Well I find the approach and landing attitude very close with the videos i have from TUI, GOL, Hapag Lloyd or just look this one , at the end (7 mins). My NGX behaviours very similar.

Best. Miquel Egea.

Braytoncycle real world pilots are welcome here I am one just not a jet pilot, you sir are very welcome here just dont play the real pilot card with attitude can be a sore point for all us poor souls that fly around in windmills he he

Haha..nothing wrong with windmills. Use to be great fun. Sorry if i was too pushy or had an attitude. Was just frustrated.

Would you mind complying with this forum's rules Sir?Second request.Thx.

The aircraft flies 10kts faster than it should on approach - reason being is PMDG used the unreliable airspeed tables which is Vref + 10 attitudes and thrust settings. For every 5 kts above Vref, lower nose by 1 degree, and thats why we see 0 (Vref + 5 + 10 unreliable airspeed table additive which causes the further 2 degree pitch down) on the PFD instead of 2 degrees (Actual Vref + 5). More simply put, you think you are flying an approach at Vref + 5 but in actual fact, you are flying it at (Vref + 10) + 5. Thats the reason for the lower nose attitude on touchdown (2 - 2.5 deg instead of 4 to 5 deg) and the reason for the float because the a/c is 10kts faster than what you should be on the flare. Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth. Didnt mean to sound arrogant as i put it in the first post. Obviously this site isnt really meant for real world pilots. Thanks all those who tried to help. Happy landings!

I would just like to ask one question if i may. Would this discrepancy in flight modeling cause bounce on touch down? Because every time i try to lift the nose a tad, i get a bounce and of course a bad landing. If i don't lift the nose, i get a very hard landing. Probably has a lot to do with the pilot, but i am having a heck of a time trying to get it right.Regards,

I personally don't have a problem with landing the NGX really. Yes it takes more practice to get that flare right but once you do it's fine. I did notice that landing speeds for me are always given as 140, 142 etc when I am historically used to seeing them in the low 130's. Why not just lower your speed a bit to get the nose up and just be done with it?

I would just like to ask one question if i may. Would this discrepancy in flight modeling cause bounce on touch down? Because every time i try to lift the nose a tad, i get a bounce and of course a bad landing. If i don't lift the nose, i get a very hard landing. Probably has a lot to do with the pilot, but i am having a heck of a time trying to get it right.Regards,

Its sounds like you might be trying to land too fast. Try doing a few autolands into your favourite airport and watch how the A/P manages it, then try and repeat what you saw yourself.

Its sounds like you might be trying to land too fast. Try doing a few autolands into your favourite airport and watch how the A/P manages it, then try and repeat what you saw yourself.

I will give that a try. Thanks.

No offense to the PMDG team, however, I would love to hear what Jack C., a real-life 737-800 driver on the PMDG tech team, has to say about this extremely important matter as he has made quite a few impressive videos on speed management etc. I wonder if while trying to replicate the 'float' qualities of the 737 in the fsx enviroment, had something to do with the now seemingly incorrect landing attitude???? Just a thought as I recall a post by Robert some time ago concerning this item!! In reviewing my own hours on video in the full-motion NG in Atlanta, Ga., I too agree with Brayton Cycle and others that the landing attitude definitely needs a little fine-tuning. We definitely need to hear more from the real life 737-800 drivers. Regards,jen noulet

Gents- As has been pointed out a number of times, the flight model here already conforms to the Pitch-With-Unreliable-Airspeed table. We'll take a look at it for SP1, but that is not the same as saying we will tinker with it just to satisfy one person's opinion or another. We operate with facts, and data- not with opinions and "I think..." Now- as for the behavior in this thread: Some of you folks need to stop bashing anyone who offers an opinion here. The original poster in this thread has a legitimate question and yes, he makes a hash of things trying to impress with his reported credentials- but that doesn't give anyone the right to go bashing... FWIW: We've seen enough real and imaginary airline pilots in this forum to know when we are dealing with professionals vs. wanna-be's... Please let us deal with those issues.

