Mr Metaleye. relax buddy!I fail to see the connection here. You too my friend are advised not to get personal, as your comments are bordering on absurdity!!. and I find you using previous accidents as a weapon in this forum, disgusting. I only hope that you are NOT a pilot or NEVER are NEVER intending to become one, because if this is how you enter into a debate, regarding flight dynamics in a simulation, you obviously become flustered under pressure, and this, my friend, would be your achilies heel as a pilot.If you are working as a commercial pilot (god forbid) you could do all of us a favour, and name the airline you work with. Just in case I ever need to fly again.take heed daryl

Read this last evening and didn't think it was worthy of a reply.Still don't....L.Adamson

>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" >>regards>daryl>Actually, I'd better clear up something. I've studied aviation for 20 years, right from the basics of flying to fluid dynamics of wing foils and the affects of fluid dynamics on jet propulsion and so on and so on. I have never actually flown a real aircraft and without proper real world training I would be hard pressed to do so without assistance. I will not imply I am a pilot in any sense, however I like to think that I do know something about something :).In other words, I have a passion for aviation and to learn everything I can about it :).Your right about things being taken literally by the words typed on a screen, as obviously the sarcasm you intended (thats how I read your post :) ) was missed.Keep on posting, as there are people, including real world pilots, that are more than willing to answer questions etc. I still do as there is always something to be learned :).I've seen cases like above that a 14 year old tried to come off as a real pilot, but was eventually caught out in the end.Anyways, I think this thread has reached an impasse as the two individuals that jumped all over you are locked into one narrow minded way of thought..... "Anyone that posts a question about anything should be slammed and humiliated."best regardsFraser

>Actually, I'd better clear up something. I've studied aviation>for 20 years, right from the basics of flying to fluid>dynamics of wing foils and the affects of fluid dynamics on>jet propulsion and so on and so on. I have never actually>flown a real aircraft and without proper real world training I>would be hard pressed to do so without assistance. I will not>imply I am a pilot in any sense, however I like to think that>I do know something about something :).>>In other words, I have a passion for aviation and to learn>everything I can about it :).I'm glad you cleared that up, as well as having a passion for flight. I believe that most of us here, do!In regards to the original post, that set subsequent replies into different directions...It suggested that the default FS2004 737 was capable of substaining 6000 fpm with N1 set at 86%, then went on to ask for upgraded "flight dynamics". Since I was a beta-tester for FS2004, I did a test flight & found what was said to be in error.It's known that stock MSFS flight models don't always end up being perfection or to everyone's wishes; but it doesn't help to write mis-leading statements, as there are those who might believe it as fact.Therefore, my intent wasn't to slam or humiliate an "innocent" question. But in this case, the orignial "misleading" facts as written, are now labled as just sarcasm by the author. Since I didn't agree with the orignal post, because I tested what was written, then why label me as "narrow minded" ?And BTW--- I am a licensed pilot who has been involved with the Experimental Aircraft Association for many years. I've written POH's based on "facts" of actual flight testing, which is perhaps why I don't like seeing mis-leading statements. I've also built a high performance two place all alumimum airplane which will be flight tested in the next few months (RV6A 180HP Lycoming/CS prop). It's capable of speeds over 200 mph, light aerobatics, and a range of 760 nauticle miles. Has a sliding canopy and interior is much like the Marchetti SF260 (which I've also flown in real life).Since I began my original student pilot lessons back in 1968, I could date myself back that far. But with a lapse in flying do to getting married, Vietnam war, and all that stuff, I didn't continue until the late 1980's.L.Adamson RV6A below. Panel is now complete with mode A/C transponder, etc.

It seems you have completely misunderstood the intension of the initial poster. Maybe if you reread his psot slowly you will understand what he meant!Wolfgang

Okay, it nice to see that everyone has cooled down a little...Here is a little about me, I am not a pilot and have never flown either a 737 or an F-15. I have a passion for aircraft and one day (finances permitting) would like to learn to fly.From the onset of my post, the comparison between a commercial airliner and fighter jet was nothing more than sarcasam, I have never changed my stance from my original posting, and still believe that the 737 in FS2004 is grossly over powered.I have recently received an email from an actual 737 pilot, who is also creating panels for FS2004 in an attempt to raise the level of realisim and although I wont give the guys name, I will paste a few of his comments regarding how the default 737 flies."the 737 is a fat little, cumbersome airplane, more sluggish than even the A320. it has the old 707 fuselage and does not respond very well to the throttle or the rudder. whereas in FS, it flies like a Citation.""I am working an an air file with my flight engineer which will make it more realistic - albeit - somewhat duller in flight. this aircraft accelarates very slowly and reduces speed painfully late. just to play safe, very often we enter the GS at 2200 at 180 IAS - hoping to touch down at 135 - and this is with only 15% fuel. ""Until we get the AIR file down pat, try this. In your controls, (all catagories) decrease the Sensitivity dramatically and increase the NULL/DEAD zones. This lack of responsiveness (plus the volume up UP UP) will give you a somewhat more realistic experience. be patient. i've agreed to make the air file for FFS/SGA. I'll send you a BETA in 2 weeks or so."regardsDarylso, be patient and maybe we could endup with a realistic 737

"Why would you like to climb at 6000 fm if the rate is 1800 fm. Read the POH for this aircraft, do what you are supposed to do."Where have you learned that "the rate is 1800 fm"?99% of the time, an airliner climbs at Maximum Climb Thrust, adjusting pitch to maintain the target IAS/Mach. Rate of Climb is whatever results out of this profile. It can be 1000 fpm and it can also be 4000 fpm. Stamatis