Thanks for that Dillon. Now climbs well. Im happy with the performance. (though i dont know what the real one performs like). steve

It's all relative I guess, I made changes based on what I saw and felt on the real bird. You should check out Des Braban's custom sounds for the PMDG 737 (freeware on Avsim), it will add greatly to the whole experience.

Dillon,When you say 'I fly for real and have flown 737s', do you mean that you've piloted them, or been a passenger? I've been a passenger in all kinds of 737s over the last 20 years, back to the -200 days - now that was a powerful bird. As far as I remember, none has ever taken off like a rocket; most pilots even if flying light on fuel and with low payload will de-rate the engines (which PMDG gives you the options to) which prolongs engine life and doesn't scare the passengers! I have to say that lack of flexing wings doesn't bother me - I spend most of my time in the cockpit.Any self-respecting flight dynamics constructor will do a lot of research and balancing before they commit their work to public gaze. It's not just plugging in the numbers, as you say; there's a lot involved. So changing the engine thrust to give you a little more oomph may well get you off the ground quicker and earlier, but it also probably decreases the realism and has an effect on other carefully-designed FDE parameters. 737s aren't as over-powered as some other Boeing airliners, and the feeling of power may well come from good handling by the pilot. I hear what you say about Southwest pilots using Midway as a take-off test-bed, but let's not forget that for example runway 3 at Midway (which is less than 6000 feet) is shorter than published data on the 737-700's take-off run, which at MTOW and at 15 degrees of flap is more than 6000 feet. Even Midway's longest runway is a few feet short of a -700's MTOW take off run, so I suspect that they don't do their testing at MTOW (unless you know better - please say if you do) or else they'd be picking grass clods out of their tyres at the next touchdown.Don't forget that in either the PMDG or 737 Experience planes, you could easily lower the payload and fuel quantity before you leave the gate, and you'd get better take-off performance. It's horses for courses - don't expect it with a full -700 that's flying more than 2000 miles. With your uprated engines, what angle do you have to climb at, maintaining take-off thrust until flap retraction begins, to maintain V2 at climbout?;)

Dillon,When you say 'I fly for real and have flown 737s', do you mean that you've piloted them, or been a passenger? I've been a passenger in all kinds of 737s over the last 20 years, back to the -200 days - now that was a powerful bird. As far as I remember, none has ever taken off like a rocket; most pilots even if flying light on fuel and with low payload will de-rate the engines (which PMDG gives you the options to) which prolongs engine life and doesn't scare the passengers! I have to say that lack of flexing wings doesn't bother me - I spend most of my time in the cockpit.Any self-respecting flight dynamics constructor will do a lot of research and balancing before they commit their work to public gaze. It's not just plugging in the numbers, as you say; there's a lot involved. So changing the engine thrust to give you a little more oomph may well get you off the ground quicker and earlier, but it also probably decreases the realism and has an effect on other carefully-designed FDE parameters. 737s aren't as over-powered as some other Boeing airliners, and the feeling of power may well come from good handling by the pilot. I hear what you say about Southwest pilots using Midway as a take-off test-bed, but let's not forget that for example runway 3 at Midway (which is less than 6000 feet) is shorter than published data on the 737-700's take-off run, which at MTOW and at 15 degrees of flap is more than 6000 feet. Even Midway's longest runway is a few feet short of a -700's MTOW take off run, so I suspect that they don't do their testing at MTOW (unless you know better - please say if you do) or else they'd be picking grass clods out of their tyres at the next touchdown.Don't forget that in either the PMDG or 737 Experience planes, you could easily lower the payload and fuel quantity before you leave the gate, and you'd get better take-off performance. It's horses for courses - don't expect it with a full -700 that's flying more than 2000 miles. With your uprated engines, what angle do you have to climb at, maintaining take-off thrust until flap retraction begins, to maintain V2 at climbout?;)

I fly real Cessna's not 737's, sorry for the misunderstanding. On 737's I've flown on what I'm using as thrust in the numbers above gives me what I personally seen on what appears to be a fully loaded 737-700. A flight out of KMDW to KSAN is a long flight requiring at least 80% fuel on board including passengers/baggage. Even with my settings above I have the center tank at 80% and usually never fly out of KMDW with 100% fuel in all tanks (least I'd need more runway but I'd still get off the ground in time on runway 4R). When I say test bed for 737's I meant as far as me and FS goes not in the real world. I use KMDW in FS9 as a marker to test new aircraft I get that actually fly out of KMDW like CS's 757, Leonardo's Maddog, and QW's 757, etc. If those planes can't get off the ground with the alloted runway at KMDW something is wrong with the FDE and I usually hanger the bird (this actually hasn't happened that much). Their real world counter parts say the 757 for example can fly as far as KOAK (when ATA was there). It's interesting to me that the PMDG 737 was the only bird which couldn't really get off the ground in the alloted runway space as it's real world counter part I used to watch when visiting there. I didn't post this for realism sake, PMDG put the correct values in the aircraft.cfg file. What I did hear was adjust the values to give me what I feel is a more accurate representation of my experiences. There's no debate needed here as others may like the struggle, I don't. When I fly on Southwest on a flight with every seat full minus one or two seats to KSAN the 737 indeed gets off the ground at Midway like a 'rocket' and before I knew it we were indeed at 34,000ft (realistic but aggressive timeframe of course). Anyone will tell you even on the hottest days in Chicago the same story about these 737NG's. Youtube videos show the same thing but who's going to believe that as I've had the discussion before on these forums :( :(. So take it or leave it the numbers above reflect my experience in the real bird as a passenger/aircraft spotter and I'll leave it at that...In the 737NG since you asked I usually climb out at around 2300-2800fpm...

Every time I've ever flown on a 737 I've been fairly surprised at the climb rates and indeed the climb angles too. I particularly recall flying on a CSA 737-400 a few years ago, which set off out of Manchester EGCC's runway like a ballistic missile. I'm pretty used to steep climb angles in the aircraft I fly, but I thought that 400 had a staggering climb rate; it was full of passengers too, going to Prague, which is not an especially a short flight, so I presume it had a fair bit of fuel on board.Al