Recollection of the birth of SunAir
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:07 pm
I have to stretch my memory somewhat for this. After all, it’s been at least 15 years! Some real airlines don’t last that long. Here is what I recall that led to the birth of SunAir, as best as I can recall it. I believe you may find it interesting.
Like many others, I was an early MS FS customer. Version 1.0 was the first entertainment package I got for my IBM PC. I was the second retail IBM PC customer in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma City Computerland store owner was the first. I recall always being frustrated by the limitations of the early versions. The limitations included a nominal number of aircraft. Only rudimentary controls and systems, and a very limited number of scenery areas (Chicago to Champaign; Seattle; LA to San Diego; and NYC).
Microsoft did not do much to enhance the experience. Enthusiasts began to gather on the original text based Compuserve communications system, which was a rate-based system. So much $0.0X per minute. Messaging was tough and expensive. Still that was where we found others, and where we learned about new products. One of those new products was 3rd party add on scenery sets. They came as defined areas of the country and included VORs and ILS approaches. They were published and marketed by subLogic, the original creators of Flight Simulator. Word also got out about a new flight simulator from subLogic, but it became regarded as “vaporware”, because it’s reported arrival was delayed again and again. Later we would learn of litigation between Microsoft and subLogic. In any case, somewhere around 1990, ATP Flight Assignment made it to the market. I believe each of us bought it instantly and were astounded with it’s completeness and incredible flight modeling!
Along came a graphics interface, flat-rate per month communications service called Prodigy. This was a standalone service and well before the internet matured. As enthusiasts we found each other there and had one of the most active topics on the service. At the outset, we were ATP enthusiasts, sharing and enjoying our learning experiences. My own family lost track of me. Prodigy was slow, so the combination of the excitement from more realistic flying and the ability to share that with others consumed a lot of hours.
The areas of realism in ATP had us in awe. ATP included a small booklet called the QRH, or Quick Reference Handbook. It provided a page for each ATP aircraft, and provided nominal settings for cruise speed and fuel flow for the various stages of flight. ATP also included 50 pre-structured flight assignments, and graded the pilot at the end of the flight based on airmanship, ability to follow instructions, and efficiency. Each of those areas tested us, and we learned as a group.
The more we learned, the more we wanted to learn. Among us were a few who held FAA licenses. I did too, but I was last current in 1978. One of the areas we did a lot of experimenting on was fuel burn, as it related directly to the score for efficinecy. We started doing empirical tests to improve our scores, divvying up the work. I recall I worked on climbs. Rate of climb and forward speed. I must have completed 50 climbs starting from level departure cruise of 5,000 ft. Each test was at a different rate of climb, or different forward speed, or both. I charted the tests on graph paper, and labeled each with the fuel burned, which was calculated from multiple reads of ATP’s status screen. Other Prodigy members took other parts of the testing. Someone tested burns in various ATP models at different cruise speeds and cruise altitudes, and someone else tested burns for descent rates at various forward speeds. Still another did the tests on takeoff and climb to initial cruise of 5,000 ft. It even came down to tests of what slower speeds and shallow rate of descents were most efficient without getting you into trouble with ATC. At this point we were working only on improving our scores. We eventually started scoring 100 on efficiency on every flight.
Jim started to conjecture that our testing may have allowed us to learn how to “cheat” the scoring system. Then something really incredible happened.
One of the enthusiasts who found our group on Prodigy was a fellow by the name I believe of Rich Federco (to the best of my recollection). If I recall correctly, this person did not fly ATP Flight Assignment, but had found us and marveled at the activity he saw. He worked in flight ops for I believe American Airlines at Newark International, and disclosed that to us when he saw the robust discussion on fuel burn. His job exposed him to the post-flight reports that the American pilots were required to complete for each flight. Amazingly, enroute time and fuel burn were among the elements of those real-world reports.
Jim reached out to him and asked what American flight we could attempt to duplicate in ATP to check again real world results. I believe the flight he came back with was a daily flight from Newark to Charlotte. Almost immediately several of us took up a challenge from Jim and made the flight in ATP. The American employee came back to us with real results. Both the enroute times and fuel burn were tantalizing close, but the ATP burns were lower. Jim looked at the American data and noted that it included winds aloft at various altitudes. We did our EWR to CLT testing all over again, this time setting wind directions and speeds as best as we could, and the results were then incredibly close.
EWR to CLT inspired Jim’s idea for an ATP based airline, where pilots would fly an assigned route and report results, just like real life. Within days it came together, and SunAir was born.
