>Hello Mr. Adamson;>>You could be right about what you said you have also>discovered in one of the FS9 aircraft while you were "flying">it. You will also find out that if you try to use it under>water it will not behave like a submarine. But maybe if you>had used this aircraft the way you were supposed to you may>have never found this strange behavior, and maybe what you>found was not an aircraft fault, but a lack of knowledge and>procedures of the person at this aircraft controls.>>Thank you for your time. I'm not the one trying to fly the FS9737 outside it's normal flight envelope, except to prove that the "model" won't substain 6000 fpm.Perhaps you've confused me with other postings/replies here?I DO have the knowledge of what I'm talking about...........L.Adamson

Hello Sir;But then how come you have seen this in this 737? Is this what you said in your last post"Actually, I have seen this on FS9 flying the 737"Any way, enough of this useless situation, "fly" it the way you want to fly it, there is a correct way and there is an illogical and incorrect way to do things.Last message!

>Hello Sir;>>But then how come you have seen this in this 737? Is this what>you said in your last post>>"Actually, I have seen this on FS9 flying the 737">"Fturner" is the one who quoted that phrase. I don't agree with it, or any others who do.. I just figure none of them know how to really fly a plane! :)L.Adamson

Hello Mr. Adamson;I'm sorry, I think I did not use my Approach Chart when I wrote what I did about you. I hope that you kept using your P.O.H. Safe flying and stay away from the tree tops!

>>Hello Sir;>>>>But then how come you have seen this in this 737? Is this>what>>you said in your last post>>>>"Actually, I have seen this on FS9 flying the 737">>>>>"Fturner" is the one who quoted that phrase. I don't agree>with it, or any others who do.. >>I just figure none of them know how to really fly a plane! :)>>L.AdamsonROFL, now this is getting interesting......now lets see.IF I where to emulate VNAV mode (since we do not have FMS etc, and besides hand flying is easier anyway) by hand flying the aircraft, that is, set the engines to 95% N1 for climb mode (keep tweaking the accelerator, or is it called throttle, to keep it there), then adjust the pitch (do I have this term right?) by adjusting what I think is called trim to maintain 240 kts after I have reached 1500 feet (is that AGL or ASL...hhhmmmmm perhaps AGL) the initial climb rate is around 5800 feet per minute, slowly decreasing as the bird goes higher. I've always read and learned that pitch controls horizontal speed and thrust controls vertical speed.....guess that goes out the window now.Now because the default 737 is way overpowered, AND if we did have an FMS system with VNAV etc modes, even derated TO settings and Climb thrust settings would cause excessive climb rates and/or could cause altitude speed restrictions to be busted. The only other option is to throttle down.Both myself and the original poster have both stated this about the 737, which did not imply that is the way we fly the 737.BUT of course I will bow to your superior wisdom and throw out everything I have learned in avaiation over the last 20 years and start over............ Perhaps you can guide me as to the proper way of flying.....Fraserps: Having fun now :)

Hi FraserThank you sir.!It nice to know that some people here haven't lost site of what this forum is about.regardsdaryl

>Hi Fraser>>Thank you sir.!>>It nice to know that some people here haven't lost site of>what this forum is about.>>>>regards>daryl:) No prob Daryl, I knew right off the bat what you where getting at, but I guess for some the English language has changed so much that what we understand as English is now another language.BTW, PLEASE don't call me sir LOL, your making me feel old.Fraser

(since we do not have FMS etc, and besides hand flying is easier anyway) Hello Fraser, Contrary to popular belief, the FMS 99% of the time lightens the pilot's workloads in the cockpit hence making his duties easier. There is just no way one can fly certain Sids or complex procedures without the FMS. Randy J. Smith[/b][/u]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/196432/winglets_lg.jpg

>>(since we do not have FMS etc, and besides hand flying is>easier anyway)>> Hello Fraser,>> Contrary to popular belief, the FMS 99% of the time>lightens the pilot's workloads in the cockpit hence making his>duties easier. There is just no way one can fly certain Sids>or complex procedures without the FMS. >>>>>Randy J. Smith[/b][/u]>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/196432/winglets_lg.jpgYes the FMS makes it ALOT easier for the pilot workload wise. For us lonely souls that must handle all the workload due to the lack of a copilot, its extremely useful, HOWEVER......Flying SIDS, STARS and any flight route is possible without an FMS. There are generally three type of navaids that exist. Two are radio beacons, the 3rd is intersections. Radio beacons are generally easy to use.In the case of VOR's you can set your course to intercept a VOR radial. Of course your course is set either for an inbound radial if you need to fly towards a VOR or an outbound radial if you are flying away from the VOR. Of course if the VOR is so equipped, you can get a distance reading as well (The majority in this case). (NOTE: There is TACAN beacons as well, but I believe they are mainly for military use, operate like VOR's but in a different frequency range.)The other radio navaid is NDB's, you cannot set a radial to intercept, but by observing the needle to where the NDB is you can fly into or outof the NDB on a specific heading.Intersections of course do not have radio beacons, but they are based on positions away from, mainly, VOR's (There may be exceptions on this planet :) ). Typically an intersection, determined by reading the area charts, are based on radials that you set your course to, either inbound or outbound, with a distance requirement to fly.Ssssoooo, in this case, if you want to be "busy" look up charts for an airfield that you fly out of that has SID's, and by setting your NAV radio's and paying attention to distances, you can "handfly" the SID.Give it a shot, its actually fun, but I'll warn you that you will not be sitting quiet, as this type of flying requires alot of work. Try hand flying with the idea that once you have taken off, the autopilot dies on you, but you have a flight to make in time getting those pesky pax's to the destination.I recommend using the autopilot initially to deal with airspeed and altitude at first, once your used to navigating, start controlling altitude next, then airspeed.Have funFraser

