For a good while now I have been using FlightAware's track and graph to control my climb and descent for my Southwest Flights. Here's a graph I used for my STL-MCO flight that I used in recreating my cousins flight.

http://flightaware.c...L/KMCO/tracklog

 

Just a couples questions that I haven't been able to find.

1. How does FlightAware determine the rate listed in the graph? Would it be more on point to just climb at the difference between the two altitude each minute apart or to use the rates that the graph gives? So 5000 and 1 minute later is at 7500 would give me a climb rate of 2500 fpm VS if it said that at 5000 the rate was 1800fpm and at 7500 it goes to 2900.

 

2. When flying the NGX, would the KTS on the graph be the GS in sim or would KTS be equal to TAS? I have always noticed that the MPH on the graph (depending on the direction of flight) is pretty high most of the times. On my last flight the GS was around 600MPH and the only way I got close was by having a really high TAS to match the KTS on the graph.

 

Any help would be great. Just trying to get my NGX 700 to fly as real as possible.

 

russianspd

You shouldn't try to match your flight profiles to those depicted in FlightAware, as the profile of each flight depends on numerous variables, such as aircraft weight, desired trip efficiency (cost index, takeoff and climb thrust, etc.), and weather. More realistic would be to read and follow the standard procedures described in the manuals and tutorials. For example, using VNAV instead of constantly adjusting V/S will be more efficient and realistic.

 

1. How does FlightAware determine the rate listed in the graph?

I'm not sure whether the vertical speeds described are derived from interpolation or single-point readings. It is difficult to tell due to the lack of precise timings, although I'm sure you could figure it out using a few calculations.

 

2. When flying the NGX, would the KTS on the graph be the GS in sim or would KTS be equal to TAS?

I believe the speed depicted on the graph would be equivalent to ground speed (as labeled) in the simulator, but you shouldn't navigate by ground speed anyways in the B737.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

I have been planning on taking a day and actually doing the NGX tutorials. I pretty much transfered what I had learned and done using the FS2004 version of the PMDG and applied it to the NGX.

 

Although I will say I have had some success with following the graphs. I have been able to match inflight times from FA in my sim. But I will see compare a tutorial flight and an FA flight and see which of the two I like most I guess.

 

The one thing that bugged me was when using VNAV and having accelerated to 250KTS that my climb rate would often be over 4K FPM. Seemed a bit heavy to me. And FA would have the rates changing but seldom over 4K.

 

 

I have been planning on taking a day and actually doing the NGX tutorials.

Good—this way you will be able to take full advantage of the complexity of the PMDG B737. You must also read the manuals, as they contain essential, generally unambiguous information about normal procedures, etc.

 

But I will see compare a tutorial flight and an FA flight and see which of the two I like most I guess.

I strongly advise you not to rely solely on FlightAware flight path data. Just think about it: which will be more accurate—(1) adjusting your aircraft to match the path of the real aircraft using rough estimates based on secondary-source flight path data, or (2) simulating the same procedures the real pilots are following in order to get the aircraft to behave the way it does in real life?

 

One of the beauties of flight simulator is that it is dynamic. Each flight will be slightly different based on environmental (both aircraft and natural) conditions. You do not want not to take advantage of this by forcing every flight to fit the exact same profile, regardless of other factors.

 

The one thing that bugged me was when using VNAV and having accelerated to 250KTS that my climb rate would often be over 4K FPM. Seemed a bit heavy to me.

A 4000 ft/min climb rate seems quite reasonable. You can reduce climb rate by selecting a derated climb thrust option in the FMC (e.g., derate by 5 or 15% or to a certain temperature). Full takeoff and climb thrust are only used with heavy loads or in situations that demand it. Using lower thrust settings also helps preserve engine life.

Owen's advice sounds good. Don't reverse-engineer the wheel; just follow the FMC.

Don't reverse-engineer the wheel; just follow the FMC.

Ah—that's the elegant way (that I couldn't think of) to word what I was trying to say below:

Just think about it: which will be more accurate—(1) adjusting your aircraft to match the path of the real aircraft using rough estimates based on secondary-source flight path data, or (2) simulating the same procedures the real pilots are following in order to get the aircraft to behave the way it does in real life?