Hey there...I really love the new a/c... I just need to verify one thing quick. I may have missed this in the reading (what I've found to read anyway)... but, for your aircraft, are the Performance Init numbers to enter into the FMC the same as the 767 PIC? IE - ZFW = 245?If not, I havn't found anything that states what should be put in.I assume V-Speeds, cruise, climb, etc are all correct though.Thanks much!BTW - Something I'm just now looking at... I'm currently climbing out of IAH headin toward EWR in the COA 75... at around FL200 right now, the AT is saying 103.9 N1 for CLB power... and though the Autothrottle appears to be commanding this power, the engine is only turning out about 92.6 N1. Needless to say, it's makin the climb a wee bit slow. Disabling the AT and manually commanding max power doesn't change the situation either. Just something I'm noticing, thanks!

I think if you did some real digging in this forum you will find that the PIC767 FMC was not "tweaked" for 757. This would mean some of the "numbers" generated for 757 ops thru the FMC are a tad "off".Somehow I have been able to enter an empty weight of 197 in though. I don't know how. Don't let it stop you from really enjoying a fine add-on.Timothy

Truly, the full enjoyment is still there :)I was curious whether the weights in Mike's Air file were significant to the 767 PIC FMC Perf. Init entries or not... Obviously a 75 isn't as heavy as a 76. The power to weight ratio on the 757 is also greater than the 76, right?Also... I'm still curious about the mismatch between the mismatch of CLB power v. Autothrottle setting. Especially when I'm only climbing at about 500 FPM at FL200 with 1/2 fuel, and speed slowly but steadily bleeding off. I can see that the white arc which shows set N1 thrust is actually matched up with the CLB limit, but, as said previous, there's a 10 percent difference in the actual N1 being used. Even if I turn off the EEC and AT and firewall it, I simply cannot generate more than about 94% N1. This is on climbout anyway, again, with about 1/2 to 2/3s fuel... I'll play with it on the ground and post an edit if I get more N1 (which I suspect should be the case).I'm thinking that either I did something wrong with installation (not sure how I coulda though seeing as it was a double-click and viola ;) ), or there's a difference between Mike's 757 and the main 767 that I havn't found in terms of operational usage.I assure you, I have dug into, and read about as many of the posts for this awesome 757 as I can find ;) If I havn't seen what I needed to see, and it actually is there, call me blind and please point me in the right direction ;)Thanks for all your help... yay 757s!

Here's a couple of screen shots to illustrate my curiosity of the N1 dilemma.What you dont see in the 2nd pic (they are trimmed for size) is that I'm only climbing at about 1000 FPM. This with only 15000 lbs of fuel in the tanks, so, I'm definitely light. I'm sure I've got everything programmed right... it's just like the engine cant reach the N1 the autothrottle wants. I'm confuzed :-zhelp Thanks much guys...

i am experiencing the exact same thing. so if you figure out a solution PLEASE let me know . thanks

I had the exact same "problems" and struggled to find a solution.It just didn't make sense that this bird climbed like a pig above FL200 when the wing tanks were only 1/3 full and the center tank empty.I even tried it by disengaging the AT and going full throttle but still only managed to get mach 0.77 at FL290 (took forever to get there).I ended up adjusting the "Thrust scalar" in the aircraft cfg file from 1.001 to 1.101, basically a 10% increase (not a scientific change). I looked at the SDK for this stuff and all the right numbers appeared to be there, at least as far as engine power goes.Also, enter 179 as your ZFW, tho I believe Mike has already stated that V speeds will be a lot less than they should be.King Hoyle - ZNY

ok correct me if i am wrong. we are not obtaining full power because if we were we would be gettting the power a 767 developes which is not the plane we are flying. we are obtaining only 90% (approx) power to simulate the power of a 757? if this is so why can it not be set to obtain full power and if we want to simulate the power of a 757 we just decrease the thrust in the flight editor

Bow to the King says Nate I totally know what you're saying... I even went as far as disabling the EEC to eek out a couple extra percent N1 with the firewalled throttle.At FL370 (which took at least 30 mins to get to) heading NE outta IAH to EWR (COA of the purest form I guess), I topped out the climb with speed dropping rather rapidly and a VV of less than 500 FPM, with a relatively light load of fuel to boot.When I finally got level, I was at about 230 indicated, and probably 2/10 of a mach number slower than the VNAV ECON CRZ mode said I should be at. I never got better than about M.76, which was still .05 mach slower than it shoulda been, and even that speed took an hour to get to, inching up tenths of a knot at a time over the couple hours in cruise.Toward to comment about developing "full power" or not relative to the 767 (in the other gentleman's post)... yah, the 75's engines aren't as big as far as I'm aware, but... that shouldn't stop the engines from getting to N1, and thence, the air file should theoretally produce the proper thrust numbers at 100% N1 for the 757. At first thought, it shouldn't be too tough a fix, but, I'm not an Air File guy, so, I am probably wrong ;)Oh well...As I recall, the 757 is rather overpowered relative to other Boeing aircraft, which gives it it's characteristic launch style departure (steep initial climb), and overall rapid climbs to altitude, which should be ever more prevalent with light fuel.What does Mr. Toussaint think? :)

if i recall off the top of my head a 757 has about 43000 lbs of thrust and 767 has about 63000 lbs each depending what engine the airline chooses to have but these figures are very close.

According to the Boeing site's specs for the 75 and 76, and using the largest engine options:Thrust in lbs, MGTOW = Max Gross Takeoff Weight in lbs, TTW is Thrust to Weight Ratio at gross (lb thrust / lb weight)B752: Thrust = 43,500x2 , MGTOW = 255,000 , TTW = 0.341B763: Thrust = 63,300x2 , MGTOW = 412,000 , TTW = 0.307Might not look like much, but this means that at gross weight, the 75 should perform at least proportinally better than the 767. And though 10% extra thrust isn't going to translate to 10% more speed or 10% greater climb rate, the 75 should outperform the 76 in flight through climb. Both airliners are listed with a typical cruise of M.80 however.*Scratches chin* What to do, what to do... hmmm :)

hey my memory isn't that bad then. but the real problem needs to be solved

The problem isn't that it's a 757 as opposed to a 767 (therefore less thrust). It is simply that the autothrottle and thrust management systems are tuned to a specific flight model, the one that came with PIC. Getting engine performance right involves a lot more than simply setting total thrust. The engine modelling in that 757 air file is quite different than in my 767 so you aren't going to get it to perform correctly. Regards,Wade

Well... I guess the question becomes then if there's anything that can be done with accessable files that would potentially correct the problem. Is it simple an air file issue, or are we fated to have 500 FPM climbs through 50% of the altitude we need to cover? :)This 75's beautiful, but I'd almost (gasp) rather pretend I'm flying a 75 while blastin around in a properly performing 76 ;)

anyone tried doing the posky/pic merge on the 757 but use the 757 airfile? dono if that would work or not.Happy Flying-Anthony

hey there! I read all these posts here and find the info very informative to me! Pertaining to the small problems with this great 757 package! Now I have not downloded this package yet, but can't we just replace the IDFG 757 Air File with the PIC One to make everything work ok on the panel?? Since it does not climb very fast with the Air File it came with, can we just replace the Air File with the PIC 767 one?? Then the panel should work and read correctly?? Can anyone give info if this will work with the 757's?? Thank's MIKE!Then I will download the 757 package if this will work!!-:)