Hello Sir Fraser; Date: 09/20/1989Location: New York, New YorkAirline: USAirAircraft: Boeing 737-400Registration: N416USFatalities/No. Aboard: 2:63Details: During an aborted takeoff, the aircraft overran the runway, hit a wooden approach lighting pier and came to rest partially submerged in shallow water. The failure of the captain to exercise his authority in a timely manner to reject or continue the troubled takeoff which was initiated by a mistrimmed rudderDate: 12/29/1994Location: Van, TurkeyAirline: Turkish Airlines (THY)Aircraft: Boeing 737-400Registration: TC-JESFatalities/No. Aboard: 57:76Details: The aircraft crashed into a hill near the airport in driving snow after a fourth landing attemptDate: 07/26/1993Location: Haenam, South KoreaAirline: Asiana AirlinesAircraft: Boeing 737-500Registration: HL-7229Fatalities/No. Aboard: 68:114Details: The aircraft hit Mt. Ungeo while on approach after two missed landing attempts in high winds and heavy rain. Captain's decision to land in weather that had fallen below minima.Date: 07/17/2000Location: Patna, IndiaAirline: Alliance AirlinesAircraft: Boeing 737-200 AdvancedRegistration: VT-EGDFatalities/No. Aboard: 52:58 +5Details: While attempting to land at Patna, the aircraft was too high and the crew attempted a go-around. During the second landing attempt the aircraft was again high, veered to left and lost altitude until it crashed into houses in the Gardanibagh district and burst into flames.Like you, all this pilots thought they knew it all, like you in your post, but this only goes to prove that when you think you know you know nothing!

>Are we defending the default flight models now???I think it's got to that stage! :( :-lolSince I don't have FS2004, I can't help! :( I wouldn't trust the default airliner models in any version of MSFS ..... they tend to be designed for casual users, who would stall a realistic aircraft very easily :(

I was trying to make the point that automation does indeed make it much more simple for the pilot but not that it replaces his ability to use his pilot skills like your post suggests ;). There is a union but in the end YOU are in control. CWS is a very exciting flying but you will not see this on your default 737 or ANY other aircraft for flight simulator or will you? ;)........ [h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/196432/winglets_lg.jpg

>Both myself and the original poster have both stated this>about the 737, which did not imply that is the way we fly the>737.So, in other words............You still confirm what the original poster stated:"Boeing 737-400 fully loaded climb effortlessly at 6000 fpm with N1 set at 86%?""Well mine can...""I have realism up to 100% and still it climbs life an F-15...."Then perhaps your 20 years isn't enough......As I'd never describe it as effortlessly & like an F-15edit------------ You should know, and I know, that in this case we're trading airspeed for altitude as well as an increase in vertical airspeed. The airspeed bleeds quickly and can't be substained by the 737's thrust--------- which is quite different from an F-15, F-16, etc.And one other thing,By trading airspeed for altitude, it now becomes "pitch" controlling vertical airspeed. That "age old" and highly debated pitch/thrust argument get's tiring year after year considering pitch & thrust are used both ways.L.Adamson

>>Are we defending the default flight models now???>>I think it's got to that stage! :( :-lol>>Since I don't have FS2004, I can't help! :( I wouldn't trust>the default airliner models in any version of MSFS ..... they>tend to be designed for casual users, who would stall a>realistic aircraft very easily :(:-lol It sure is starting to look that way doesn't it.

Hey guys enough already.!Firstly, Mr. Adamson! you shouldn't get personal, because all this does is make yourself look foolish!(no one else!) quiet often statements in the 'heat of the moment' are the ones we most regret.remember, there are a lot of people that read this stuff.So unless your experience is far greater than the 20 years flying from the above poster, then hey, I think an apology is in order.Secondly, if my first statment is what is annoying you, then my most sincerest apologies. You are right, my friend! my 737 is not an F-15 and surely, (realistically) it comes no where near to the dynamics of a fighter aircraft. I would have though that common sense would have allowed you to determine this. I was being a little over the top and if I confused you well, again my apologies.I will keep in mind, in my future posts to this forum, that some people take comments rather literal and I will try to curb my expression, keeping statements as simply as possible.I thank the few people that were constructive and assisting me with the issues I had with my aircraft.To the other guys, well you should remember this."if someone fails to accept abuse given to them by you, the abuse still belongs to you" regardsdaryl