Hi All,I am new to the PMDG737-600/700 & i have a question.When rolling down the runway at full throttle, why does this aircraft seem to simulate speed slow compared to other aircraft add-ons like the eurowings BAE146?When i take off using the 146, it seems to simulate the speed a lot more than the PMDG737 & i am left wondering if i am going to run out of runway, the 737 seems to be slow at climbing too.Any idea's?Great add-on though, very nice.cheersMike.

>When rolling down the runway at full throttle, why does this>aircraft seem to simulate speed slow compared to other>aircraft add-ons like the eurowings BAE146?What do you mean by this?At the same speed (say 150kts) you get the impression that the 737 is slower then the bae?It may be because the pilot seat in the b146 is a lot nearer to the runway then in the 737.>a lot more than the PMDG737 & i am left wondering if i am>going to run out of runway, the 737 seems to be slow at>climbing too.The 737 is "heavy": it is slow to accelerate.But provided you are not above MTOW (look in the payload menu of the aircraft menu) it has nice climbing rates.

>What do you mean by this?>At the same speed (say 150kts) you get the impression that the>737 is slower then the bae?>>It may be because the pilot seat in the b146 is a lot nearer>to the runway then in the 737.>>The 737 is "heavy": it is slow to accelerate.>But provided you are not above MTOW (look in the payload menu>of the aircraft menu) it has nice climbing rates.>Having flown both types, I can assure you that the 737 from the 300 onwards is anything but slow to accelerate. It is a good deal faster than a BAe 146 on takeoff roll and has much better climb performance. The only thing that would lead you to believe that you're going faster in a BAe146 is the fact that you are slightly closer to the ground.

Everything has to be compared to size:a 737 is surely fast enough for its size, but a 146 easily surpasses it on takeoff and climb.A bae is simply well overpowered, something like a 747.And is smaller.And has a geometry that allows it to be a STOL aircraft unlike the 737.So you takeoff at 110/120kts, and are able to maintain high climb rate unlike the 737.Ever tried climbing with a normally loaded bae, using 98%N1?You can maintain 200kias/180kias and climb at 5000ft/min!Now a 737 can't really do this ;)Obviously while "slower"on climbing, the 737 is probably carrying that payload, farther and faster then a 146 ;)

Sorry I don't see your point Mike. It matters not what Eurowings's aircraft does, what mattters is IF this 737 NG is correct on performance and numbers (FPPMs), which in fact it is. I suggest a little more reading, one does not just apply "full thrust" going down the runway. You must also keep in mind what weight the aircraft is with the fuel. Try loading up very little in the tanks, 0 in the center and try a takeoff once again and you will see what how weight plays a role. Weather is another. When you say SLOW climb rate what rate exactly is that? It will tell you right on the PFD..Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | NEC LCD 1980SXi 19" | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro |

>Everything has to be compared to size:>a 737 is surely fast enough for its size, but a 146 easily>surpasses it on takeoff and climb.>A bae is simply well overpowered, something like a 747.>And is smaller.>And has a geometry that allows it to be a STOL aircraft unlike>the 737.>So you takeoff at 110/120kts, and are able to maintain high>climb rate unlike the 737.>Ever tried climbing with a normally loaded bae, using 98%N1?>You can maintain 200kias/180kias and climb at 5000ft/min!>Now a 737 can't really do this ;)>Obviously while "slower"on climbing, the 737 is probably>carrying that payload, farther and faster then a 146 ;)>Claudio,Have a look at the numbers:BAe 146-300; MGTOW 97500lbsFour 31.0kN (6900lb) Textron Lycoming ALF 502R5sTotal thrust available 27600lbsWeight divided by thrust = 3.53B737-700;MGTOW 133000lbsTwo 91.6kN (20,600lb) CFM56-7B20sTotal thrust available 41200lbsWeight divided by thrust = 3.23The weight divided by thrust figure gives you an accurate performance indication of two aircraft of exactly the same aerodynamic qualities. The higher the number, the lower the performance. Bearing in mind that the BAe 146 is considerably less aerodynamic than the B737NG, you can see that the 737 is going to be miles quicker on takeoff roll acceleration. That was the question asked in the original post, "Why does the aircraft seem slower than the BAe146". My answer remains the same, its not slower, its a heck of a lot quicker in any phase of flight. The reason the BAe 146 has such good climb performance is due to its huge un-aerodynamic wing, this is what it was designed for, steep, low speed approaches to short runways. With a static wing, it is not possible to create a conventional jet transport aircraft capable of very slow steep approaches and also high cruising speeds. I stand by my previous post ;-)

>Bearing in mind that the BAe 146 is considerably less>aerodynamic than the B737NG, you can see that the 737 is going>to be miles quicker on takeoff roll acceleration.That was>the question asked in the original post, "Why does the>aircraft seem slower than the BAe146". My answer remains the>same, its not slower, its a heck of a lot quicker in any phase>of flight. Yes i concur.My intent was to say that, the effect of the different aerodynamics of a bae, makes it takeoff faster (in terms of time) then a 737, and it is nearer to the runway.That's why it "seems" faster.As you can read from my post, i perfectly know the 737 is faster ;)I am a v-pilot of vMSA, an airline flying only b146-200 ... kind of "i know it" ;)>The reason the BAe 146 has such good climb performance is due>to its huge un-aerodynamic wing, this is what it was designed>for, steep, low speed approaches to short runways. With a>static wing, it is not possible to create a conventional jet>transport aircraft capable of very slow steep approaches and>also high cruising speeds. I perfectly know :)>Obviously while "slower" on climbing, the 737 is probably>carrying that payload, farther and faster then a 146 ;)I said that ;)