HiI'm increasingly beginning to notice the rapid (unrealistic) acceleration of PIC on the take-off roll. It gains speed far too quickly and as a result, maintaining V2+15 until Aa requires a major speed reduction because by the time the aircraft has rotated the speed is way past V2+15. I was thinking that this maybe something to do with the friction coefficents that MS got wrong, hence the reason for high %N1 taxi power needed? Anyone?

Well I know most do it manually but I set my mcp for my V2 spd and hit N1 for takeoff and follow the FD bar which commands V2 + 15. Maybe you have to much thrust going on? What about the tempt at your location? Do you use de-rated takeoff for this? Normal speed range should be V2 + 15-25. Best Wishes,Randy J. [email protected]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"AMD XP2100 |MUNCHKIN512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ]K7S5A MB |[b]GF364 MEG |WIN XP PRO

Hi RandyI fly around Europe using real world weather, so usually temperatures are never too extreme. I use D-TO thrust according to my gross weight, h/w or t/w component etc. This one really puzzles me.

TomDon't sweat it. Just follow the F/D, and if it seems to command over 20 deg, just stay there and let the speed build up.Tero

You might be rotating too slowly, try to rotate at 3 degrees per second, which means u get to 10 degrees in about 3 secondsRegards,SI(WSSS)

wow that helps me too thanks a ton!

Yea. Rotation is tricky (ie, lots of practice!)

HiIt's not only maintaining speed after airborne - the acceleration from nothing to VR is incredibly fast. Faster than in real life without a doubt.

Are you a real life 767 pilot?

Again and again......the take off roll and climb rate would very depend on what the weight of the aircraft, i've watched so many 767-300ER cockpit videos, flight time from 2 hrs to 10 hrs, and i can tell you when they're light, the take off rolling distence is very short and the time took to reach V2 after rotation would never exceed 1.5 seconds, and one more, an ETOPS aircraft have to equiping powerful engines!!

Hello Muppet22:Whats the weight of the aircraft that you mentioned in real life?

ETOPS doesn't have to do with engine power ratings.The main ETOPS factor is the time the aircraft needs to reach an alternate with one engine at FL100 (in case of engine failure and rapid depressurization)Every two engined aircraft have to be able to accelerate to V2 after an engine failure at V1 at MTOW. This is what really limits engine ratings (or rather MTOW).

"The main ETOPS factor is the time the aircraft needs to reach an alternate with one engine at FL100 (in case of engine failure and rapid depressurization)"So obviously you need powerful engines :-roll

Hi Ok I 'fly' around Europe using routes and weights of actual BA 767-300 flightplans. ZFW's vary as you could imagine. Acceleration is very fast regardless of gross weight, although there is a linear decrease between gross weight and increases in gross weight.I'm not a real world 767 pilot, but my dad is and I used to go jumpseating with him quite regularly until the CAA (UK Civil Aviation Authority) banned jumpseating as a consequence of 09/11.As with most of my questions I put it to him first to see whether I was doing anything wrong. He could see nothing untoward thus confirming my original suspicions. Incidentally I remember acceleration being quite slow when I was jumpseating; apparantly a 767 with a gross weight of 130000kg does 0-60mph in about 13 seconds, PIC however does it in about 5 seconds.Please don't get the hump, I love PIC just as much as anyone here but this problem is getting quite frustrating to solve.:-)

Eh not really.I'd say the acceleration from V1 to V2 at MTOW with one engine is the factor influencing engine developers! Not ETOPS. You could say it's a side effect...