Same here, Zach! I just finished an hour - twenty from CYYJ to CYVR, via Whatcom and Pitt Meadows in the Carenado 172N, with two VORs, NO glideslope, NO autopilot, an ADF, a plan and a watch - at night, with Aussie Weather - 400' base, topping at 9k' - and no I didn't use Plan G, or any other box of tricks. I do it 'cos I like it, Aaron. Try it sometime, in an old clunker - you might enjoy it too!

That sort of flight is very rewarding. Recently I've found myself in the soup in the A2A COTS B377 a lot lately. Now that's a hand full! :(

I do it 'cos I like it, Aaron. Try it sometime, in an old clunker - you might enjoy it too!

I hope you aren't referring to me, because I have more flight time in my 185 and birddog than any other aircraft I own. And I own a lot of them. And when I'm flying the bigger iron I quite enjoy my 707, 727, 377, and DC-10, none of which have a single piece of glass among them. I never said I don't like the old complicated stuff driven by a pilots ability, I just said I don't look down on those that choose another path. We all fire up FS for different reasons and I have enough respect for people to choose their own without the need to assume they wish me to educate them on my preferences. I fly as I wish to, and everyone else is free to do the same.I'm dropping this line of discussion though as I've sidetracked this thread for something it doesn't deserve though. Here's to another quality classic when it comes out, and I hope those that enjoy this genre will have a respectable new offering.

Really starting to look forward to this release...any word of an SDK for it?

I think in the FS2Crew section one of the devs at least opened the communicative path for a dev to dev talk. I could be wrong though. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/362986-coolsky-dc9/page__pid__2264370#entry2264370

Wow lots of assumptions going on here. Such as "wanting an FMC = no pilot skills"? As if holding or intecepting a VOR radial is such a complicated task? Well it isn't. Barnstormer at least understood the question, thanks for actually reading it mate, but no, not all STAR waypoints in Europe have VOR radials associated with them, making it impossible to verify where you are in an RNAV approach with VOR navigation only.AFAIK there's no single approach that doesn't require RNAV in ENGM, look here: https://www.ippc.no/.../ENGM/engm.html. That's why I miss an FMC, it's not because I can't fly old school navigation (which I do in real life from time to time, but no PPL as of yet). I simply cannot fly to these airports in IMC without an FMC.If there's a way to land here in IMC with the DC9, please enlighten me, because the VC looks amazing. I'd hate to miss out.

Edited February 19, 201214 yr by 747-fan

On the online flying part, I never saw any facility taking things that serious and e.g. locking out some very welcome traffic. Means that if you fly the B377 to New York, they will take care of you either way. It's more of a communication issue, but vectors will always work. However, some programs like Aivlasoft EFB automatically add VOR references to any procedure description for example. So you get your radials and DME values, which should allow flying the stuff, depending on the equipment.I've operated the 707 with and without INS, same for the A300 and 727. Not a problem at all, but you'll receive some workload for sure. That's the fun part, right?

AFAIK there's no single approach that doesn't require RNAV in ENGM, look here: https://www.ippc.no/.../ENGM/engm.html. That's why I miss an FMC, it's not because I can't fly old school navigation (which I do in real life from time to time, but no PPL as of yet). I simply cannot fly to these airports in IMC without an FMC.

You can't apply modern navigational charting, standards and rules to flight as it was in the '60s and much of the '70's, driving a dc-9, dc-8, 707, Britannia, Trident, VC10, DC-6, etc, as INS had barely come out, VOR was becoming the standard, with NDB taking a supportive role. You certainly can fly all of those approaches without MFC's, WAAS, GPS's and so on, because it was done that way for two decades.

If there's a way to land here in IMC with the DC9, please enlighten me, because the VC looks amazing. I'd hate to miss out.

I have an: overlay RNAV STAR RWY 01L/R ENGM, from 2007 every single waypoint have nav aids radials/dme assigned to them, so theoretically you can fly them without an FMC, but it also states the following:ACFT without RNAV EQPT.At initial contact with ATCstate "NEGATIVE RNAV".Expect radar vectoring. :Whew:I will upload the chart when I have the opportunity. It would be very strange if you could not fly in to ENGM without RNAV EQPT nowdays.

Edited February 19, 201214 yr by Rodd

Looks GREAT!!!! I have more or less stopped flying the Super80 pro as I found the blank gauge problem too annoying. Other than that I really liked it as it is great on the FPS. I could overlook the flat look to the gauges if they can fix the blank gauge problem.

