Has anyone out there noticed that the new COA PIC 757 displays the "Same" ref speeds no matter what weight the aircraft is. Today I landed extreamly fat on fuel due to excellent winds over the Atlantic. On arrival at KPHL from EGLL, we had 25K left in the tanks instead of the 8K that was planned. The FMC calculated a ref speed of 128 Kt for 20 flaps, 123 Kt for 25 flaps, and 119 kt for 30 flaps. These are the exact same numbers I had the other day when the fluel load was aproximately 5K.All of the other FMC functions seem to be working as they do in PIC767. Any ideas what might be wrong?Terry

It has been said dozens of times in this forum, but I will repeat it since you may not have the time to check previous threads.The PIC FMC is build around the Boeing 767-300ER and NOT the 757.Although the 763 and the 757 share the same cockpit in reality, the FMC data regarding aircraft performance are way different.The PIC FMC will display you speed information as if it was a LIGHT 763 and NOT a heavy 757. The speeds are totally inappropriate for 757 operations.You can search for real 757 data sheets (if you can find any, let me know, I'm interested too!) to get the correct speeds to fly, or for a rought estimate, add about 30Kts to each speed of the PIC FMC for a ZFW of about 81T (the lowest allowed 763 ZFW ).However, I have to point out that ALL the 757s available for FS2002 do not fly realistically at all. Not even close to the real thing (see other previous threads about this).Regards,George DorkofikisAthens, Greece

George,Thank you for your response to my question. I am sorry that I did not go back and read all of the past threads that delt with the 757. Since this "NEW" (just released) PIC 757 model just came out, I along with the rest of the PC sim community were hoping that we would get to fly the little sister to the PIC 767. Do you have "Real" world (jet or sim) experience in both the 757 and 767 which would allow you to say that these flight dynamics are way off the mark? I can tell you that "modeling" the "right" feel into a flight simulator is no easy task. I have nearly 12 years experience working on Air Force flight simulators and the one biggest complaint we use to get from the crews was "The sim is much harder to fly than the real jet." I can tell you their statement is "True" as I was able to get 1.5 hours of stick time in the back seat of a F-4. The jet was much easier to fly and that might have been due to the fact we at that time could not simulate G forces and the seat of the pants you get in the real world. Again thanks for the response and hopefully someone out there will be able to come up with a more realistic copy of the 757.Terry

Hi Terry,No, apart from the ground handling point of view of both a/c types I have no flying experience at all.The statement is purely based on feedback I had from a friend of mine who is an Aeronautical engineer after he simply looked at the airfile data!!!! Don't ask me what he was talking about! I have no clue whatsoever. But according to the numbers, he says it's completely wrong.As for the sim being harder than the real plane, I agree 100%. Although I have not even flown (had the controls) of a real aircraft, I believe that is very true. The total aircraft responce while it's moving through the air is different from the sim.Further more from FS (or any other PC based simulator) since we have to rely only to our sight and no other senses!I am trying to convice this friend of mine to help me alter the dynamics of the IFDG 757 to as close to the real numbers as possible.We'll see...George DorkofikisAthens, Hellas

George,Even with the numbers matching the real jets performance charts, the "Feel" can be very subjective. What is good for one is bad for another. Now that the newer birds are going to computerized flight controls and "Artificial" feel, it would seem they might be easier to duplicate on the desktop simulators.Sim-u-lator,Terry

>George, >>Even with the numbers matching the real jets performance >charts, the "Feel" can be very subjective. What is good for >one is bad for another. The only reason for this subjectivity is that typical performance data do not include information like pughoid (spelling ?) frequency or roll/yaw rates which are vital in acessing the 'feel'. Therefore it is important to use real pilots in making evaluations.I was almost laughing when at Avsim conference in Tahoe this month a Microsoft guy was arguing how closely their aircraft match aircraft tabulated performance data and he had a few graphs to prove his point. Unfortunately all these graphs had to do with things like rate of climb or fuel flow rates, etc - hardly anything that is responsible for the 'feel'.Michael J.

Well, um, when do you ever "feel" anything in FS2002?