the worst one is probably that you'll ignore the outside picture and fixate on the gauges, because that's all we have to go by in the sim.

This got to be one of strangest comments I remember reading. I don't know about you but I really can't complain about the "outside picture" in FSX, absolutely no danger in 'fixating on gauges' as you write.

To me, the wonder of modern aircraft is their automation and to ignore the technology somewhat defeats the purpose.

I never said I would not be using automation, I only said I won't be using A/T. It is hardly a strange thing after all - there were airlines that did not use them either while flying 737NGs.

We've got an 800 with the short field performance package for you too ;)

Oh, you guys are prepared for everything :( Indeed I just found out that 738 does come in short-field variant. I guess it was Brazilian GOL that was first to ask Boeing for this feature.

why dont pmdg just create a REAL airplane. you guys are the businesscheers

http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm#Short-field_Performance_Enhancement_ProgramIt is a real airplane? hahaCheers,James Lunsford

will the Short field performance also be available on the 700 Ryan?

will the Short field performance also be available on the 700 Ryan?

You sure that's even an option? It comes standard on the 900ER and optional on the 800 (was created mainly for GOL in Brazil to get in and out of the smaller Rio airport) but I've never heard of a 700 with it.

Ryan, wikipedia claims short field performance upgrade/package is available on all 737NG models, 737.org says that 'parts' of the package can be fitted to all 737NG, you with more direct access to Boeing can probably get the fuller story. But it is probably not far from the truth that Boeing does things primarily if there is at least a single customer and as far as we know there was not a single customer for such a 600/700 variant.

Some of the features can be put on the 73G or the 736, but I don't think the whole package can. Why that is? I have no idea. I got my info from here: http://www.b737.org....ncement_Program, same as the link a few posts up.

I heard it was offered as an option to an airline,may have been southwest, and they said they had no need for it. But it's optional (don't know If it's the full package though)

Gents-The Short Field Package can be applied to the 700- but not all aspects of the package..This is modeled in the NGX.

The more I read about this NGX the more I realize that "resistance is futile"...

fantastic robert, top work!!cheers

This got to be one of strangest comments I remember reading. I don't know about you but I really can't complain about the "outside picture" in FSX, absolutely no danger in 'fixating on gauges' as you write.

There's nothing wrong with the outside picture in Flight Sim, really, but tell me how you fly the aircraft in the sim. Are you looking outside and flying by the feel of the aircraft? Can you feel yourself get slightly heavier in a quick pitch up, or out of balance because you look down at a chart and accidentally enter a turn? No, not unless you have a full motion sim. Because of this, pilots who spend a lot of time in Flight Sim develop gauge fixation because that's the only place they can gather their information. If you ask any flight instructor about their opinion on how Flight Sim affects their students, most will point out that it develops a bad habit of gauge fixation, but it ends up helping those same students when they transition to instrument training because they have developed the beginnings of an instrument scan.What airlines do not use autothrottle? The use of AT is more efficient because the aircraft can fully control itself on an optimum path. With so many of the airlines nickel and diming people and trying to hang on to as much money as possible, I find it hard to believe that they would not use it.

What airlines do not use autothrottle?

Southwest was the one. Never heard of it even though it was discussed here (and on other aviation forums) multiple times? Given your other rather superficial comments I guess it does not surprise me.

What airlines do not use autothrottle? The use of AT is more efficient because the aircraft can fully control itself on an optimum path. With so many of the airlines nickel and diming people and trying to hang on to as much money as possible, I find it hard to believe that they would not use it.

Southwest absolutely did not use autothrottle or VNAV until very recently within the last year or so. They're the most profitable airline in the US too. What a lot of simmers don't seem to realize is that you almost never get a chance to do a fully optimized idle VNAV descent like you can do pretty much all the time in FS. There's way too much conflicting traffic most of the time to do that in the real life ATC system.

Southwest was the one. Never heard of it even though it was discussed here (and on other aviation forums) multiple times? Given your other rather superficial comments I guess it does not surprise me.

From the start of my arguments, I've stated that I'm just playing devil's advocate, so your last comment is not appreciated, especially since I've refrained from personal jabs. To answer your question, no, I have not heard about SWA not using AT. Alleged superficiality really has nothing to do with it. I had just assumed that, given their market stance that they would also use it, given its advantages of allowing more economical ascent and descent (albeit in a perfect world, where a constant ascent or descent would be possible, as is seldom the case, as pointed out by Ryan). Then again, all it is doing is using the rated climb thrust restriction and adjusting pitch to follow the appropriate speeds up to cruise, which is something a pilot could do without assistance.

Southwest absolutely did not use autothrottle or VNAV until very recently within the last year or so. They're the most profitable airline in the US too. What a lot of simmers don't seem to realize is that you almost never get a chance to do a fully optimized idle VNAV descent like you can do pretty much all the time in FS. There's way too much conflicting traffic most of the time to do that in the real life ATC system.

I know that ascents and descents are often interrupted as part of traffic flow, but I did not know that (or why) SWA didn't use AT, as mentioned above. Does anyone know why though? The only reasons I can find relate to a 'hands-on' mentality, which reinforces more of a point of situational awareness than a point of performance. While it's true that they're doing well for themselves, and part of that could be performance-based, it doesn't necessarily mean that their hands-on policy was more cost effective than those who required the use of AP functions.

Does anyone know why though?

Because there was no compelling economical argument for using A/T (given the limits of today's operations). Also A/T requires expensive maintenance which is easily overlooked by people. There are other costs and reasons too. I suggest to hit 'search' button (even outside this forum) as the topic has been discussed extensively here and elsewhere.