Sign in to follow this  
ohsirus

FlyJSim 737 has landed!

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Thats not the 737, its the 732.

What do you mean? It is the 737-200!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops weird, upon looking at that video I was expecting the 737 like the one from PMDG, is this some old model? I got excited for nothing. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops weird, upon looking at that video I was expecting the 737 like the one from PMDG, is this some old model? I got excited for nothing. :(

 

Lol, you do know that a company called Boeing, not PMDG created 737s long before PMDG's NGX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that, but when I read your thread I was expecting the 737 NG, not 737-200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 737-200 was / is a great airliner.

 

A friend who "glides" with me has more than 4000hrs logged in 732s, and he tells me mo other 737 felt as perfecto do hand fly, manage, master, than the 737-200.

 

The FlyJSim 732 will probably, like their 727s, be a charm to hand fly too, I guess....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops weird, upon looking at that video I was expecting the 737 like the one from PMDG, is this some old model? I got excited for nothing. :(

 

Oh ... I like such statements which imply somewhat like "... the 737 NG is the one and only interesting aircraft, all others are boring and 'nothing' " :O :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ... I like such statements which imply somewhat like "... the 737 NG is the one and only interesting aircraft, all others are boring and 'nothing' " :O :ph34r:

+1!

Whithout the original 737 series and its success, there would not be a NG today. And raw data flying is the real deal. Every serious simmer should know how to do that! And not to forget, that it is some serious fun! The B732 is a man's plane! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And... flying a 732 was a lot more like flying!, with modern airbuses on the opposite extreme...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own the 732 because it's to close to the 722 imo. But +1 for the good old birds. Navigate on radios only and do as much flying without autopilot. Big fun and the real flying that is. NWA 722's, you are missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how are the frames? are about the same of the 727? if so, I'll be happy with that when I buy this product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered how you would fly these planes which only have basic radio nav equipment on them (no FMS) on online networks such as VATSIM or IVAO. How would you file a flight plan considering you have to use routes that can only be used by modern RNAV-capable aircraft? Would the additional CIVA INS that you can install be able to handle this? I notice the few B732's and 722's still flying today have been retrofitted with an FMS to allow this.

 

Also how would you follow terminal procedures such as SID's and STAR's if a lot of them are now RNAV-only? Would you just request vectors from ATC?

 

I have the FlyJSim 727 but have never flown it online as I find it could be a bit daunting just doing VOR to VOR in case I mess something up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered how you would fly these planes which only have basic radio nav equipment on them (no FMS) on online networks such as VATSIM or IVAO. How would you file a flight plan considering you have to use routes that can only be used by modern RNAV-capable aircraft? Would the additional CIVA INS that you can install be able to handle this? I notice the few B732's and 722's still flying today have been retrofitted with an FMS to allow this.

 

Also how would you follow terminal procedures such as SID's and STAR's if a lot of them are now RNAV-only? Would you just request vectors from ATC?

 

I have the FlyJSim 727 but have never flown it online as I find it could be a bit daunting just doing VOR to VOR in case I mess something up.

You can but requires a lot of preparation before hand. Most airways are starting or ending on VORs and the waypoints between are a distance from a VOR. Skyvector is very helpful to plan your flight.

 

Have to check all waypoints along your route and figure out the VOR junctions (radials, distances, etc.). You mind find it harder than just punch a few airways/waypoints on an FMC, but on the other hand you will learn better your route and what will come up during flight. I suggest you to start with few sort flights with easy departures and arrivals and to progress to more complicated. It is moooore rewarding that way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is it written that you must have RNAV capability? Here's a shared cockpit flight on PilotEdge with the 737-200. We filed /A for the equipment suffix from SNA to SFO. The route was CHAN1.RZS J501 BSR.BSR2.

 

The VOR transmission distances aren't quite accurate for some of the VOR's, but that can easily be tweaked in the nav.dat file to bring the transmission distance closer to real world levels, especially for the VORs that are used to define the high enroute structure (Jet airways).

 

You hear two voices, plus the ATC. The british sounding guy is the pilot flying, the Canadian guy is the pilot not flying. He's providing me with basic instruction on the systems as it's my first time ever loading up the airplane.

 

Takeoff is at about the 25min mark.

 

Here's the video:

 

It's entirely possible to fly online, and real world without RNAV.

 

Btw, this plane is a must have. It flies very nicely and the avionics keep you engaged throughout the flight. While I do love flying the CRJ-200, the simple fact is that watching the airplane perfectly fly the route loaded into the FMS doesn't leave much to the imagination.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need RNAV capability in many places in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the tips. I was under the impression that these days it might be a requirement to have RNAV-capable aircraft when flying high altitude airways especially considering that whenever I look at routes on FlightAware they're always coded that way as well as all the photos I've seen of old 727 and 737-200 cockpits where they've had an FMS installed on them.

 

I flew the 727 last night from Sydney (YSSY) to Adelaide (YPAD) using the following route.

 

KAT1.KAT H44 AD DCT

 

I use PFPX for flight planning and sometimes SkyVector to check certain routes. I also used the CIVA INS to enter coordinates for the fixes along the airway which seemed to work well but as all STAR's into YPAD are RNAV I simply flew direct to the AD VOR until about 30 DME and then direct to MBY NDB to intercept the LOC for rwy 23 as per the ILS approach chart. I guess if I flew this route online I could just request vectors for the approach into Adelaide?

 

That 737 looks great though. Might have to get it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always use XFMC or the other FMC available for X-Plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always use XFMC or the other FMC available for X-Plane.

 

Yes but I'd prefer to learn to fly the 'old school' way sometimes as well. It is very rewarding especially after spending so much time flying a 777 or 737NG. It's just nice and different I suppose.

 

The CIVA INS add-on is really good and seems to get the job done for en-route nav. I can just enter the coordinates from my PFPX flight plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this