Hi,Tonight I completed a series of flights in VATSIM to test out Van's FDE for the 757. I was very sceptical, as I didn't have that good experiences with Iz's original airfile, and the recent POSKY trial was a nightmare.Ok, here's the background information.ZFW=159,000lbs + 13,200lbs fuel (6t metric) = 172,200 lbs GWFirst, let's look at takeoff reference speeds. Normal flap-setting as per Finnair SOP is FLAP5.From tables we get V1=127Vr=130V2=137By entering a bogus ZFW of 114.9t(metric) into FMC at this stage, we get it to show:V1=122Vr=129V2=140So the rotation speed is almost dead on, other speeds are a bit off, but not disturbingly much. Works a o.k.First, the taxiing. As I was flying a medium-loaded 757 with very little fuel, the aircraft was eager to taxi fast. With idle power, I achieved ~ 30kts on a straight long taxi-out. So some braking is required in turns and also in straights not to exceed the recommended max 25kts. A bit slippery, but I guess the real deal's just like this when very light.The takeoff then was a nice experience. The 757 has very different pitch feel than the 767. The 757 needs a lot more pull in rotation in real life than the 767, and I'm pleased to see, that it was exactly like that during my test flights. My initial reaction was like "it's jammed :)", and that's exactly what it feels like after flying a 767, that's what they say at least.Climb was very much like a 767, expect the climb rates were a bit higher ~ 4000-5000fpm for the initial climb, and even 3500fpm up above FL200. It took 9 minutes to climb to FL280 from throttles forward to ALT CAP. Seems pretty close to me on this low weight. ??Cruise phase was perfectly normal.Normal VNAV economy descent resulted in a 2.5 degree nose-down attitude, which seems very normal to me.Using FLCH at FL90 and SPD=250 I got again 2.5 degrees nose-down and -1600fpm.FLCH at 5000ft with SPD=230 and full spoiler deployment resulted in -2000fpm. I think these are pretty right, but I'm not sure, as I have no tables to look up these, anyone ?Then, flying level with FLAP5 at 180KIAS (gear up) we were 2.5 degrees ANU.Ok, on to approach. But first stall speeds.This is a comparison of what I achieved, and what the tables said.Test was done at 7000ft (table values for alts below 8000ft)STALL Tables ActualFLAP0/Gear up 135 115FLAP1/Gear up 113 111FLAP5/Gear up 106 106FLAP15/Gear up 101 103FLAP20/Gear up 98 99FLAP25/Gear dn 93 96FLAP30/Gear dn 91 93-> The only speed that is off by any measurement is the clean stall speed. Actual stall occurred 20 kts slower than it should have. Other speeds were VERY close, indeed! I wonder why that clean stall speed is so far ? Doesn't bother me though.Now, to the approach and landing itself.I noticed that the bird is difficult to slow down when descending in glideslope FLAP5 @180. With idle power, the aircraft will not slow down, so it is needed to put out some boards, to slow down to near FLAP5 man. speed to get FLAP15/20 out and gear down. From there on, it's no problem. Otherwise I found this bird pretty close to the experience I had in the full flight sim. It's not impossible to slow down AND the VNAV works miraculously well with this FDE. I had no problems in following the path all the way below FL100 even, and had no problems in slowing the bird down for the final approach.I had a Vref30 of 120 looked up from the tables for my weight. If you enter a bogus ZFW of 97.6 t (metric) in the FMC at this stage, it will give you the right reference speed. For me it suggested 119. Even the FLAP25 ref speed was dead on.With little wind, I flew the approach at 124 (ie. Vref+5), and the bird flew, when fully configured for landing, the approach at ~ 2-2.5 degrees airplane nose UP. Exactly as it should. PLUS, what's more. I found it even more stable than the original PIC767 airfile on approach. Yes, more stable :(. From what I remember about the real sim, it was equally stable to fly on low speeds. With little power and attitude changes, keeping the glide is as easy as 1-2-3. I was very happy about it.My final conclusions, after flying 3 flights with this FDE tonight is this:Although the slipperyness is detectable both on the ground AND during the initial stages of the approach, this bird behaves like it should. It is not an impossible aircraft to slow down, and seems to be very stable on its performance. Flying the approach by hand is a joy. Also, the sticky elevator on takeoff is nice, it's not excessive mind you. The stall speeds and overall climb and descent performance all seem very very close to real numbers. With some tweaking, I believe even the small problems could be fine-tuned to match the numbers better, but even now, the performance is too nice to be ignored.I give it a 9-/10 at this point.I'm definitely gonna fly this FDE more, and get to know it better. This is what I've been waiting for :). Thanks Van (and Iz), and I hope you don't mind the public report on the flight model :).regards,Tero

Tero,I don't mind your public report at all and like I had said earlier...No "one" air file is neaded for a given panel, but rather correct aircraft cfg data so that the panel systems work correctly.Believe it or not I had the RR engine variant FDE modified and put together about two hours after I downloaded the aircraft and actually surprised myself after I took the first test flight. Normally there is always something that goes wrong and then the tweaking starts, but not in this case. The P&W engine variant went just as smoothly as I really only needed to enter the proper thrust rating and inlet area for the given engine type.In any event, thanks to Iz for his FDE that was the basis of the modification as I always knew his FDE was good and a perfect place for me to start as I haven't had the time to create one from scratch.Thanks to you as well Tero for the good review and winding the bird out a bit for me.Kindest Regards,Van LatendresseYeoDesigns/AFG GroupPanel/FDE Designer

Hi Van,Couldn't share the FDEs with me could you? My email is jtavendale (@) iinet . net .auAppreciate it :)Thanks in advance.