And my old SunAir signature line:
0005/Patton/STL/Chief
Frank Patton
Fppilot
Like many others, I was an early MS FS customer. Version 1.0 was the first entertainment package I got for my IBM PC. I was the second retail IBM PC customer in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma City Computerland store owner was the first. I recall always being frustrated by the limitations of the early versions. The limitations included a nominal number of aircraft. Only rudimentary controls and systems, and a very limited number of scenery areas (Chicago to Champaign; Seattle; LA to San Diego; and NYC).
Microsoft did not do much to enhance the experience. Enthusiasts began to gather on the original text based Compuserve communications system, which was a rate-based system. So much $0.0X per minute. Messaging was tough and expensive. Still that was where we found others, and where we learned about new products. One of those new products was 3rd party add on scenery sets. They came as defined areas of the country and included VORs and ILS approaches. They were published and marketed by subLogic, the original creators of Flight Simulator. Word also got out about a new flight simulator from subLogic, but it became regarded as “vaporware”, because it’s reported arrival was delayed again and again. Later we would learn of litigation between Microsoft and subLogic. In any case, somewhere around 1990, ATP Flight Assignment made it to the market. I believe each of us bought it instantly and were astounded with it’s completeness and incredible flight modeling!
Along came a graphics interface, flat-rate per month communications service called Prodigy. This was a standalone service and well before the internet matured. As enthusiasts we found each other there and had one of the most active topics on the service. At the outset, we were ATP enthusiasts, sharing and enjoying our learning experiences. My own family lost track of me. Prodigy was slow, so the combination of the excitement from more realistic flying and the ability to share that with others consumed a lot of hours.
The areas of realism in ATP had us in awe. ATP included a small booklet called the QRH, or Quick Reference Handbook. It provided a page for each ATP aircraft, and provided nominal settings for cruise speed and fuel flow for the various stages of flight. ATP also included 50 pre-structured flight assignments, and graded the pilot at the end of the flight based on airmanship, ability to follow instructions, and efficiency. Each of those areas tested us, and we learned as a group.
The more we learned, the more we wanted to learn. Among us were a few who held FAA licenses. I did too, but I was last current in 1978. One of the areas we did a lot of experimenting on was fuel burn, as it related directly to the score for efficinecy. We started doing empirical tests to improve our scores, divvying up the work. I recall I worked on climbs. Rate of climb and forward speed. I must have completed 50 climbs starting from level departure cruise of 5,000 ft. Each test was at a different rate of climb, or different forward speed, or both. I charted the tests on graph paper, and labeled each with the fuel burned, which was calculated from multiple reads of ATP’s status screen. Other Prodigy members took other parts of the testing. Someone tested burns in various ATP models at different cruise speeds and cruise altitudes, and someone else tested burns for descent rates at various forward speeds. Still another did the tests on takeoff and climb to initial cruise of 5,000 ft. It even came down to tests of what slower speeds and shallow rate of descents were most efficient without getting you into trouble with ATC. At this point we were working only on improving our scores. We eventually started scoring 100 on efficiency on every flight.
Jim started to conjecture that our testing may have allowed us to learn how to “cheat” the scoring system. Then something really incredible happened.
One of the enthusiasts who found our group on Prodigy was a fellow by the name I believe of Rich Federco (to the best of my recollection). If I recall correctly, this person did not fly ATP Flight Assignment, but had found us and marveled at the activity he saw. He worked in flight ops for I believe American Airlines at Newark International, and disclosed that to us when he saw the robust discussion on fuel burn. His job exposed him to the post-flight reports that the American pilots were required to complete for each flight. Amazingly, enroute time and fuel burn were among the elements of those real-world reports.
Jim reached out to him and asked what American flight we could attempt to duplicate in ATP to check again real world results. I believe the flight he came back with was a daily flight from Newark to Charlotte. Almost immediately several of us took up a challenge from Jim and made the flight in ATP. The American employee came back to us with real results. Both the enroute times and fuel burn were tantalizing close, but the ATP burns were lower. Jim looked at the American data and noted that it included winds aloft at various altitudes. We did our EWR to CLT testing all over again, this time setting wind directions and speeds as best as we could, and the results were then incredibly close.
EWR to CLT inspired Jim’s idea for an ATP based airline, where pilots would fly an assigned route and report results, just like real life. Within days it came together, and SunAir was born.
And my old SunAir signature line:
0005/Patton/STL/Chief
Frank Patton
Fppilot