that sometimes adaptability needs to be included in these projects, for the sake of the user’s “quality of life”. Can you imagine if Synaptic or iniBuilds only allowed the realistic trackball interaction on their A220 and A350/A380’s, instead of the current touchscreen(ish) logic? It’s not realistic “per se” but it adapted to the realities of current flight simulation. And it is working… I don’t want a freaking trackball!

What would I do in this case? I don’t know. I fly these planes and write (a lot) about them. I just feel like the interaction with the MFDs on the real plane is much smoother using the hardware control knobs and the directional switches. In the simulation, it sometimes frustrates and makes us take our eyes off the screen just to find the correct clickable spot, while overcomplicating something that should be quick, intuitive and user friendly. Fortunately, that’s the only thing I struggled with; unfortunately, it was a thing I struggled with when all else was so good.

Final Thoughts

So, let’s address that point I mentioned in the beginning. Is the new FlightFX Hawker 800XP truly a “study-level” plane? It pretty much depends on your definition of what that really is. For me, a truly “study level” aircraft is simply not available at this commercial simulator level. In my personal view, it doesn’t just depend on the software logics, it also depends on its interaction and pilot’s “feel”. So, we may never get an actual “true to life” add-on in Microsoft Flight Simulator at all. At least in the full definition of this expression.

What about in the usual definition of “study-level” the community uses? That’s also hard to answer. If you consider a “study-level” plane to be strictly respectful to the airplane’s logics, including all its quirks and features that may raise your eyebrows a lot, then yes, this is it. It can truly depict the real Hawker 800XP’s systems, operation and even failures and some abnormal procedures. It can be both forgiving or punishing, depending on how you handle it and how you want your simulation sessions to be. And for most, that’s the only thing they need. But for the extreme ends of the flight simulator community, things aren’t as clear.

For the extreme hardcore simmer, maybe even the pilot that truly wants absolutely “everything” to have a reaction, clearly a minority, maybe it will come up short of that ‘study level’. Some items and most of the circuit breakers aren’t simulated, meaning you can’t fully simulate abnormal procedures. Perhaps they’ll enjoy the extensive manual, the performance tables, the schematic panels, the amazing flight dynamics and even the nuisances that the original plane does have. It’s only arguable if these will ever be satisfied at all, but maybe they’ll come close.

On the other hand, the casual user doesn’t even know what CBs are for, he’ll find this plane somewhat too complex, having way too many little features and procedures to make it a bit cumbersome. Why is there a fuel panel in the cabin? Why must I fill de-icing fluid myself? Why must I overhaul my engines? FlightFX thought about these users, arguably a fair majority of the audience, since all of these features can be toggled off or automated. Even SimBrief can swiftly automate almost all of the FMS operation and you can add an unrealistic Auto-Throttle System. But the plane will still be quirky and a bit cumbersome for some.

In the end, it all comes down to one honest set of questions to help you make a decision: Do you want a new plane that doesn’t “fit” in the modern day “all automatic, all simplified” avionics but is still modern enough for the current digital skies? Are you willing to just accept the little annoyances the original plane has that FlightFX was adamant in making it “as real as possible”, sometimes ignoring modern time ergonomics? Do you like reading manuals that defy modern bed-time romances? Then the answer is obvious, dive into it.

But hold that weird looking yoke up if you are expecting a simplified plane, especially if you’ve only flown other modern “bizjets” with fancier looking gizmos to make your life easier. Even with some automations, this plane demands a decent degree of dedication, something that is only achieved after some reading and some persistence. There’s nothing wrong with that, in fact, I would argue all complex modern addons should influence you to study them fully for the ultimate experience. But if you’re the kind of guy that will immediately look for the mentioned toilet paper compartment before you even read the manual, I’ll warn you the learning curve can be steep.

Verdict: 9/10 (Highly Recommended)