trying to find the best flying model for my homebuild flight similator....test flights at FL100, zero fuel mass=51000kgr fuel=10000kgr, comparison between the 3 addons.checking some original B737 training manuals, came up with the following : Config Airspeed Pitch N1 clean 250 4 65% clean 210 5 63% Flaps5 170 6 65%here is how each models behaves: PMDG 737ng clean 250 3 67% clean 210 5 63% Flaps5 170 6 65%Ifly 737ng clean 250 3 65% clean 210 6 60% Flaps5 170 6 64%Ariane v3.0 clean 250 3 48% clean 210 5 44% Flaps5 170 6 50%PMDG is the closest to the suggested values...Ariane has very strange engine values for a given attitude/speed.

Interesting, but you do really need to check which engine subvariants are they all modeling, as it would have a bearing on the result.Various CFM 56 engines on NGs range from an extremely low 18,500 lbs on the 600 (unique to that model), and a range of thrust from 24,200 lbs right up to to 27,300 lbs on various 800 versions of the NG, so there is no 'one size fits all' comparison without knowing which model of CFM 56 is being simulated.If there is a particular NG model and engine type you wish to simulate on your home cockpit, knowing what engine thrust you want to simulate would allow you to make an appropriate choice, as clearly the Ariane appears to be simulating a version of the CFM 56 with a higher thrust output.This is a common problem with simulated airliners, where someone will say 'oh that's not right for a 737', when what it really means is 'that's not right for the airline specification with which they are familiar'. The same is true for FMC options, radio fits, displays, etc.I found that was pretty common when doing research for the review I did of the Ariane FSX 737-900ER, where I had more than one pilot of a real 737 confidently tell me 'that's wrong' about a particular feature of the Ariane, when in fact it was not, but merely an option they were not familiar with on the exact model spec of the NG which they themselves flew. This is precisely why airlines print their own versions of the SOPs.As an example of where I have come across this in real life when working on the technical data for airliners, some years ago I was producing the Airbus SOPs for a couple of European airlines who use the A320, and they both had different engine options in those SOPs even though they both used the CFM 56, with one airline having the expedite climb option, and the other one not having it, and that was one of many instances where engine thrust options differed, but pilots of each version would confidently tell you: 'yes/no, the CFM 56 engined A320 has/hasn't got that option'. They'd both be right, and both be wrong, at the same time!Al

just checked the manuals etc the engines simulated are: (all are B737-800) ariane: CFM56-7B26 26400lb thrustpmdg: CFM56-7B26ifly: CFM56-7B26they seem to be the same model, so ariane seem to be out the norm. strange, they say they use Boeing data for their model...the reason why i decided to "investigate" is because of the extreme (compared to the other) power increase or decrease needed when changing attitude (leveling off or arresting descent)for ex with 65% N1, in the above mentioned conditions, plane will easily accelerate to 340kt (red tape) which seems unrealistic.

To be honest, the best thing about the Ariane FS9 NG is the cockpit lighting (which is really well done) and that it flies nicely maneuverability wise, having convincing elevator authority and roll rate. On a home cockpit, the lighting is of no importance of course, so that only leaves the flight characteristics, and if the engine thrust is out by a long way, if you are happy with the handling of the other two, it would seem to rule the Ariane out as a choice.Gauge update rates on the FS9 Ariane are not that great incidentally (okay, but not spectacular), so that might be another issue to consider too. Also bear in mind that the FMC on the iFly is waaay better than the others.Al

To be honest, the best thing about the Ariane FS9 NG is the cockpit lighting (which is really well done) and that it flies nicely maneuverability wise, having convincing elevator authority and roll rate. On a home cockpit, the lighting is of no importance of course, so that only leaves the flight characteristics, and if the engine thrust is out by a long way, if you are happy with the handling of the other two, it would seem to rule the Ariane out as a choice.Gauge update rates on the FS9 Ariane are not that great incidentally (okay, but not spectacular), so that might be another issue to consider too. Also bear in mind that the FMC on the iFly is waaay better than the others.Al

HiAlthough I already had the PMDG 737s, reading other threads on the subject persuaded me to buy the i-Fly 737 and I haven't regretted that decision - it is excellent! Hope this helps.Bill

just checked the manuals etc the engines simulated are: (all are B737-800) ariane: CFM56-7B26 26400lb thrustpmdg: CFM56-7B26ifly: CFM56-7B26they seem to be the same model, so ariane seem to be out the norm. strange, they say they use Boeing data for their model...the reason why i decided to "investigate" is because of the extreme (compared to the other) power increase or decrease needed when changing attitude (leveling off or arresting descent)for ex with 65% N1, in the above mentioned conditions, plane will easily accelerate to 340kt (red tape) which seems unrealistic.

I can't speak to the Ariane, but the PMDG and iFly 800's fly almost identically - I enjoy the heck out of both of them.DJ

yes i agree, ifly has excellent flying characteristics, i am very satisfied as well.PMDG though matches better with Prosim737. (strange but autopilot seem to be unstable when flying with ifly, also engine trend indication does not match..)i am just a little dissapointed with Ariane, after being relatively expensive (to get only 1 model no liveries), and a really impossible activation system (i lost 1 evening) i though it would be absolutefantastic. but its not.

That is essentially hitting the nail on the head with Ariane. The products are okay, they get decent FPS for the most part and in a few areas they are innovative such as the driveable pushback truck and the cockpit lighting and icing effects, but the price of entry would lead you to believe that they are spectacular in every way.I actually get on quite well with the people from Ariane, and in spite of what a lot of people think of them they've always been pretty straight with me, but even I have to say that in many respects, they do not help their own cause, particularly on pricing and activation methods.Incidentally, the autopilot problems with the iFly 737 are owing to joystick noise - altering the sensitivity and null zone usually sorts it out. The CH Yoke and some Saitek sticks are the ones that have the most problems in that regard.Al

These types of threads are proof that human kind is evolving. The pundits are becoming super pundits. Dave Vega

i am using PFC boeing type yoke, controlled via fsuipc. i believe if the issue is sensitivity, i would have the prob with all planes maybe....but i will check it.(i use prosim A/P)

That is essentially hitting the nail on the head with Ariane. The products are okay, they get decent FPS for the most part and in a few areas they are innovative such as the driveable pushback truck and the cockpit lighting and icing effects, but the price of entry would lead you to believe that they are spectacular in every way.I actually get on quite well with the people from Ariane, and in spite of what a lot of people think of them they've always been pretty straight with me, but even I have to say that in many respects, they do not help their own cause, particularly on pricing and activation methods.Incidentally, the autopilot problems with the iFly 737 are owing to joystick noise - altering the sensitivity and null zone usually sorts it out. The CH Yoke and some Saitek sticks are the ones that have the most problems in that regard.Al