When I performed approach to stall checks after buying the NGX, I noticed that at max landing weight the aircraft stalled at 12 knots below the actual stall speed for that specific weight flaps 30. At the lightest landing weight during my test, the aircraft stalled 9 knots below the specific stall speed flaps 30. As stated before, the unreliable airspeed chart carries a safety margin. When flying pitch and power for this situation, 1 degree of pitch change can equate to a change of 5kts. In this situation there will be some slop in the airspeed control. If those charts didn't carry the safety margin, it's easy to see that you can be 10kts slow without much notice. You quickly notice airspeed deviations when there is valid airspeed. For this reason the charts target ref + 10. At ref + 10, you have a decent margin even if your pitch and power skills are a little bit off. I do believe that if the aircraft was tuned with these charts while the aircraft was at ref + 10, the pitch should be normal. Based on my stall tests, the jet performs as if 10kts hot in the landing configuration. Here's an example of slop in pitch and power skills. When i first entered the DC-10, I rode the engineer panel for 6 months during my probation period. I remember going into a airport in a African country. It was late night, very dark and perfect for the black hole effect. we were shooting a NDB approach. We were 12hrs into our work day and tired. Against my advice, the captain chose to fly the approach AP/AT off. He said it would wake him up to fly manually. We were driving in at 900 feet tracking the NDB when I noticed I was having a little bit of trouble seeing over the glare shield. Though a little aft of the pilots seats, i still had the same vantage point as the engineer seat is a little higher. The seat was also know for not reaching the full height electrically so I pulled the lever and raised with my legs. Then I quickly checked the airspeed and he was 12 knots slow for our configuration. I yelled out SPEED and pushed up the throttles. The elephants had yet to start marching on the wings, but I bet they were close. From that point I watched him like a hawk. Guys get slightly slow all the time but it's airspeed that's most notable.

Why do people who come up with legitimate criticism about the NGX become the victim of abuse here? I think the OP has a point, which you can see for yourself in the sim. It's not arrogant or uneducated, quite the opposite.

+1

Hey guys. I have just been doing some test flights and may have found something interesting. Loaded up the 737, put 7000lbs of fuel in. Winds calm, 20 degress C. Handlflying all the time. Take off, climb to 4000ft. Flying straight and level, put the plane into landing config, flaps 30, gear down, FMC program shows vref as 140kts for flap 30. Fly steady at 145kts then begin a 3 degree descent. Attitude is around 0 degrees during descent with small variation +-0.5deg to hold the descent. During the descent (anywhere between 4000ft and 500ft), I simulate a flare by cutting the throttle to idle and pitch gentle to a +3 degree nose up, the aircraft descent slows slightly ....but never levels off (or climbs) Repeat again, back to 145kts, cut throttle, pitch up to 4 degrees, aircraft descent slows but again is still loosing altitude (at a lower vertical rate than the 3 degree pitch as expected). Repeat again,145 kts, cut throttle and pitch to +5 degrees, aircraft descent slows, but it never quite reaches level flight ie. if this was a landing it would be a greaser. At +5 degrees, the aircarft never quite levels, but a few seconds after the speed has dropped only 10 kts, to 135kts, the aircraft is sinking again at a higher speed. Recover to level flight and return to 145kts. Now I repeated the test but at under 50ft over a runway (well, I was actually over a field) I descend again, 3 degree glide slope, nose at 0 degree, now with the ground effect, at 40ft, cut throttle, pitch back to +3 degree as I had done earlier, aircraft levels, climbs slighlty, then slowly descends, do a go around and repeat but pitch to +4 degrees, aircraft baloons up, then floats , then eventually starts to descend, go around and repeat with a pitch to +5 degrees, aircraft climbs quite sharp and then descends when speed has dropped to under 120kts. Complete different behaviour depending on how close to the ground??? So from this short flight, when not in ground effect,the approach attitude still seems a little nose low, but the pitch after cutting throttle seems to behave as expected, +3 would result in a solid contact, +4 would be a soft contact and +5 would be a greaser. Never did the vertical speed become zero or positive when out of ground effect. Has PMDG played around with the ground effect, is this and FSX built in effect...or am I way off the mark?? Would be interesting if someone could repeat this test. Cheers

Can someone test and verify my results

"Tonyf38 testuse at your own risk. back up first.-800[Flaps.0]................." Thanx! that really made a difference in the pitch, now with Vref+5 it is as it should be:-) /Rodd

Ground effect has been simulated in MSFS for a long time, using a lookup table with wing span and height to determine its value.