MD-80 - secret tip!

[Skybird]

Some weeks ago I asked if somebody could recommend a high quality Airbus-package for FS9, that would compare to the three or four formidable Boeing and ATR-modules available for FS9, and found out by reply and further research that there is none that would rank en par. My intention was to find another airliner whose avionics handling and cockpit manipulation would be very different to the three boeing-designs that I know by ow, and who all three share many similarities and are very familiar to each other, especially the PMDG-747-400 and the Level-D 767-300 are very close to each other in FS9. My ATR-72 gave opportunity for a change in cockpit handling, but still it was quite modern, and knopwing the modern glass cockpit stuff from the Boeings helped a lot to get into the ATR quite quickly, although it is closer to Airbus than Boeing.

Instead of an Airbus, I stumbled over an older FS9-package, which has just been rereleased in a new version for FSX as well: the somewhat famous MD-80, nicknamed Mad Dog. there are two products available, and I decided for the one by CoolSky and Flight1. Reviews for it are available at Avsim, both for FS9, and the FSX version. Search the review appendix for "Super 80".
I got exactly what I was looking for: a very drastic change.

The plane modelled represents the technological standard of the early 80s, when front panels still were dominated by analoge instruments and needle-gauges, and the overhead panel being a maze of knobs and switches. No NAV-map, no MFDs, but a drastically increased workload that teaches you on the fly how dramatic work ergonomy in the pilot's seat has come since then. The thing comes with a 280 pages manual that reminds me of the m,anual for the ATR 72-500 by Flight1. There seem to be as many switches as in two or three modern Boeing cockpits together That's the way I like it, although I admit that this is the first time ever that learning a new complex airliner gives me really problems and shows me that I am no 15 year old youngster anymore. Plenty of meanings and functions to store in memory! The Omega Navigation System seems to have been a predecessor of the FMS-systems of today, while modern avionics also seem to find a root in the way the PMS (not FMS) aboard this MD-80 has been designed. The cockpit is an early hybride, it seems to me. and it adds more workload to your sim-flying, which for flying with a computer actually is a good thing. you know, once you got a modern 767 or 747 into the simulated air, it runs the show more or less fully automatic, with you just sitting and monitoring. That might be fine in reality, in a sim, you want some more action, so you add random generated technocal malfunctions, for example. With the MD-80, I am finding my hands full with just handling the many functions of the plane while flying manually, and rememberign where what was and what it does.

the cockpits both 2D and 3D are well done and crisp, not truly photorealistic, they nevertheless have been painted in one fluent stroke with the brush, and give a very round and complete visual impression. Only the light conditions during dark worry me, the lighting is very sparse, and the dome light gives no dramatic improvement like I am used from other airplanes, however, the backlight of the gauges and switches at least saves easy visual access to most functions. but all in all the VC is too dark. If it is like this in reality, for the sake of computer egonomy one should have lighten it up a bit.

It is the only known aircraft module for FS series that comes with fully integrated onscreen tzraining of all different phases of flight, and procedures, were you are being led through the needed sequences at a given phase of flight both in writing and marking on the panel, where the steps are explained, but you must carry them out. Also the load manager, and onscreen-prpogressing through the checklists works life and from within FS. finally the always accessible software manager of this package allows you to autoconfigure all paneols for all possible different phases of flight, from colddark over ready to taxi, take-off, climb, descend, ready to land and parking for the night. This is for the lazy amongst us who see no point in learning complex manuals. But you miss the best in this package that way.

Visual model of the plane is solid and okay, but nothing spectacular, the FS9 version of the MD80 is several years old now. the sound is well-done, the copilot also accustically interacts with you. I cannot comment on the flight model, since I do not know the real plane, but it feels very different than what I know from modern airliners, it takes longer to take off, the nose is heavy and lifts with little enthusiam, and in midair again it - simply feels different. But, and that is the important thing: it feels believably enough for this sim-flyer that i am that I accept it to be sufficiently realistic. reviews back then said that the flight model actually is quite good - and I am in no position to argue with that statement.

I wanted a change from the usual Boeing business, something that must be handled differently, must be learned from scratch, and feels different in flight, while also giving me a higher workload. and exactly all this is what I got, the historic feeling from all the old-fashioned gauges and panel-layouts comes additionally and for free. If I do not discover major bugs and showstoppers and weaknesses in functionality, I will rankt this MD80 amongst the best airliners available for FS9, beside the LevelD-767, PMDG-747, the ATR 72, and a group lower (for it has some minor faults and weaknesses) the PMDG-737 800/900 NG.

Comparing by reviews alone, available packages for the Boing 727 and 707 seem to be more bug-ridden and and more shallow in functionality when bebing compared to the MD-80. these would be the obvious closest rivals (regarding time and technology) to which the MD-80 compares. Of these I am sure I picked the - by far - best package.

