CG value in yellow on the Payload screen

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Haven't been a very frequent visitor here lately but I remember in the past PMDG staff were very active in here answering and commenting on lots of questions but no problem, I submitted a ticket now.

 

Right, but even if you think the staff might see it, you should also think collectively.  Sure, you might want to resolve your own issue, but think about other people's issues out there, too.  Additionally, you have to remember that the staff member will have to remember to keep checking back on this thread, whereas the support portal is all automated so they don't have to keep checking the forums (or set a reminder).

 

Submitting a ticket allows them to track the issue in their support system.  This allows them to recognize similar issues and help other people with similar issues.  Say you provide information that helps them solve an issue.  Since it's in the system, any other similar issues might be able to be closed using that same method/fix/workaround.

 

I'm not saying don't post issues here, because sometimes users can simply address each other's issues (or point out that it's not an issue at all), but if it's a legitimate issue, it helps everyone if it's appropriately reported, tracked, and logged.

 

Legitimate issues (bugs you're sure of, license issues, etc): Portal

Potential issues to be validated: Here (and then Potal, without question, if suggested)

General help (technique, clarification on procedures): Here

[WebMaximus 372]

Right, but even if you think the staff might see it, you should also think collectively.  Sure, you might want to resolve your own issue, but think about other people's issues out there, too.  Additionally, you have to remember that the staff member will have to remember to keep checking back on this thread, whereas the support portal is all automated so they don't have to keep checking the forums (or set a reminder).

 

Submitting a ticket allows them to track the issue in their support system.  This allows them to recognize similar issues and help other people with similar issues.  Say you provide information that helps them solve an issue.  Since it's in the system, any other similar issues might be able to be closed using that same method/fix/workaround.

 

I'm not saying don't post issues here, because sometimes users can simply address each other's issues (or point out that it's not an issue at all), but if it's a legitimate issue, it helps everyone if it's appropriately reported, tracked, and logged.

 

Legitimate issues (bugs you're sure of, license issues, etc): Portal

Potential issues to be validated: Here (and then Potal, without question, if suggested)

General help (technique, clarification on procedures): Here

 

Wow Kyle, what is your problem? You really must have quite some spare time to kill making this kind of hen out of a feather simply because I asked in here about a strange thing I noticed today.

 

And I'm not even sure what you're implying writing I should be thinking not only about my own problems but think of other's problems as well?! I suggest you do some Google searching for my nickname (WebMaximus) and check out the posts and various contributions I made within the FS community the last +10 years or so.

 

The ticket was submitted even before you wrote this reply I'm quoting here so you can sit back and relax now and enjoy the ride and I'll report back in here any answer I get from PMDG for everyone to see sharing anything I think can be of interest to others as well just like I always do and always did...

OK, that jump was a definite bug. Submit a ticket, best if it is reproducible.

 

 

As for 13kg - that is a very realistic figure for intra-european flight on a carrier such as SAS.

 

I am not sure what experience H.Mahesh has, but it does probably not enter European air market.

 

 

Air carrier such as SAS carries a lot of business travellers. Most of these will only have a light baggage piece, or none at all. Some will have a heavy one. 13kg per pax in average is a good conservative estimate, erring on the side of caution (e.g. heaviness). Carryon luggage is included in normal pax weights.

As for having exact weights - sometimes they do have, sometimes they don't. Mostly when pilots make the loadsheet, there is no exact weight, sometimes not even number of bags.

 

Yep, the ticket has been submitted and I'll let you know what PMDG says.

 

Thanks for confirming 13 kg/PAX sounds like a realistic figure to you.

 

I've now asked about this elsewhere as well in a forum that is frequently visited by real world SAS pilots just to double-check this figure. Speaking about the estimated PAX weight I got from the same source 87 kg/PAX which includes any carry-on luggage.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Wow Kyle, what is your problem? You really must have quite some spare time to kill making this kind of hen out of a feather simply because I asked in here about a strange thing I noticed today.

 

And I'm not even sure what you're implying writing I should be thinking not only about my own problems but think of other's problems as well?! I suggest you do some Google searching for my nickname (WebMaximus) and check out the posts and various contributions I made within the FS community the last +10 years or so.

 

The ticket was submitted even before you wrote this reply I'm quoting here so you can sit back and relax now and enjoy the ride and I'll report back in here any answer I get from PMDG for everyone to see sharing anything I think can be of interest to others as well just like I always do and always did...

 

Forgive me for a moment, but I'm feeling a little blindsided here...

 

You posted your issue.

• I, along with a few others, noted that it's definitely something that needs to be looked into, and referred you to the official support portal.
• You (very clearly, and in multiple posts) made it seem that the request was somewhat questionable, given the PMDG staff occasionally answer questions here in the forum.
• I provided reasons as to why it's smart, and in the best interest of everyone, to submit tickets, instead of relying on the forum.

Honestly, your response could have been as simple as saying "cool - went ahead and submitted a ticket - will report back."  Instead, you seemed (this may not have been your intention, but re-read your posts and you'll see that it could have been interpreted) to argue that submitting a was somehow unnecessary/redundant.  That is the only thing I was addressing.  Not you.  Not your character.  Not your contributions.  I addressed the idea that submitting tickets was redundant because PMDG staff occasionally views the forum.  End.

 

Regardless, thank you for submitting a ticket.

 

Still, I'm really not sure why I got the response I got...

