I can’t wait for this!

I hope it comes with a paint kit that allows countless repaints from the talented community.

The smoky old 737-200 with its clamshell reversers was a favorite of mine to ride as a kid in the 1990s (and I even love the sooty marks on the back side fuselage from reversing).

 

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

I am glad that Milviz looks into it. But this means a significant overhaul of the bird they had in the older sim. I bought and remember her with very mixed feelings  : the A/P made her wobble along the trajectory to follow a radial under a high altitude crosswind among other weird FDE things and the cockpit wear & tear was ludicrous.   

Well the AP and FDE will have to be brand new, as probably will the cockpit textures.
I had it in P3D too, it was the tubeliner I flew most 🙂

Doubt if I ever did much AP flying though...

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

All variants of the 737 are under the same FAA Type Certificate TCDS No. A16WE, from -100 all the way to -9.
If the Feds think it's the same aircraft after 55 years, then it must be! 🙃

 

Probably best not to dwell too much on the wisdom of that specific decision considering events with the MAX/

Great to hear about the access to the Nolinor aircraft, that bodes really well for this being a great addon.

One thing I appreciated in previous versions of this was the choice of early, basic autopilots with no FMS or LNAV or the retrofit option with a more modern autopilot and an FMS which I expect reflects how the remaining operators are flying them.  Hopefully this will have similar options.

I recall reading that someone (maybe Nolinor or Chrono?) had retrofitted a complete glass cockpit into theirs which would be a whole different ball game.

9 hours ago, enright said:

Yep, aside from the avionics, twice the cargo capacity, 40% more passenger capacity, 40% more length, 40% wider wing span, 60% more thrust, 4,000 foot higher ceiling, twice the range, completely different engines, the invention of GPS, 30 years worth of computer and automation development, and different materials, they are nearly identical.

Way to be captain obvious. No word not allowed the airframe is bigger. Now that we got that out of the way. The airplane still largely operates with the original technology and philosophy of the original systems. Having flown the airplane for some time and having flown with many others who have flown all the variants, i have some idea what im talking about. 
 

 

8 hours ago, Milviz said:

Yes, this was announced about a year ago now but we were unable to use the SDK to proceed... now, however, with much more experience in hand, we're pretty confident we can do this to our level of quality.  Nuff said for now.

This is the sort of thing that's music to my ears to hear from devs like Milviz, A2A, and others... after SU10 the WASM dev path will be even more opened up. And they're all just getting going on understanding and squeezing the most out of the SDK and platform, so it's only going to keep getting better.

1 hour ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Way to be captain obvious. No word not allowed the airframe is bigger. Now that we got that out of the way. The airplane still largely operates with the original technology and philosophy of the original systems. Having flown the airplane for some time and having flown with many others who have flown all the variants, i have some idea what im talking about. 
 

 

So you don't see a basic philosophical difference between pure VOR/ADF nav and GPS/FMS based nav ?

Edited July 1, 20223 yr by Matchstick

For the systems, we are considering our options.

On the model/paint side, yes, the model is being done pretty much from scratch as there's no way it's good enough for todays look/feel.

 

18 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

What would be the point? 

If they model the JT8D engines with a degree of realism, then it would be a welcome addition for sure with plenty of point to the fun that would open up. Not a great deal of that fancy FADEC malarkey with that old engine, so it would be fun to play about with the EPR for take-off calculations, not to mention that a well-modeled JT8D would mean they had a good basis for doing other stuff with that engine (and variants of it), which includes the A6 Intruder, A4 Skyhawk, B707, B727, DC-9 and MD-80, Caravelle, Mercure etc.

Really one of the main points of a flight simulator including old aeroplanes is that it can offer us the chance to have a go at flying things which we could never do for real. It's a big part of their appeal for many people.

Edited July 1, 20223 yr by Chock

5 hours ago, keithb77 said:

 

Doubt if I ever did much AP flying though...

 The 732 had the old Sperry 77 which was a fun thing to work with 

Edited July 1, 20223 yr by Dominique_K

3 hours ago, Matchstick said:

So you don't see a basic philosophical difference between pure VOR/ADF nav and GPS/FMS based nav ?

No i dont. Those are two different ways of navigating i understand that. That however doesnt make the variants so unbelievably different. I could do the same VOR nav in the -800 too. 
 

My 737 type rating allows me to fly ALL variants from the -100 to the MAX 9.

This fact means they arent that different as people on avsim are making it out to be.

 

12 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

No i dont. Those are two different ways of navigating i understand that. That however doesnt make the variants so unbelievably different. I could do the same VOR nav in the -800 too. 
 

My 737 type rating allows me to fly ALL variants from the -100 to the MAX 9.

This fact means they arent that different as people on avsim are making it out to be.

 

Right.

Frankly I don't believe you and the lengths that Boeing had to go to to pretend the MAX was compatible with the NG suggest, at least in that case, they didn't either

Edited July 1, 20223 yr by Matchstick

4 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Way to be captain obvious. No word not allowed the airframe is bigger. Now that we got that out of the way. The airplane still largely operates with the original technology and philosophy of the original systems. Having flown the airplane for some time and having flown with many others who have flown all the variants, i have some idea what im talking about. 

Not just a bigger airframe - different engines and fuel efficiency, different materials (e.g. carbon fiber) with different stress tolerances, different thrust to weight ratios, wingtips, the invention of GPS (fundamentally changing the concept of getting from point A to point B), completely different avionics, incandescent vs. LED lights, and on and on...

Look at the autopilot MCP in this early 200 series - it's completely different system. There's no FMS at all - but you've gotta love the CRT display. Vacuum tubes were still popular when this plane was manufactured - there are no microchips or integrated circuits behind anything in this image :). 

Yes, they both have hydraulic systems and you steer them with a yoke and rudder pedals, but even an experienced pilot such as yourself would have to agree that the 200 series and 800 series are quite different.

What "original technology" is largely similar? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Matchstick said:

Right.

Frankly I don't believe you and the lengths that Boeing had to go to to pretend the MAX was compatible with the NG suggest, at least in that case, they didn't either

Don’t believe me that im typed in the airplane or that the FAA allows all variants to be flown with the single type? 
 

 

41 minutes ago, enright said:

Not just a bigger airframe - different engines and fuel efficiency, different materials (e.g. carbon fiber) with different stress tolerances, different thrust to weight ratios, wingtips, the invention of GPS (fundamentally changing the concept of getting from point A to point B), completely different avionics, incandescent vs. LED lights, and on and on...

Look at the autopilot MCP in this early 200 series - it's completely different system. There's no FMS at all - but you've gotta love the CRT display. Vacuum tubes were still popular when this plane was manufactured - there are no microchips or integrated circuits behind anything in this image :). 

Yes, they both have hydraulic systems and you steer them with a yoke and rudder pedals, but even an experienced pilot such as yourself would have to agree that the 200 series and 800 series are quite different.

What "original technology" is largely similar? 

 

 

You guys are missing the point entirely.

 

compare the overhead panel. They are 98% the same. hence why i said they are largely the same airplane. 
i understand there are evolutionary differences in the automation and airframe but thats it. 
 

Does anybody want to tell me that the 767 and 757 are two completely different airplanes and my type rating on that shouldn’t allow me to fly both planes?