In the temporary forums JohnCi wrote this:"I flew to California for the weekend, just returned home a few hours' ago. I was pretty impressed with the ROC on the 737-700. We held over 2000 fpm all the way up to our cruise altitude of FL330 with a full pax load. I'd never paid much attention before but today was one of those short flights where we spent more time in climb and descent vs. cruise.I am curious whether there's any real world '700 drivers among us and how the ROC ranks among commercial jets. Seems like a lot of wing for a smaller commercial jet.Regards,John"I too have found the real 737-700 to be an aggressive bird especially when operating out of KMDW. The PMDG model had no where near the power from the engines the real bird has. I ended up modifying the thrust rate in PMDG's 'aircraft.cfg' file to better achieve proper lift off distance down the runway out of KMDW (Midway Airport has become the marker for me concerning aircraft performance specific to what operates out of that field. If a real 737-700 can takeoff with enough fuel to fly to KLAX without using all the runway then the PMDG model should be able to do it as well). Not a slam on PMDG just the same I hope the NGX from them has more realistic engine performance than the current version does. I know some will argue the point here but anyone who has flew on the real 737-700/800/900 knows full well these birds aren't lacking on power and actually have thrust to spare even at higher altitudes. I've never flown one but from my vantage point I've never seen an NG struggle to get out of Midway which prompted me to take note of John's thread because this was something I observed as well... :(

I see this topic hasn't had the same interest as it did when it was originally posted on Avsim's temporary forum. Just the same I just had the pleasure of flying an AirTran 737-700 all the way up to 41,000ft flying from KMSP to KMCO. I must tell you the performance of this aircraft is remarkable. We climbed all the way up to 41,000ft at a rate that seemed no less than 2300fpm (maybe 1800fpm after 30,000ft). I see why these birds have no issue operating efficiently out of airports like KMDW. The new wing design on the NG series (winglest included) does wonders for this aircraft's performance. There's really not much to say here except realizing although PMDG did outstanding work on their original NG series the engine performance was way below what the real aircraft can do. We had a full load and were climbing like a bat out of hell. Southwest operates 737NG flights out of KMDW to destinations as far as KSAN so my experience wasn't a case of light load and marginal fuel on board. I use KMDW in FS to really tell if engine performance of perspective FS designs are pretty accurate (aircraft like 737's, E-Jet's, A320's, etc. Those that fly out of this airport). Thanks to YouTube there's a wealth of videos that show on average how much runway is needed for a typical aircraft type to get off the runway (plus I've plane spotted there myself). Minus an official POH one can get a pretty good since... Yes many things like temps, weight, and fuel come into play but the NG never barely gets over the runway end wall when leaving that airport like I've seen with the default PMDG engine settings. I've adjusted my engine settings to reflect reality (which may not coincide with published specs) but get's the job done in FS. I still drop my center tank down to 80% for trips to KSAN in order to have a good takeoff from KMDW. A full tank with my settings (as it should) takes a little more runway on takeoff getting me closer to that wall. There's no jetliner/route taking off from KMDW that needs a full fuel load to get where it's going... I at first thought my settings over powered the aircraft in climb until I flew on the real thing. All this is to say I'll keep watch concerning the NGX and speak up to the engine performance of these birds. I'm sure PMDG will get this right next time. PMDG did a great job don't get me wrong, the only things I had issue with was the VC eyepoint, engine performance (no matter what the specs say the real bird is a remarkable climber and something in FS doesn't reflect that unless you 'up' the engine settings), and engine sound both inside and out. The engine sounds that I found were the best was Des Braban's work uploaded to Avsim. It sure will be nice when the library is back on line. Some of that work was virtually priceless (no pun intended)...

Yup, I suspect most of us have been on a 737 and been startled by the angle of the horizon on the climb out. I certainly was the last time I flew on board a CSA one, although that's probably cause half the guys driving those things are ex MiG-21 drivers LOLTo be completely fair to PMDG, the original PMDG 737 was the 600/700 boxed set, and if you are flying the PMDG 600 variant from that boxed set then you should note that the 600 model does not feature the same engines as other 737 NGs. They are CFM 56s, but of considerably less power than other models, being derated to 18,500 lbs of thrust. By comparison, the CFM 56s on the 900ER are rated at 27,300 lbs of thrust.The 600 also has different wings to the other NGs, which are reinforced at the tips to prevent the flutter which it was prone to and it is also notably less stable than other NGs, which is one of the reasons why it is not a popular model with customers, with only 70 or so having been sold. I'm a big fan of the 737, but the 600 NG is not one of Boeing's finest moments.I'm looking forward to PMDG's FSX 737, but since it is at least six months away, I'm merrily flying the Ariane one, which is a good performer in FSX and that HGS is good fun to play with. It's pricey for sure, but it is nice to have an NG in the newer sim, and when the PMDG one comes out, I'll have two to choose from. Three if I include the PIC Classics. For me, FSX is only half a sim without a 737!Al

Never had any experiance flying in the -600 series. I will say the Wilco PIC is a little underpowered as well which I had to make some adjustments. No jet taking off out of KMDW is getting close to that end of runway wall. Maybe it's something about FS and 737's that don't quite account for engine performance even when the proper engine values and entered into the 'aircraft.cfg' file. I know that's a long shot but 737's for two developers shouldn't pose the same under performing results. Even the -200 series in real live (remembering my Vangard flights) had more power than our payware virtual 737 offerings. Either way the beauty of FS is you can make edits. I'd rather have real performance versus real numbers. I'm happy this problem isn't present in 90% of my other payware FS aircraft. It's just these 737's that have all the right numbers (in other words looks good on paper) yet under performs in practical use. Like I said the beauty of FS is there's always an edit option for the 'air' and 'aircraft.cfg' files... :(