I own both the CS757 and the JF (PSS) 757 and the PSS 757 won me over in a large way.That is all I have to say on the subject.

Oops, your right I meant AirSimmer...Sadly that's how CS has always done business. Ask those who bought the 707 some time ago...Speaking of the things you mentioned I don't hand fly the CS757. I found for the most part after takeoff using the autopilot and turning it totally off only at the end of a flight on the ILS approach just before landing works great for me. Real world airliners are rarely flown by hand unless your flying a visual approach or somethings wrong with the aircraft. Every FS add-on has it's faults but if one flies the CS757 the way pilots in the real world do I find it perfectly acceptable. After my last flight on a real world fully loaded 737NG I'd bet we'd all be surprised what the real birds can do if there were no FAA restrictions and passengers didn't have to be accounted for. From my experience in the military some of these unassuming airliners can do some amazing things if let loose. That aside I know the CS757 has it's problems but it's far better in my book that the overall package we got from PSS. Seeing as no one else is stepping up to the plate to do a better 757 (at least for FS9) I'm counting my blessings. For awhile there I thought the CS757 was going to be left in the dust without the promised 'Block F' add-on (adding all the promised realistic avionics) like what we've seen from them in the past. When CS came back and completed the project I was happy we didn't have another 707 on our hands. Under normal flight operations this bird is more than acceptable to me...One thing I would like to know is where in the contact points can one adjust the steering of an aircraft. The PMDG 737NG turns on a dime in FS9 but the CS757 slides around turns needing right/left brake to properly make a corner. I'm sure there's a setting somewhere that fixes this, if anyone know please let me know... :(

I know this as I work for an airline (AirTran), and I am also a rw pilot. I know what an airliner can do. While AirTran doesn't have the 757, I see them everyday. I also know that, while the 757 has amazing climb performance, it cannot outclimb an F-15 in full afterburner. I also know how pilots fly their planes. The FAA requires an autoland to be done every 3 landings to keep the system current, and to stay CAT II/III certified. I also know that rw airliners limit autoland crosswind component to 10kts. You would also be suprised that most rw airline pilots actually prefer to hand fly their planes below 10,000ft. Real World airline pilots cannot get away with letting otto do all of the flying like we can on fs. I also know that you cannot take a 757 vertical. It will stall long before you get to that AOA (it's called a power on stall). As far as your fix: under contact points, the first line will read point.0=1, 58.50, 0.00, -10.65, 1181.1, 0, 1.5, 68.00, 0.15, 3.0, 0.9, 12.1, 12.1, 0, 240.0, 280.0Change the "68.00" to 80.00-90.00.Matt

Thanks Matt I'll give your contact points suggestion a try... As far as the 737NG it's amazing isn't it??? My Airtran flight from KMSP to KMCO was a joy to behold...

I also know that you cannot take a 757 vertical. It will stall long before you get to that AOA (it's called a power on stall).

You being a real world pilot and all should understand that the relationship between pitch angle and AoA are not directly related by any means. So I think you're absolutely wrong. I guarantee you could get a 757 vertical...

<-- That was near vertical. Until you get some real left/right seat time in a 757, I'll leave it to 75' pilots to decide :( :(EDIT: If you remember the PSS 757 is also a rocket with wings (my favorite 757). Also, there are special wake turbulence notices behind all the Heavies and guess what else in particular? Boeing 757's! Think maybe the FAA included these special wake turbulence spacing procedures for a reason? Maybe... :(

Matt all I can say is if you are a real world airline pilot I'm quite shocked by some of your comment's. Perhaps you meant you work for an airline but hold a PPL? Anyway the generalization of you comments can be very misleading for some people here.RegardsRob

You being a real world pilot and all should understand that the relationship between pitch angle and AoA are not directly related by any means. So I think you're absolutely wrong. I guarantee you could get a 757 vertical...

