Errors in the manual (not typos)

[michal 44]

1. page 2-4, left column Flight Plan Fuel should be deleted from the list contributing to Planned Landing Weight2. page 2-9, top table missing "x1000" for Landing Weight at AlternateMichael J.

[Guest keringordon]

I posted the following in a (now locked) previous thread:The manual does not explain clearly how to set and operate the IRS system. There is no image or diagram showing where the switches are and no description listing which subsystem it belongs to.I'd like to add my thanks at this time to PMDG for the early release of the (excellent) manual and for developing the best add-on aircraft ever conceived.

[michal 44]

Page 4-14, Stall SpeedsNot sure what represent numbers in the top row: 213,231,250 .. are these weights (only x1000 kG units would make sense).Michael J.

[michal 44]

I would also like to add that I really enjoyed the example of fuel calculation provided on pages 2-12 to 2-16. However there is a procedural error there that if corrected would add substantial amount of fuel.When estimating the amount of need Flight Plan fuel at the bottom page 2-12 table 2-7 is used and 87600 lbs is the result. However this table is valid only for Planned Landing Weight of 475,000 lbs. Our Planned Landing Weight at IAD will be 544,000 lbs. (as computed further along) therefore we have to apply corrrection provided at the bottom of table 2-7 which is 880 lbs/hr for every 10,000 lbs over 475,000 lbs. We are roughly 70,000 lbs over so 4 hours x 7 x 880 = 24,600 lbs of fuel. So this changes our Planned Takeoff Weight from the computed 631,700 to 656,000 lbs - a big difference.Michael J.

[Guest neil_b]

Don't know if you saw it Michael but there was a thread where one of the PMDG team or beta testers requested people to email him with possible mistakes.Maybe you knew that and have been emailing him, either way I can see why a thread may be useful for this anyway. Useful for actual mistakes not requests that is.

[cannonplug 126]

I'll post my $.02 here as well. These are not necessarily errors, and they're not all that important, but here we go anyway:1. Page 11-12: "Each engine contains an Integrated Drive Generator (IDG) which is attached to a constant speed drive..." In reality, the IDG contains its own CSD (which is what makes it integrated), as opposed to the classic 747, in which the generator and CSD were separate units. The next paragraph in the manual describes the setup correctly: "Each IDG incorporates a generator, a constant speed drive..." So it's really just a matter of semantics...2. Normal procedures Page 5-3: I seem to recall when I worked on 747-400s in another lifetime that it was important to first verify that the flap handle matched the actual flap position (in addition to other checks I can't quite recall) before turning on the battery switch. Because of the high degree of automation in the 400, a lot of things can happen just by applying battery power. Now, this may have been a customer option where I worked, or my memory may be altogether faulty (not at all unlikely). And of course, in the simulator it doesn't really matter if the flaps move inadvertently, but in real life the consequences to some poor unsuspecting ground worker can be quite dire.Regards,Walter MeierKPDX

[Guest Buck Bolduc]

>Don't know if you saw it Michael but there was a thread where>one of the PMDG team or beta testers requested people to email>him with possible mistakes.>>Maybe you knew that and have been emailing him, either way I>can see why a thread may be useful for this anyway. Useful for>actual mistakes not requests that is.In all fairness, it's not a 1-2 page manual.Of course I'm recalling the days when software (I wrote some dos stuff) came in a sandwich baggie with a 1 page manual. Usually 1 floppy and an instruction sheet was enough. :)Big diff.,these days.

[Guest neil_b]

>>Don't know if you saw it Michael but there was a thread>where>>one of the PMDG team or beta testers requested people to>email>>him with possible mistakes.>>>>Maybe you knew that and have been emailing him, either way I>>can see why a thread may be useful for this anyway. Useful>for>>actual mistakes not requests that is.>>In all fairness, it's not a 1-2 page manual.>>Of course I'm recalling the days when software (I wrote some>dos stuff) came in a sandwich baggie with a 1 page manual.>Usually 1 floppy and an instruction sheet was enough. :)>>Big diff.,these days.I fail to see how that relates to what I wrote. Care to explain?

[michal 44]

Thanks Neil.I did email Ryan but I think his interest was primarily in typographic errors. Back to reading the manual .....Michael J.