Maybe because the old birds are a sort of hobby within the hobby, I'm pretty tolerant about the numbers. I wouldn't know if they were right or wrong. I understand why they are important to some people, just not me. In the end, it's me maintaining speed and altitude, and there is going to be some combination of thrust and control inputs that will do that. There will be some sort of rudimentary autopilot to reduce the workload. Beyond that, I'm not interested if the EPR settings are the same as the real airplane. I'm just speaking for myself.

I remember how many people said the 727 was dreadfully UNDERPOWERED (especially the -100). Yet it's one of my favorite airplanes, and seems okay to me. If you don't keep your engine spooled up during approach, you're liable to fall out of the sky. Just like real 727s did before pilots learned how to fly them properly.

I was reading the 737 section. Man, how depressing. A minimum of three separate mods before you can even go near the thing? I've only gotten around to flying the 737 once. I made a circuit and came back to a perfect landing. Surely an airplane that was all that broken couldn't produce such a result?

I'm not criticizing anyone. It is the same in other hobbies. I also like to play wargames. There are those who want to know armor slope and thickness for a Mark IV tank and calculate the effect of every round. Then there are those who will accept a greater level of abstraction to keep things enjoyable for them, and, after a fashion, realistic, too.

Sometimes it is hard to figure out from the forum which airplanes are just botched and not worth my time, and which work just fine, but some people would like to see more realism with. The forum is for everyone, and everyone's tastes, so it's not really a problem. Maybe a bit of a frustration for those who are not as oriented toward realism.

I agree that cs planes are not unflyable. We may have to find the sweet spot as you say. I think cs planes ,more than any other are improved by users mods and also offer more eye candy . I think cs planes require a greater level of patience and computer savvy , something that the average gamer does'nt posess. I don't know how much the customer participation method was from a financial standpoint ,but again that would probably not have worked without the unusual participation of this forums contributors. ;) ;)
Ron

The only changes I have done to the 737, is the following (737-200 in this case, but similar in all the other models):

[i][TurbineEngineData]
fuel_flow_gain = 0.002                                   //Gain on fuel flow
inlet_area = 9.6                                   //Square Feet, engine nacelle inlet area -- the original setting was 19.6
rated_N2_rpm = 29920                                  //RPM, second stage compressor rated value
static_thrust = 16000                       // The original setting was 23000 - much too powerful IMO
afterburner_available = 0                              //Afterburner available?
reverser_available = 1                                  //Thrust reverser available?
ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.385          //Thrust specific fuel consumption (Jets)
AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0  //TSFC with afterburn/reheat engaged

These changes prevent the 737 from performing like a "rocket ship". ;D

fsxpaul did a great job with the V-One gauge, but I just don't use it. Like Tim, I don't worry too much about things like the correct EPR. I operate on the  airspeed.

Thank for those tips, Mark. I was envisioning sitting down to a lot of fiddling with files and the like.

I think rservice has a point about the level of patience and computer savvy of your typical consumer. We buy Captain Sim airplanes because (a) they're works of art, period; and (b) generally meet industry expectations of reliability and fidelity, eventually. I think some people don't get how CS works, and want it near-perfect out of the box. Most devs are able to do this, with a few hotfixes. For whatever reason, CS operates on a different model.

One thing I've noticed about people who stick around is they don't have a chip on their shoulder.

So the sweet spot is different from one person to another. I'll admit that the 737 does have a noticeable "rocket ship to the moon" feel that even I can tell isn't right. Why wasn't that addressed before release, since it is do obvious? To enter the world of Captain Sim is to be swallowed in mysteries  ;D But we love the airplanes, and the community, and being members of the "unfashionable set."

I will definitely apply those changes, Mark. And the PDCS or whatever is something to give you EPR, not part of your navigation suite? Here I was thinking I was going to have to learn how to use some crazy old tyme gizmo like the Omega system before I could make a flight. VOR to VOR I can do.

The PDCS is buggy. IF you start clicking buttons a bit to fast, you are guaranteed to get a CTD (fatal error). The button clicking must be slow and precise to avoid that, and sometimes (too many in fact) I forget. So it's better left alone. Fix that bug AND have the PDCS actually control the EPR bugs and I would use it. If I'm not in a mood for realism, I don't fly realistically. I just jump in and fly from here to there.

I really should buy Ideal Flight, I'm getting very short on ideas of where to fly from and to. :-/

The 100 World's Busiest Airports flight plans are great. There's at least 100 flights, 2-3 hours, even if you only fly them once each. I usually like to get a flight down pat, though, so that's easily a years worth of flying right there.

I fixed up my 737, and did include the v-speeds cards, since I like them on the 727. I may use the GPS map, too, as a representation of the copilot who would be taking some of the workload off the pilot flying.

Tim, they Capt Sim stuff is as realistic as you can get in the sim world. I think there is some mob called another company who take it a bit further but for different reasons. When I say realistic they generally and mostly respond and perform the same as the real world aeroplanes did but the corrections to the power settings for the 737 and 727 do give you a more realistic aeroplane. The systems are generally pretty darn good and about the same as the real aeroplanes, sure they are not 100% modelled but who cares after all in the 727 it was a 3 man crew operation and doing this with one person even on a PC is a real handful so compromise is ok as far as I am concerned, like GPS instead of a navigator.