<-- That was near vertical. Until you get some real left/right seat time in a 757, I'll leave it to 75' pilots to decide :( :( EDIT: If you remember the PSS 757 is also a rocket with wings (my favorite 757). Also, there are special wake turbulence notices behind all the Heavies and guess what else in particular? Boeing 757's! Think maybe the FAA included these special wake turbulence spacing procedures for a reason? Maybe... :(

Excuse me sir, but you need to take a refresher course or go talk to a CFI. Pitch is directly related to the AOA. The angle of attack is the difference between the pitch attitude and the flight path angle. Hence why you can be nose up and descending or vice a versa. Also, AOA is determines whether the wings are stalled or not. Sure you can get any plane vertical if you have the momentum and/or the elevator surface needed. but you are eventually going to run out of airspeed and stall. I confused pitch angle with AOA and that was my fault, but to say that pitch has nothing to do with the angle of attack is just plain wrong. For a trailing aircraft to be effected by wake turbulence, it has to be behind and below the bigger plane. Hence why wake turbulence advisories are given out for 757's. They have incredible climb performance, and there are not many aircraft that can outclimb a 757. After all, the 757 was designed to operate out of hot and high airports where density altitude plays a major factor in performance. I'm sure you already knew that tho. By the way...how did we get on to wake turbulence?? No post in this thread even hinted to wake turbulenceOn to your video: the 757 was doing a good 300kts, not 165kts. You could also see how fast he shed the airspeed, and he didn't make it to 8,000ft. I bet you he wasn't carrying 172 passengers, and 30,000lbs of fuel either. Please do not come on here trying to prove people wrong. It just makes you look ignorant and uneducated.

Matt all I can say is if you are a real world airline pilot I'm quite shocked by some of your comment's. Perhaps you meant you work for an airline but hold a PPL? Anyway the generalization of you comments can be very misleading for some people here.RegardsRob

Never did I say that I was an airline pilot. I said that I worked for an airline, and was a rw pilot. BTW, what statements have I said that were misleading??Matt

Excuse me sir, but you need to take a refresher course or go talk to a CFI. Pitch is directly related to the AOA. The angle of attack is the difference between the pitch attitude and the flight path angle. Hence why you can be nose up and descending or vice a versa. Also, AOA is determines whether the wings are stalled or not. Sure you can get any plane vertical if you have the momentum and/or the elevator surface needed. but you are eventually going to run out of airspeed and stall. Pitch angle is often confused with the AOA, but to say that pitch has nothing to do with the angle of attack is just plain wrong. For a trailing aircraft to be effected by wake turbulence, it has to be behind and below the bigger plane. Hence why wake turbulence advisories are given out for 757's. They have incredible climb performance, and there are not many aircraft that can outclimb a 757. After all, the 757 was designed to operate out of hot and high airports where density altitude plays a major factor in performance. I'm sure you already knew that tho. By the way...how did we get on to wake turbulence?? No post in this thread even hinted to wake turbulenceOn to your video: the 757 was doing a good 300kts, not 165kts. You could also see how fast he shed the airspeed, and he didn't make it to 8,000ft. I bet you he wasn't carrying 172 passengers, and 30,000lbs of fuel either. Please do not come on here trying to prove people wrong. It just makes you look ignorant and uneducated.Never did I say that I was an airline pilot. I said that I worked for an airline, and was a rw pilot. BTW, what statements have I said that were misleading??Matt

Hey Matt,First off dont want to turn this into a argument, and sorry if I misunderstood. Your statements seem to be based on one Airlines SOP, the FAA does not require an Aircraft to Autoland once in every three Landings and wind limits are type specific.You would be surprised at how many Airline SOP's want the Automatics on after 500ft and only clicked off at minimums, despite what the PIC wants. I was just a little surprised about your comments but understand now that your not flying for an Airline.RegardsRob

Hey Matt,First off dont want to turn this into a argument, and sorry if I misunderstood. Your statements seem to be based on one Airlines SOP, the FAA does not require an Aircraft to Autoland once in every three Landings and wind limits are type specific.You would be surprised at how many Airline SOP's want the Automatics on after 500ft and only clicked off at minimums, despite what the PIC wants. I was just a little surprised about your comments but understand now that your not flying for an Airline.RegardsRob

what you say could very well be correct. I was told that by a 717 F/O a couple of months ago. I am at work now, so when our next aircraft comes in, I will ask them. I don't want to be giving out misinformation, but I was repeating what I have been told by somebody who lives his life at FL320Matt

