• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

DC-8...

Bjoern

Bjoern

worst developer ever
Funny that this aircraft has been neraly ignored so far.

You've got an AI model for FS9, a (good) freeware model and panel without VC for FS9 and a very average FS9 payware version. But nothing for FSX. No freeware of Thomas Ruth quality, no payware of Captain Sim 707 quality. Nothing, nada, niente.

A bit puzzling since you can have fun in just about every way with it. Take part in the start of the jet age, fly the biggest aircraft before the 747, haul butt while the 707 was waving goodbye, salute the new millennium in one while hauling parcels, risk your life in one while approaching a way too short runway on the african continent with only three engines running and while texting your mom on your iPhone...
The possibilities are endless!


*Sigh*...


http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Brisair)/Douglas-DC-8-62H/1748883/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Condor/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-8-73CF/1748041/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/DHL-(DHL-Airways)/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-8-73(F)/0000337/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-Parcel-Service/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-8-71(F)/0002311/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Swissair/Douglas-DC-8-32/0262459/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Unknown/Douglas-DC-8-.../0202818/L/



Excuse my momentary lapse of [LINESTRIKE]reason[/LINESTRIKE] containance.
I normally hate this kind of threads. :redf:
 
There is a C-8 with VC

Aerosim japan has made several passenger and cargo DC-8s with vc for FS9.
 
I posted some time back about the Convair 880, which I would like to see in FSX also.

They are both beautiful aircraft!

NC
 
Navy Chief said:
I posted some time back about the Convair 880, which I would like to see in FSX also.
Click to expand...

The 880/990, as nice looking and performing as they may have been were nothing short of commercial failures.

So upon deciding what to model next for FSX, I would choose the DC-8 over the Convair any time.
 
Since Thomas Ruth is working on a Native 727, perhaps he will aim towards a 737-100/200 at some point and further down the road, a DC-8 & CV880/990. He seems to be knocking out a lot of good subjects these days.
 
Bjoern said:
The 880/990, as nice looking and performing as they may have been were nothing short of commercial failures.

So upon deciding what to model next for FSX, I would choose the DC-8 over the Convair any time.
Click to expand...

A shame, too. Those suckers were fast. Cruised at Mach .92, very slick.
 
wiltzei said:
Dreamfleet seems to have started a project, but it is going nowhere. http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=209697
Click to expand...

Meh.



deathfromafar said:
Since Thomas Ruth is working on a Native 727, perhaps he will aim towards a 737-100/200 at some point and further down the road, a DC-8 & CV880/990. He seems to be knocking out a lot of good subjects these days.
Click to expand...

Could be a possibility.

If not, I'll do them. In a few years.



Bone said:
A shame, too. Those suckers were fast. Cruised at Mach .92, very slick.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that was one of the reasons they were so unsuccessful. Along with the narrow cabin (five abreast vs six).

At least it looked nicely and was easily recognizable (SMOKE!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top