48 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? 

balls and needles dont change much about an airplane compared to glass.

i understand that this would be a welcome addition for flightsim. 

 

Edited July 1, 20223 yr by ahsmatt7

4 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

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? 
 

 

You're comparing two planes created in parallel as part of the same overall development project we're talking about versions of the 737 separated by more than 50 years.

30 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

You're comparing two planes created in parallel as part of the same overall development project we're talking about versions of the 737 separated by more than 50 years.

The 767 was an after thought. It wasnt originally going to be what the 767 ended up as. It was a salvage project of an airplane that was originally going to be made by mcdonnell douglas. The center isolation valave for the pneumatic system ring a bell???

You might be talking about versions of the 737 separated by 50 years but they are largely the same airplane. I hate to burst your bubble but the FAA agrees with me as well.

 

 

41 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

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? 

Well, just to continue our good spirited debate on an otherwise slow Friday afternoon...

I would absolutely say that the modern versions of the 757 and 767 share more in common with a 737-800 from a technology and systems perspective than the original 737-200 does. The original 737-200 literally does not have a computer of any kind on board. Its first flight was in 1967 - well before men walked on the moon. The most popular shows on TV at the time were all in black and white!

Other than moving the yoke and rudder pedals - almost nothing about taking off and landing in a 737-200 is the same as the 737-800. There was no flight director - the auto pilot was completely incapable of following any kind of route other than a straight line. The engines weren't high-bypass. There was no auto throttle (!!) and the engines could be easily damaged. 

The 757 and 767 have an FMS, they have a modern MCP with a flight director - you can fly SIDs and STARs. They have an auto throttle system. The engines, airframe, electronic systems, fuel management systems, and automation ALL have much more in common with a 737-800 than the 800 shares with the 200. 

If you told a modern 737-800 pilot (other than you - heheh) that they had to fly the original 737-200 on their next flight - with no training whatsoever - no rational person would agree to that (not with passengers on board anyway). Yes, the knobs and switches on the overhead panel are similar - and the throttle handles are the same, and the seat cushions look pretty similar too, but they are about as different as a 1967 Corvette and a 2020 Corvette. 

Edited July 1, 20223 yr by enright
Typo

1 minute ago, ahsmatt7 said:

The 767 was an after thought. It wasnt originally going to be what the 767 ended up as. It was a salvage project of an airplane that was originally going to be made by mcdonnell douglas. The center isolation valave for the pneumatic system ring a bell???

You might be talking about versions of the 737 separated by 50 years but they are largely the same airplane. I hate to burst your bubble but the FAA agrees with me as well.

 

 

There's a pretty strong case to be made that that FAA decision killed people so I'm less than impressed.

17 hours ago, Beagle12 said:

In a recent post you stated you would never fly a jetliner. "Following the red track line on the ND is so boring". Now you are flying the Fenix 🙄

Wasn’t it like watching paint dry or something to that effect 😂😂

4 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

There's a pretty strong case to be made that that FAA decision killed people so I'm less than impressed.

It's not an FAA decision that killed people regarding the Max; well, not the one you're talking about anyway.  Where the FAA went wrong was in allowing Boeing to self-certify, and thus they were able to certify the Max with a system that could manipulate flight controls based on a sole-source input.

Ahsmatt is correct; the 737 family is indeed one type rating from the -100 up through the -Max9 (and probably the -10M but we'll see how that plays out.)  And in terms of systems operation and thus operational procedures, they really are very similar (as they would need to be to share a common type.)  I've flown the classics (-400s) and currently fly the NGs and Maxs, and of course our procedures are substantially the same in all of them.  That's how it works for a fleet that shares a common type 

Much of what's going on in the background is different though. In the -200s (and even in the classics), when the pilot manipulated a switch, he was directly throwing a relay or operating a hydraulic valve etc.   In the NGs (and certainly more so in the Maxs), this process and switch looks and feels the same to the pilot (minus the gear lever lol), but it's really just an electrical input to a computer that makes the things happen.  A minor point to the pilot, as from his perspective things work about the same.

They're very different in performance though.  The -200 could do things none of the classics could do, and the NGs and Maxs aren't even in the same ballpark.  Naturally, the NGs and Maxs have different capabilities that the -200 could never have approached.  Can you imagine what the engineers who worked on the jurassics would have said if you'd told them 737s would one day be flying to Hawaii every day in large numbers? They'd still be laughing. 