Excuse me sir, but you need to take a refresher course or go talk to a CFI. Pitch is directly related to the AOA. The angle of attack is the difference between the pitch attitude and the flight path angle. Hence why you can be nose up and descending or vice a versa. Also, AOA is determines whether the wings are stalled or not. Sure you can get any plane vertical if you have the momentum and/or the elevator surface needed. but you are eventually going to run out of airspeed and stall. I confused pitch angle with AOA and that was my fault, but to say that pitch has nothing to do with the angle of attack is just plain wrong. For a trailing aircraft to be effected by wake turbulence, it has to be behind and below the bigger plane. Hence why wake turbulence advisories are given out for 757's. They have incredible climb performance, and there are not many aircraft that can outclimb a 757. After all, the 757 was designed to operate out of hot and high airports where density altitude plays a major factor in performance. I'm sure you already knew that tho. By the way...how did we get on to wake turbulence?? No post in this thread even hinted to wake turbulenceOn to your video: the 757 was doing a good 300kts, not 165kts. You could also see how fast he shed the airspeed, and he didn't make it to 8,000ft. I bet you he wasn't carrying 172 passengers, and 30,000lbs of fuel either. Please do not come on here trying to prove people wrong. It just makes you look ignorant and uneducated.Never did I say that I was an airline pilot. I said that I worked for an airline, and was a rw pilot. BTW, what statements have I said that were misleading??Matt

I find your supposed boast of knowledge laughable. Sorry to be so rude. If I look ignorant, that's MY problem and I don't need you to tell me all about it. Bad attitudes and lack of understanding make for ignorance, not "proving people wrong". Pitch can and usually is related to AoA, but not directly. AoA is angle between relative wind and chord line. Pitch is angle between longitudinal axis or chord and the HORIZON. Tell me, sir, have you studied your fundamentals of aerodynamics lately? I can be VERTICAL and have ZERO AoA. Now chew on that! :( And wake turbulance because of the A/C's incredible climb rate... Makes things hairy when you're trying to out climb the vortices.PS. "Uneducated"? Get to know those whom you interact with! :(

Re getting a B757 vertical:Some years ago, I saw a brand new B757 (it was pre-delivery to British Airways) being really thrown about at an airshow at Woodford (EGCC). From what I saw, I'd be prepared to bet you could get one vertical before it stalled out.There were lots of cool things at that airshow, Su-27s, Mil-24s, Saab Draakens, all that kind of stuff, but the way that 757 was being flown was in all honesty the best thing that day, and I would actually say it was the most thrilling thing I've ever seen at an airshow. Of course we don't normally see airliners doing that sort of thing, which is why it is easy to imagine they can't pull off a lot of unusual moves, but that was exactly why it was so exciting to see one doing so. Quite apart from what I saw, I will add that I've very often had a glider vertical (and past vertical when doing loops) before doing a pitch down or rudder turn to avoid a tailslide, and if I can manage that in an aircraft with no engine whatsoever and still have enough airflow over the rudder to actually make a turn, then I really don't see why you couldn't pull it off in something with engines that can propel it to Mach 0.8, particularly if you built enough speed before pulling up and didn't load on too much G when doing so.I have the FSX version of the CS 757 (not the FS9 one), and whilst I do think it has a tendency to pitch up a bit too much when you rotate it, having seen that demonstration of the real thing and how it is possible to fly it, I don't think the flight model on the CS 757 is as over the top as some people might imagine, in so much as the pitch trim might be a bit off.Al

I digress Mr. ZachLW. I can tell that you have nothing better to do than to make up for something by being a jerk thru and thru. "Ignore"

By all means. :( Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.

I saw them take the G-WOW A380 to vertical at Farnborough in 06. Never seen anything like it. They flew it like an F16.

I saw them take the G-WOW A380 to vertical at Farnborough in 06. Never seen anything like it. They flew it like an F16.

You can take any aircraft vertical if you have enough airspeed. My post was about how unrealistically the CS757 climbed vertical to 8,000ft at 165kts fully loaded. It has nothing to do with how nimble the real 757 is, and has everything to do with how unrealistically the CS757 climbed.

I don't think either Flyhalf or myself were having a dig at what you were saying, but rather responding to this comment:

I also know that you cannot take a 757 vertical. It will stall long before you get to that AOA (it's called a power on stall).

You don't have to leap to the defence of everything you say, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, and if people disagree it does not mean they are picking on you, it is simply interesting to discuss such stuff. :( Al