If you are looking for a change from all the ultra-modern avionic suites like me, check the software out in the reviews at Avsim, and other places. Mad dog might be worth for you to balk for.

I am still learning it and am still locked pretty much at the beginning, but if I find any major issues, I will post them here. but things currently look promising. their support is - after two or three years - still fully active (restricted forum, you gain access with serial number) and answers get posted very fast. That might be becasue the FSX vbersion was released just last Novemeber, I think. The FS9 version has seen one 41 MB service pack.

[Skybird]

I promised that I would report back if further testing shows results that would contradict the initial impressio0ns. Unfortunately I must say, that there is a lot to report. Much of that remained hidden for long to me since i found it a bit difficult to get into the MD-80, since it does many things very different than the airliners that I already know.

First, the flightmodel. for the most, it feels nice, but it also does some things terribly wrong even when you make sure that you trim and set the plane correctly. do not be surprised if you see the airplane approaching the runway with the the nose put 5° below the horizon, and aiming for touchdown with the nose gear first while using autoland. The engines need 50-60% power in order to get the plane rolling. Flaps will not break off when deployed at 290 kn, but will make the plane climb with the nose again hanging 10° below the horizon. After takeoff, when you switch to autoflight mode, the plane drastically goes into a 6000+ ft/mind climb until it stalls if you are not very quick in fixing that by reducing the climb rate manually via V/S. the autopilot also needs two or thre zigzags in order to catch a VOR vector. Other modules show how an autopilot mode can work more smooth and reliable. The Level-D 767 is the benchmark on my list for autopilots, with the systems for the PMDG 747 and the Flight1 ATR-72 also working acceptable, though not as smooth.

second, functionality. There are plenty of switches, but many of them are just dummies, it seems. several functions work no matter if needed switch settings are met, or not. Also, quite some switches cannot be clicked in VC, you must return to the main panel, or subpanels in 2D to operate them.

third, APU and ground power do not work reliable and produce an error at times that reminds of the famous battery bug from years ago. Sometimes the power holds out forever, if APU or ground power are established. sometimes not, leaving you with a plane where you cannot even start engines and get electricity from their generators. Sometimes you loose the APU generator, but energy still being there - except for lights.

Fourth, Switching off the dome light in VC kills almost all instrument light in 2D cockpit. switching from APU to engine power can kill the back-ground lit gauges at times in the overhead. Sometimes they reappear later, sometimes only when their values change, sometimes they remain invisible forever. at night, in VC unlit signals seem to be painted as light as those annunciator lights actually being active - you cannot differ between what is meant to be lit, and what is meant so be off. that is either a malfunction and they all are switched on indeed, or the artists did a bad job.

Strangely, it still is fun to play around in the cockpit of the MD-80, for it really delivers you a change from the usual glass-cockpits in airliners, but you must be aware that there are some flaws and erratic functions that you will notice for sure, and that potentially can mess up your flight. the level or reliability and functionality you got used to when using the Level-D 767, the PMDG 747 or the flight 1 ATR-72 you will not find in this model. I must say that the MD-80 scores even behind the PMDG-737 800/900 NG, a package that also has some flaws and technical problems - but all of them can be worked around and you can adapt to them once you became aware of their presence. with the MD-80, some things cannot be compensated. It still is worth to have a look at the cockpit, it has a strange fascination nevertheless, but you probably will turn back to more reliable stuff sooner or later, like I now do.

In a summary there is a lot of potential that was left behind unrealised, and the package in parts gives the impression to be an immature release, or even a late beta, which is amazing considering that it received one service pack, I believe. But quite some more polishing would have been needed, then this could have become one very great package. But talking on the FS9-version, in the state they abandoned it- it is just mediocre, I'm sorry to calm my initial enthusiasm.

If you can get it very cheap, try it if the thing interests you, there is a lot of new things to learn. for full price or in full-price bundle with the FSX-version, better save your money for one of the airliners i mentioned above. I for myself did not fully regret to buy it, I enjoyed a good and thick manual and got a good insight in how the autopilot and PMS and Arcas and Omega navigation system back then was working, and somehow it all is fascinating indeed. but I will retire the plane now from my actively flown fleet.

I do not know if these flaws have been corrected in the FSX-version which meanwhile was released too. So again: I'm talking FS9 exclusively.

what I do not understand is why all the reviews missed these points, and were obviously very forgiving regarding the things I criticise. I found only one review this afternoon, where the author had a background regarding the real MD-80, and criticised some of the same flaws that I have listed, especially regarding functionality and the flightmodel.

German language!
http://simflight.de/modules.php?name...ticle&sid=6664