I generally fly all aeroplanes simulated or real by the numbers that is the basic aerodynamic principle that underlys all pilot training and aeroplane performance:

ATTITUDE + POWER = PERFORMANCE

So what you need to get a handle on any aeroplane is what is the pitch angle on the AH you need for the flight regime your undertaking, for example takeoff, climb, cruise, descent and final to flare. There is generally a corresponding power setting that will then produce the performance your after. Basically I work out from my own flying experience what sort of pitch angles and power was used (some flight manuals actually provide that information) for various flight regimes and then write them down on a card and memorise them, after a while you get used to seeing the attitude, setting the power and watch the performance follow. It would take a book or two to go into more detail on all the ins and outs but generally you will find that they all have similar pitch settings and power is the variable but generally also pretty close. So for example most light aeroplanes climb out at about 6-8 degrees of nose up pitch and full power and a big aeroplane at about 12 degrees ptich and full power with pitch and power reductions with speed changes, generally pitch is reduced through the climb until cruise. The trick with the 727 and the 737 is that the approach pitch angle is fairly high not flat or negative and this catches a lot of folk out until they get used to it.

As far as I remember them the early 737s were pocket rockets.

Anyway I digress having been a professional pilot all my life I still get as much fun out of simming as I did in real life, but the bonus for me is that I get to play around with a whole lot of aeroplanes that no longer fly such as the Connie, the DC3 the 727 and 707. Now and then I take the spitfire for a spin and do some aerobatics but it is just fun and the realism adds to it.

As we say in Oz, thats my two bobs worth. Cheers.

Thanks for the perspective. Maybe because I enjoy flying several different airplanes, it's not so much modeling one golden airplane with perfect numbers. A lot of that is lost on me, anyway, as I'm not very bright.

Last night I intended to just play around with the 737 at KSEA, see how it followed a VOR, learn the autopilot. The next thing I know, I"m half-way to San Francisco. I had a blast with the radio navigation -- as imperfectly as I was able to do it. Then I was vectored for an approach and thought about using the autopilot, then chickened out. So I flew it in, watching my glideslope and localizer, getting low... coming up a bit high... having a blast the whole way. The airplane was very steady and responsive, seemed to hold speed well.

My landing wasn't quite on the centerline, but was otherwise pretty good for a new airplane. I loved it. It was a lot of fun. The 737 is good-looking, fun, and with a few easy tweaks, seems pretty much like it ought to be. This is an airplane I had no interest in, but bought on impulse. It's winning me over and rekindling my interest in classics.

As a BTW, this is really the only forum I can find in the hobby that isn't so negative it gives me a headache just going there. I'm really happy there's this forum and the relaxed atmosphere.

I must agree wholeheartedly with you Tim.
I consider the CS aircraft range to be among the best that I have.
I too have no idea what the correct numbers are and I really don't care.
All my aircraft models fly to my satisfaction and as to the 727 being underpowered, I held my own in a race around the Lake District with some Boeing T 45s!
The level of detail in the textures and visual model is unsurpassed.
I also own a 61 year old Land Rover and that world is also inhabited by its fair share of "rivet counters".
Some of them really know their stuff but I fear that many do not and like so many "experts" to be found on other forums have gained their knowledge from either magazines (comics mostly) or what they heard in the pub.

Regards,
Nick.  

In fact, my general interest in classic aircraft - post WW2 developments - became my entrance to the MSFS world. Hence, I think that I until now have spent most hours with the 707, the 737 number two.
I still keep FS9 on one of my HDD's for the now rare occations where I want to enjoy for instance Dave Maltby's fantastic VC10, Comet, Trident and Bac-111. And then there are som really rare planes such as the Argosy, CL-44 Yukon etc that we never will see commercialized in FSX or P3d.
All that said, I think that the CS aircraft are as real as it gets. I don't care if the climbing rate is a little too high or low, as long as it does not resemble Apollo 15 :). After all, we are not sitting in a real moving simulator box, but in an armchair starring at a 24 inch screen!

Merry Christmas everybody :D
Anders

Hi everyone, this is my first post here and I have to say that since I got the 727 & 707 they are fantastic, I have flown little else. I'm just a fan of the classics.

A FMC is not for me.
GPS, couldn't care less.
VOR for me by far.

I like to fly the plane, not the plane fly me.  :)

There is a certain irony about operating a computer to simulate operating a computer  ;D

Tim Capps wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

There is a certain irony about operating a computer to simulate operating a computer  ;D

Absolutely. My simming time is limited (as is my computing skills), so I don't want to spend hours on the ground number crunching for an hour or so flight. Plus the fact that modern airliners just don't do it for me, too tame. It must be that in the 1970/80s I lived under the flightpath to Heathrow when I could distinguish a DC8 from a 707 etc, + you can't beat the sound of a screaming jet.

I'm on a 757 flight from Sao Paolo Brazil to Santa Cruz Bolivia (one of my favorites) so I guess I'd have to say I like all the jets. There is something wonderful about the capabilities of modern jets, and I could never do a flight this long with steam gauges. But for flying fun you can't beat the classics.

Markoz wrote on Dec 19^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

These changes prevent the 737 from performing like a "rocket ship". ;D

I've never flown anything like a 737 but I do remember as a kid we had just flown into Melbourne from Perth and we had hours to wait for a flight to Tassie so I went up to the observation deck at Tulla. (poor kids can't do this anymore.  >:()

I was there for hours intrigued by DC-9's and 732's as we didn't have them in the West.
Watching some of those 737's launching with 20°+ pitch.
I reckon they might just be a rocket ship.  ;)