Iron Knuckles DC9

[WAD3 0]

Can anyone with this package tell me if it has an INS system. Or is the only way to navigate from VOR to VOR. Just trying to find out. Also do you like the package I have RFP and really enjoy old school flying and thinking about getting a short haul type of aircraft.Thanks in advanceAndrwew

[Guest cw1011]

Nope, no INS. Just 2 VORs and 1 NBD. Just like the virtually every DC-9 and 727 delivered to US carriers in the 60s and 70s.

[Guest ha5mvo]

Mind you, this one was entitled (after release if I'm not mistaken) as an "entertainment Title".there are a couple of reviews, one over at flightsim.com - a very positive one, the other by a RW SAS pilot (at fsnordic) with quite an opposite opinion.My own opinion is closer to that of the swedish pilot, surely nowhere near RFP, but I suggest you read these reviews and get your own impression.cheers//Mike

[Guest J_Niny]

Hi Mike,could you post the Link to the FSNordic review, please? I just tried to find the review in the FSNordic, and I didn

[Guest cw1011]

I have the plane and enjoy it immensly. It delivers what the developer said it would and nothing more. A nice simulation of what it was like to fly a jetliner in the 1960s and '70s before the 757 and 767 brought the first semi-glass cockpits to the commercial fleets. They took the same philosophy as Richard Probst did with his terrific 727 panel. It's a flying simulator, not a systems sim. It does not have the systems complexity of PIC, and some of the electrical systems don't work as they do in the real plane. Some of this is coding issues in Flight Sim and some decisions were likely based on a cost/benefit analysis. Some folks have tried denegrate the whole package because one or two of the systems bus switches don't work as they do on the real thing and therefore it "isn't as real as it gets" - but I don't think that is particularly fair. For me, it's a good comprimise between systems and flying - which I think is fairly represented in the price. I'm not interested in a full systems sim because I don't have a co-pilot to help manage the workload (havn't managed to convince my girlfriend to take on that role yet...). I find it overwhelming and frustrating to try to get all the overhead switches and the ATC calls that a co-pilot normally would cover at the same time I'm trying to fly the correct departure profile out of a crowded hub airport on a SID that requires me to keep an eye on DME and the second VOR to know when I've hit the waypoint for my first turn towards the airway. That's as unrealistic for me as the lack of systems integrity is for the purist. I also have limited time so I have no desire to sit around for 10 minutes waiting for the INS to spin up - I never do that in PIC. I usually only have an hour or so for flying in a given day.Captain Sim gets high marks for trying to address this issue with their automated co-pilot program in the 727. I'm not sure how successful they were (I don't have teh three-holer), but I appreciate them trying to address the one person flight sim vs. the three people in real life issue because no-one else has. This plane does require you to do a lot of planning, which is great fun. Especially when you have a complex SID or STAR to fly on departure and approach. You will certainly get your money's worth if you have FS Navigator or have invested in charts. The flight model is very stable and a blast to fly. It is pretty much on the numbers if you use N1% for throttle settings (EPR does not match the published tables which isn't surprising as EPR is not modeled in the sim) so you can use flap and thrust tables widely available on the internet. It is not easy to land well like the real thing - you have to really watch your weight and speeds - but when you do, watching on replay is a thing of beauty.Andrew Herd wrote the review of Flightsim.com. I like his writing - he's a doctor in real life and is very objective. I went looking for the SAS pilot's review but couldn't find it on FS Nordic of the SAS DC-9 captain's site which has a wealth of information. So, if you want a sim with true systems fidelity, don't buy the DC-9 -you are bound to be disapointed. But if you want plane that will really make you sharpen up your hand-flying and flight planning skills, you will not be disapointed (and you won' have to pay extra for liveries like you do with Phoenix systems).Colin

[SteveLewis 0]

I don't think that anyone except a real-world DC9 pilot even notices the few descrepancies from the real thing. I sure don't. The Flight1 Iron Knuckles is a blast to fly and setting up the cockpit switches and systems gives you a "feel" of the real thing. It's not perfect but, then again, neither are any of the other sims including the 767 PIC. The Iron Knuckles is fairly easy to fly and not too difficult to land correctly if you watch yourself. Besides, you can use the IK panel with the new FFX/SGA DC9-51s if you want. I do and it makes flying in Hawaii with the Hawaiian -51 a real adventure.Steve

[Guest]

And that real pilot might well only THINK there's a discrepancy because the aircraft actually modelled might well have different systems from the one he's used to flying.On a model that's been around so long there are more different cockpit layouts than there are operators...

[WAD3 0]

Well thanks for the info. I would say I dont need the total system complexity as in RFP (which I really like) but something in the middle and a bit of a shorter range. I may get this if I can find the CD somewhere. Also any other opinions I would like to hear.Andrew

[badderjet 181]

Sorry for the dumb question - but what is RFP?

[Guest cw1011]

Ready for Pushback 747-200 series from VMAX.

[Guest ha5mvo]

err...did a serch...couldn't find it myself...what I do remember though is the pilots name: Stellan Hilmerby.

[WAD3 0]

The go ahead link for any ambitious RFP painters.http://www.panelshop.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/d...rum=DCForumID22Andrew

[Guest Seat 7]

AndrwewYou can get a fantastic dc-9 panel and SAS aircraft here from the SAS pilot who wrote the negativ review. Very nice! http://www.bahnhof.se/~classic/Thomas ESNN