I'm not certain of an explicit SDK for the Coolsky "Classic -30" model, but Espen has been very helpful and accommodating when presented with questions and suggestions for add-on support.

I'm not certain of an explicit SDK for the Coolsky "Classic -30" model, but Espen has been very helpful and accommodating when presented with questions and suggestions for add-on support.

I am only really interested in FS2Crew support, and if they can work together with Mr. York, perhaps an SDK wouldn't be necessary. Coolsky could really have a unique product if they provide a highly authentic steam-gauge airliner with accurate systems and FS2Crew voice support. That combination would be the only one on the market as far as I know. That would be an awesome combination, and would really help reduce the pilot workload.

I really hope Coolsky does a good job with this one. A quality dc9 is very much needed. I'm not getting my hopes up though as the super series had some obvious bugs, but they did nothing to fix it. Redemption time. Coolsky needs to step it up on this one.

You can't apply modern navigational charting, standards and rules to flight as it was in the '60s and much of the '70's, driving a dc-9, dc-8, 707, Britannia, Trident, VC10, DC-6, etc, as INS had barely come out, VOR was becoming the standard, with NDB taking a supportive role. You certainly can fly all of those approaches without MFC's, WAAS, GPS's and so on, because it was done that way for two decades.

how can a plane thats not rnav capable fly an rnav arrival and/or approach. A lot if not almost every rnav arrival will have conventional arrival with the exact same routing and navaids. Only difference is that the conventional routing arrival will have the freqs and radials and all that jazz charted while the rnav wont have that stuff charted.....thats how it is in the states at least.So in other words......the dc-9 without an fms or gps or any other rnav equipment would havt file and /or fly a conventional arrival. One cant fly an rnav approach because what the pilot would need to navigate wouldnt be charted on said rnav app plate.

Wow lots of assumptions going on here. Such as "wanting an FMC = no pilot skills"? As if holding or intecepting a VOR radial is such a complicated task? Well it isn't. Barnstormer at least understood the question, thanks for actually reading it mate, but no, not all STAR waypoints in Europe have VOR radials associated with them, making it impossible to verify where you are in an RNAV approach with VOR navigation only.AFAIK there's no single approach that doesn't require RNAV in ENGM, look here: https://www.ippc.no/.../ENGM/engm.html. That's why I miss an FMC, it's not because I can't fly old school navigation (which I do in real life from time to time, but no PPL as of yet). I simply cannot fly to these airports in IMC without an FMC.If there's a way to land here in IMC with the DC9, please enlighten me, because the VC looks amazing. I'd hate to miss out.

the approaches are all loc and vor based......fly those with anything you want. The arrivals would be nearly impossible to fly the with conventional navigation equipment......hence why its rnav.

I have an: overlay RNAV STAR RWY 01L/R ENGM, from 2007 every single waypoint have nav aids radials/dme assigned to them, so theoretically you can fly them without an FMC, but it also states the following:ACFT without RNAV EQPT.At initial contact with ATCstate "NEGATIVE RNAV".Expect radar vectoring. :Whew:I will upload the chart when I have the opportunity. It would be very strange if you could not fly in to ENGM without RNAV EQPT nowdays.

the fact that you mention that its an overlay means that the rnav tag came after it was already a conventional nav arrival. So yes the freqs and other info would be already charted. However a brand new arrival suited for rnav equip wouldnt have that stuff charted making it impossible to fly with conventional nav equip.

the fact that you mention that its an overlay means that the rnav tag came after it was already a conventional nav arrival. So yes the freqs and other info would be already charted. However a brand new arrival suited for rnav equip wouldnt have that stuff charted making it impossible to fly with conventional nav equip.

In 1965, when the -9 began it's service, "RNAV" wasn't even in the vocabulary. Air navigation was done using 2 x VOR units (inc. ILS) and 2 x ADF units, with a weather radar. DME was a rarity. There were some airlines that used Doppler, (which had a nice, but unreliable moving map mounted on the instrument panel), and some which used INS. Oceanic traffic also had 2 x HF units. Transistors were a rarity, most avionics using tube technology and 'rotary transformers' to produce the required 115 and 200 volts power systems. One can technically say that "I cannot fly this approach because it doesn't have RNAV" when flying in one of the 129 that are still in service inthe real world, but I suspect they will have upgraded avionics suites installed, but this is a simulator and you can add equipment as you so desire, but if you want to simulate a generic 1968 DC-9 experience, then one has to ignore modern charts: they simply didn't exist 'back then'.

Edited February 20, 201214 yr by Paul J