Same for me?lenny(DOT)zaman(@)skynet(DOT)bethanks in advance

Tero,Excellent analysis and summation.I have a follow-on question:Does the modified FDE result in fuel burn based on the 757 or the 767?The reason I ask is this:If we can minimize the number of different variables between the two FDE, we might be able to determine a conversion factor that when entered into the PIC FMC yields accurate Vspds throughout the 757 flight envelope. And if the 767 and 757 Vspd tables are linear with respect to each other, the fuel burnoff during the flight would yield Vref speeds that are accurate for the 757. There is likely to be some compromise in this but if having accurate Vspd and Vref are the priority, then the compromise might be worth it.I'm throwing this out for thoughts without having compared the Vspd and Vref tables for the 757/767 to see if there is a linear correlation with respect to weights.-michael

Would the OPT-MAX altitude numbers also be close with those settings.Nebojsa

Hi VanThanx for your email;-) After a little testing I agree to most of what Tero explained in a brillant way up in the thread. My numbers have been very close to Tero

Yes, I actually have set the rudder value back to one a while ago, but forgot to update my zip files...Thanks for the heads up. I found that Iskander's original taxi mod was a bit much, so I applied the taxi mod available for PIC and I must say even when the aircraft has very little fuel I do not experience the aircraft moving with parking brakes set. When the parking brakes are off I still need to nudge the plane with a little power to get it going, then I can taxi with idle thrust and only on very long straight taxi ways do I need to apply a little braking. This is with very little fuel around 35 to 40 % in each wing tank and zero in the center tank.I feel that the modified FDE is quite nice and gives me the feel of flying a 757 rather then a 767 (I'm going by the differences real world pilots experience between the two aircraft types and data available...not my own personal experience as I've never piloted a 757 nor any commercial airliner for that matter), but this FDE is a good starting point.The input has been great so far and I urge anyone that has the knowledge of modifying or creating FDE's to tweak away as I have a few other projects on the go and only have limited time to spend on the 757. I will however update everyone if I make any changes.Regards,Van LatendresseYeoDesigns/AFG GroupPanel/FDE Designer

hi Vanany way to drop me the FDE's on my [email protected]

Hi VanThank you for sending your FDE's and other files to me by email, I really appreciate it. I just have one question before I do the Merge, Are you using your merge (Posky 757/PIC) in FS2002 or FS9 ? I have read all the threads by Teropa and He is not really specific as to what FS version he is doing the merge in. I am aware of the fact that the PIC panel does not work properly in FS9 and the Posky 757-200 is for FS9 only, at least that's what it says in the Posky download read me file. I will also post this message in the other thread by teropa and see if he responds.

Hi Van:I would very much appreciate a copy of your revised 757 FDE file.Thanks and regards,Bob E-Mail: [email protected]

I can answer this for you. :)PIC767 panel does not work in FS9, but the POSKY visual model works without a hitch in FS2002. I'm using this modification in FS2002.Tero

TeropaBoy that was quick, appreciate your response. there are a couple of other issues that are not clear. I have merged several aircraft successfully PSS/Posky 747, IFDG/PIC 767 for example, and I am curious as to who's Aircraft.cfg file are you using. Posky's or PIC, several issues are involved such as contact points, flaps, Engine data, lighting, etc. etc. Are you just using the Posky Model file and Model.cfg and the Posky Textures along with the PIC panel and Sounds in FS2002? Van sent me his FDE's and Aircraft.cfg file along with some effects files, but he wasn't specific as to whether it was a modified Posky aircraft.cfg file or what...

Hi VanSome more notes/questions/remarks:A minor: If i use the flap I get mor flap sound than movement. Setting to 5 for example means a following sound of flap without any further movement of the flap.... ??Concerning "rudder sensitivity":Setting the rudder sensitivity back to 1.0 in the flight tuning section does not make much of a difference.... just a slight improvement for me, maybe I have to reduce even more.Another one:I took just the airfile from ther merge and combined it to my favorite IFDGV2 RR Model without any furhter changes to the aircraft cfg file of the IFDG and it feels much better than the original RR airfile. Would you think I should add any changes in the IFDG aircraft cfg file?With IFDG I have a brilliant taxi behaviour: With Idle thrust it stays at 15 knots on straight taxiwaysA double thanx for the work!

Regarding the flap sound issue, that's likely a bug in the sound cfg, not anything with the FDE.