Can anyone with these two add-on's tell me if there's any difference in these birds getting to cruising altitudes? I don't have the PMDG bird but find it hard to believe how slow it takes a 737-800/900 to get to 35,000ft with a full load. I'm at work so I can't give accurate numbers as to passenger/baggage load but last night I was looking at this in comparison to my 757/A320 flying I've been doing as of late. I had a full load of passengers with a 100% fuel load in each tank on start-up. I was 700 pounds overweight at the gate so I adjusted my fuel in the three tanks to 50% each. From takeoff at KLAX it took 45 minutes to reach 39,000ft using 'LVL CHG' all the way up (allowing the AP to adjust best rate of climb where manually it would never make it to 39,00ft). I had a tail wind of 53kts. In comparison it takes the 757/A320 note much over 20 minutes to get to the same altitude. I can't believe an airliner as popular as the 737-800 has such poor climb performance. I could not find any data online or numbers to go by to confirm what I'm seeing in the real world so I thought I'd ask here.

Don't you you only climb at 1000 ft/min with lvl change?

I don't think the iFly is that realistic. For starters your optimum cruising altitude shouldn't be FL350 with a full load. Also flight change maintains speed. What speed was your airplane trying to fly at? It sounds like it was trying to climb at too high a speed. The PMDG is one of the most realistic addons ever created. I imagine if you want a realistic simulation then you should buy it. Keep in mind though the 737 NG series is not a powerful aircraft. If you want to skyrocket up to cruise, get a 757 or 747

Keep in mind though the 737 NG series is not a powerful aircraft. If you want to skyrocket up to cruise, get a 757 or 747

 

 

You just answered my question without going into everything else that you said.  The iFly model is only second to PMDG's offering and it seems they both accurately simulate the 737NG series equally.  Thanks for this clear explanation as to what's going on and my expectations.  It's a shame airlines are phasing out the 757 in favor of the 737-900 as it's one heck of an aircraft.

I agree about 757, my favourite aircraft to this date, always so great climb rate and looks beautiful too, especially with winglets.

From takeoff at KLAX it took 45 minutes to reach 39,000ft using 'LVL CHG' all the way up (allowing the AP to adjust best rate of climb where manually it would never make it to 39,00ft).

 

If you use LVL CHG you have to adjust speed manually for best rate of climb. If you use LNAV, you can select best rate of climb in FMC CLB page, or you can climb with econ. speed based on CI ( there is also an best angle of climb preset).

 

Have you checked optimum/maximum altitude for your mass?

FL390 from a fully loaded  (MTOW on departure) 737-800/900 NG is too high, then on top of that you had a 53 knot tail wind. I am kind of suprised it even made it at all.

 

Could it even maintain cruise speed? (~0.77-0.80 mach)

If you use LVL CHG you have to adjust speed manually for best rate of climb. If you use LNAV, you can select best rate of climb in FMC CLB page, or you can climb with econ. speed based on CI ( there is also an best angle of climb preset).

Think you meant VNAV rather than LNAV. LNAV is lateral navigation.

Certainly not trying to start an argument here, but you are doing unrealistic things with the aircraft and then complaining about unrealistic performance.  If you are the type of flyer that likes to "load-n-go" (which there is nothing wrong with that,) then why do you care if it can climb accurately?

 

To put this argument to rest; I personally worked with the iFly development team on this very issue, and I can tell you that the climb rate was accurate up to the time when I left the team due to personal reasons.  The Boeing charts that iFly used(s) for development were no different than the charts that PMDG used.

From personal experience as an air traffic controller, I can tell you that the longer NG's are dogs. We hate the 800's that SWA has now because they can't fly them like their smaller counterparts. The 900's from Alaska are even worse.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Think you meant VNAV rather than LNAV. LNAV is lateral navigation.

Yea, was too tired last night, shouldn't write anything. Thanks for correction. 

From personal experience as an air traffic controller, I can tell you that the longer NG's are dogs. We hate the 800's that SWA has now because they can't fly them like their smaller counterparts. The 900's from Alaska are even worse.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

 

Interesting..  I bet some of those WN pilots rather fly the 700

You can definitely tell a difference, unfortunately it seems they are bringing their 800 flying style into the 700. Of course that could also be the TRS pilots getting integrated. They usually would use 75 percent power... would take up 12k of our 14k ft runway. During the summer months we wondered if they were going to clear the fence sometimes.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

I heard SWA uses a really low cost index, that's probably why their planes under perform.

Actually, with lower CI aircraft should climb with better vertical speed.