Hey guys,Thanks to LatinVFR's Sucre scenery, I became interested in Bolivia. Not only do they have this fantastic little airport with a reeally fun approach (or so it seems), they also have one of the few airlines that still use the Boeing 737-200 and Boeing 727-200 for hauling passengers. So, happy with this finding, I installed the Tinmouse II and did a panel merge with the Aerosim 737-200 (If anybody would want to have it, I can provide, although you ought to know it's not perfect). I even did a quick repaint of the airline in question, Aerosur, for the Aerosim 737-200 which is almost finished. Anyway, to come to the point now.I have a problem with the Tinmouse panel. Although I vaguely understand what to do, because I sort of know Boeing engine start procedures, it'd be nice to really know what to do, instead of just guessing. Since the Tinmouse doesn't seem to come with comprehensive documentation, I wondered if the Wilco PIC, or related documentation might help me out? There is no EFIS of course in the 732, but the buttons on the overhead seem to be pretty much the same. So, are the 732 and 733 similar enough that I can use the 733 documentation with the 732?

For the overhead panel, yes The 732, and 733 are extremely similar, infact, the entire 737 series have very closely matched overhead panels. You will see slight variations and differences, but for the most part they are the same.The big difference comes with using the INS, and the Autopilot :(. the 732 has an extremely simple autopilot, it basically does VOR/NAV and ALT hold. the common way to go about a climb is using the autopilot to control bank/heading, with CWS for pitch. Climbing to the cruise altitude and then flipping on ALT hold.

Hey guys,Thanks to LatinVFR's Sucre scenery, I became interested in Bolivia. Not only do they have this fantastic little airport with a reeally fun approach (or so it seems), they also have one of the few airlines that still use the Boeing 737-200 and Boeing 727-200 for hauling passengers. So, happy with this finding, I installed the Tinmouse II and did a panel merge with the Aerosim 737-200 (If anybody would want to have it, I can provide, although you ought to know it's not perfect). I even did a quick repaint of the airline in question, Aerosur, for the Aerosim 737-200 which is almost finished. Anyway, to come to the point now.I have a problem with the Tinmouse panel. Although I vaguely understand what to do, because I sort of know Boeing engine start procedures, it'd be nice to really know what to do, instead of just guessing. Since the Tinmouse doesn't seem to come with comprehensive documentation, I wondered if the Wilco PIC, or related documentation might help me out? There is no EFIS of course in the 732, but the buttons on the overhead seem to be pretty much the same. So, are the 732 and 733 similar enough that I can use the 733 documentation with the 732?

Boeing deliberately set out to make the 737-300 as much like the 737-200 and 100 as they could possibly manage, because they knew that airlines would be more likely to buy it if the transition from the 200 to the 300 was a smooth one. The 300 has a good deal of parts commonality with the 200 (approximately 67 percent) and it was designed to fly like the 200 as well so that pilot type ratings were as close as they possibly could be. Both these things meant that airlines were happy in terms of spares storage expenses if they operated both models and in terms of training costs for pilots.That said, Boeing were also using the 'classic' (300/400/500) as a technology test bed for the then forthcoming 757, much as they are doing now with the 787's technology being a testbed for the 737's replacement.As far as differences between the 200 and the 300 go, the CFMs on the 300 are 20 percent more efficient than the JT8Ds that were on the 200, and they have a small measure of vectored thrust, since the larger CFMs had to be slightly relocated on the wing pylons to protect the wing from engine heat, and that repositioning means the CFMs point ever so slightly downwards, effectively working a bit like mini RATO pods in a small way. There is a 44 inch plug in front of the wing on the 300 and a 60 inch plug aft of the wing, but the greater use of composites and more sophisticated aluminium milling techniques mean that the 300 is about 12 percent tougher overall than the 200 is, giving it a longer service life.The wings were redesigned for the 300, having a broader chord and profile than that of the 200. Wings are also about a foot longer in span. The wing is a shade under 5 percent bigger overall, and this gives better cruise performance with less buffet. This means the biggest difference to pilots, since the 200 had a maximum penetration speed of .70 Mach, and it is up to .73 Mach for the 300. The changes to the lift devices mean the 300 can get off the deck at a lower speed than the 200. For the same weight, Vref on the 300 is 2.5 knots slower on the 300 than it is on the 200. The spoilers are better on the 300 too, being slightly redesigned and thus a bit more efficient. and the high bypass engines are of course much better at providing braking thrust as well as less likely to kick up potential FOD, which is important since the engines are a lot closer to the ground on the 300 model.Overall, the 300 has a 20 percent less fuel burn, largely due to the increased ceiling of 37,000 feetThe flight deck is obviously different in appearance thanks to the changes in instruments, but as far as operations go the main differences are: The taxi lights go out automatically when the gear is raised, there are additional strobe lights in the auto position, the cabin pressure system is different, being digital and it has no standby mode as the 200 has, but it does have two auto modes as opposed to the 200s one. The APU is different, being a Sundstrand model with no EGT limit, so it is quicker if restart is required and it has an extra automatic pump. The 300 can have a fourth fuel tank, although that is a customer option. The radios have more functionality, including improvements to selcal, acars, tcas etc.The 300 (if you are flying it as if a new type) would have the CFM 56 before the intake was redesigned to prevent flame outs from water ingestion. However all CFM 56 engines in service nowadays have the redesigned spinner with vanes on the central bit to break up water flow, so if you are simulating a 300 flying today, you don't have to worry. Boeing's advice at a the time this problem became known on the classic 737s, was basically to keep some power on when descending through rain clouds.Hope that helps a bit.Al

Wow, couldn't have wished for better posts than these! Thanks guys, that's all I could have wished for :( It's nice to know I can use the 300's documentation, because it's mainly the procedures from cold and dark to engines running that keep troubling me. All I know right now is the PMDG 747, and as you know, the 747's flight deck is somewhat different. I guess that in the end it's not that different (I mean, I recognize the various units on the overhead and with my 747 knowledge I succeed in starting the 732's engines), but different enough to make my doubt my actions.Ryan: It's funny you should mention the autopilot. I'm used (read: spoiled) to do the advanced 747 autopilot, resulting in me having no idea how to operate the 732 A/P :( I can get it to fly to a certain heading, but I have no idea how to make it climb or descend. I'll have to learn that part... Would you know of a good tutorial for that?So, thanks for the great posts! I know all I wanted to know.

You'll probably find this site useful too by the way:http://www.b737.org.uk/And you might like this one as well:http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/boeing/B737-classic/Al

*cough*contrary to what I thought, I actually found some basic docs in the Tinmouse folder, together with a basic checklist -.-Still, that stuff looks very good, Al! I'll check it out as soon as I can. Bookmarked it for later use.

I installed the Tinmouse II and did a panel merge with the Aerosim 737-200 (If anybody would want to have it, I can provide, although you ought to know it's not perfect).

Can I please have that panel merge? I'm trying to merge it myself, but with no success.