So: operational pricedures-wise, yes, all 737s are very similar (as is required.)  Performance-wise, pretty different.  Certain flying characteristics are different enough to be noteworthy too.  If I'm landing in nasty winds on a short contaminated runway, I'd still rather have a -400 that lands when you pull the power, vs an NG with the supercritical airfoil that "skips" off ground effect lol.  But, you just adapt and do what's necessary. 

Clarification about the Max: in its current re-designed state, it's a darn good airplane.  And yes, still shares a common type with the jurrassics ;).

The Milviz 732 in FSX was a lot of fun.  Although the cockpit geometry appeared a little odd and the texturing wasn't their finest.   Still how many years ago was that.  I'm sure this will be a great option for the older generation airliner.

Personally, I would love to see a 300/400/500 series; a la IXEG in X-Plane. 😎

4 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

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.

 

We all know that actually says more about how much pressure Boeing was able to put on the FAA to wangle a similar type rating so as appeal to its customer base's suits who wanted to save money on type rating training costs, than it does how similar the original 737 is to the most recent one. 😉

Edited July 1, 20223 yr by Chock

19 hours ago, Milviz said:

Yes!!!!!!

Build it for MSFS 100%.  What a beast of an aircraft.  Love it so much and your model for FSX was amazing.  

Jase

3 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

You guys are missing the point entirely.

I disagree. I think the counter point to "They have almost identical systems" is that they're different enough to be an entirely unique experience, with different capabilities. Everyone here who is a pilot has flown aircraft of the same "type" generations apart. A lot of AVSIM'ers have flown a Cessna 152 one day then flew a 172SP with G1000 the next. I've had students routinely book different planes the same week, and without fail something would be confusing for them. The speeds are different. The avionics are different. The checklists are different. It's just different.

As an aside, as simmers we get to pretend to be Pan Am pilots for a day in the Golden Age of flying. That's difference enough to be worth a purchase.

@WestAir Nice. I had formulated a response similar to yours, but never hit submit as it just didn’t convey what I had intended. You pretty much captured what I wanted to write. I was going to make a similar argument re the Cessna evolution. I have flown several Cessna models.  A change from 160 to 180 HP presents as a different experience for example re takeoff and landing. A Cessna is a far stretch from the 737 series but the point about being different within the same series is similar. Each variant adds a novel dimension re capabilities and as you stated gives a unique experience. Landing a 737-200 on a gravel runway will be a unique experience in the sim that I look forward to!

25 minutes ago, Doering said:

@WestAir Nice. I had formulated a response similar to yours, but never hit submit as it just didn’t convey what I had intended. You pretty much captured what I wanted to write. I was going to make a similar argument re the Cessna evolution. I have flown several Cessna models.  A change from 160 to 180 HP presents as a different experience for example re takeoff and landing. A Cessna is a far stretch from the 737 series but the point about being different within the same series is similar. Each variant adds a novel dimension re capabilities and as you stated gives a unique experience. Landing a 737-200 on a gravel runway will be a unique experience in the sim that I look forward to!

I wonder if you can hear the gravel hitting the guards when you land one of these on a gravel strip?

It's probably over-shadowed by the other louder sounds, or the overall sound of careening down the runway.  But I'm curious.

6 minutes ago, Doering said:

A Cessna is a far stretch from the 737 series but the point about being different within the same series is similar.

Thanks Laurie. I contemplated going apples to apples, because I have an MD-80 type rating that lets me fly the DC-9, DC-9-80, MD-90, and 717, and the differences between the DC-9 and 717 are vast. I think the 717 cockpit was based off the MD-11, for example. They give you a "differences training" when you transition, which I heard was pretty rough for anyone who went from the DC-9 to the 717 (or god forbid the other way 'round). Personally, the tiny differences between our small number of MD-80's were enough for me.

Obviously, going from a 737 to an A320 is an entirely different World, with vastly different philosophies and techniques, but I still wouldn't envy anyone going from a 737-200 to a 737 Max 8.

I would do it on MSFS though. Getting away from FADEC and magenta lines sounds fun. Variety keeps a hobby from becoming a chore.

 

18 minutes ago, Mace said:

I wonder if you can hear the gravel hitting the guards when you land one of these on a gravel strip?

It's probably over-shadowed by the other louder sounds, or the overall sound of careening down the runway.  But I'm curious.

I am sure there must be someone in this crowd that can answer this. I never purchased the MILVIZ 737-200 for FSX, but I imagine the sound package was very good. The prospect of grabbing the sound of gravel hitting the guards when on an exterior view - well, only MILVIZ can answer this one! Yes, for the folks that go outside the cockpit when flying - heaven forbid! I use every camera view possible when flying and appreciate the quality sound packages that capture the sound relative to the airplane position/environment.