[WebMaximus 372]

Although not using the exact same wording I thought I pretty much said just the same thing in post #10 and #15 that I will submit a ticket after having it confirmed this seems to be a real bug. How you interpreted what I said in those posts as I was "arguing" I really have no idea.

 

If you're not sure why you got the response you got I suggest you read the first couple of lines in your own post #16 telling me how I should "think collectively" and "think about other people's issues out there, too" and not only my own problems.

 

I thought that was exactly what I did when I posted about my issue in here rather than sending a support ticket privately to PMDG and without anyone else knowing about the issue I discovered. Fact is since buying the NGX when it was first released I have only submitted one ticket before the one I just sent regarding this issue. In every other situation and with every other problem I've been able to find the answer in this forum with help from fellow NGX drivers.

 

This will conclude this highly unnecessary discussion on my part and instead I'll spend my time on the actual issue and again of course I will share anything of interest in this thread both for you and everyone else to read.

[777cap 12]

As for 13kg - that is a very realistic figure for intra-european flight on a carrier such as SAS.

 

I am not sure what experience H.Mahesh has, but it does probably not enter European air market.

 

I did my research,yes it is the correct figure,as for outside europe it is usually at 15kgs.

 

 

As for the bug you are having there...I tried to replicate your figures,I did of course get a difference because I do not have the SAS livery installed,but the C.G value does seem to jump around.

What i did was set the payload to empty,fuel to empty.then do my calculations for the flight =(fuel needed etc),and then put the those figures in the FMC,and it seemed to like what i did,as i got no yellow colour,just a solid steel grey.

So I hope this works out for you as well,

Do tell us how it goes

warm regards

[lassekronborg 43]

Whenever you enter a value via the payload manager it seems that the NGX will redistribute the weight of the PAX. The aircraft in it self weighs around 36-50 tonnes empty. So moving 800 KG between compartments close to the dry and empty CoG won't do much. But changing distribution of 100 passengers will. They are 10 times as heavy and can be seatet further from the MAC (longer arm means more influence on the CoG).

 

28% might not be a problem at takeoff. But if you burn fuel it can change to a bigger value during flight.

 

I would recommend to everyone to downliad the B737NG performance sheet from AVSIM file library. It is a performance and fuel calculator in one excel sheet. Its relatively easy to use and you can also use it for precise CoG calculations. Search the library. I uploaded the latest version quite a while ago. 4.95 i believe.

[WebMaximus 372]

Thanks for all input guys!

 

A good friend of mine discovered an interesting thing in the NGX Tutorial 1 where it on page 15 says

 

"Change the rear compartment first in a case like this where you’re reducing the load to avoid an out of balance situation."

 

Haven't had time testing this myself yet but maybe the simple solution to this issue is simply to make sure you always start by modifying the AFT CARGO weight before you enter type anything into the FWD CARGO.

 

Again, thanks for confirming the values I've been using are correct and realistic ones.

 

Edited to add that I also found some information about the Payload screen on page 99 in the NGX Introduction manual but there it didn't say anything about the importance of the load order between AFT and FWD CARGO.

 

 

I would recommend to everyone to downliad the B737NG performance sheet from AVSIM file library. It is a performance and fuel calculator in one excel sheet. Its relatively easy to use and you can also use it for precise CoG calculations. Search the library. I uploaded the latest version quite a while ago. 4.95 i believe.

 

This is a great tip, thanks for sharing!

Just did some very quick testing and when entering the CARGO weights in the correct order, first AFT and then FWD I was not able to produce a yellow CG value so I guess that is good news.

 

However I also noticed how the CG value still will be different from time to time although using the exact same values which seems a bit odd.

 

I wonder if the changing CG value also will affect the handling of the aircraft in a noticeable way...?

Edited July 17, 2014 by WebMaximus

[aceridgey 330]

I would submit a ticket.

 

As a guideline, when I loadplan 737-800's (in the real world) The cargo is split 50/50. Ryanair put more in H2 (a lot of the time, exclusively).

 

Now, most aircraft benefit from a more AFT Mac because it is more fuel efficient. #TL;DR More aft = more fuel economic 

 

However, the -800 is notorious for being a little unstable at this AFT CG's so that's why we aim for a pretty central CG. 

[777cap 12]

 

 

As a guideline, when I loadplan 737-800's (in the real world) The cargo is split 50/50. Ryanair put more in H2 (a lot of the time, exclusively).

 

Thats weird because i thought cargo is almost never distributed evenly on small aircrafts,or that must be when there aren't to many passengers.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Thats weird because i thought cargo is almost never distributed evenly on small aircrafts,or that must be when there aren't to many passengers.

 

Depends on the plane, the operator and their SOP.

 

Working with UAX carriers, I'm pretty sure each one of them had a different way to load each aircraft.  As far as the 170s, it was always "bulk out the front - spill over to rear (if necessary, and it usually wasn't)."

 

...but that was just RPA's way of running their op.  FDX, on the other hand, gets that down to a science.

[777cap 12]

Depends on the plane, the operator and their SOP.

 

Working with UAX carriers, I'm pretty sure each one of them had a different way to load each aircraft.  As far as the 170s, it was always "bulk out the front - spill over to rear (if necessary, and it usually wasn't)."

 

...but that was just RPA's way of running their op.  FDX, on the other hand, gets that down to a science.

Yup! now I remember,one of my pilot mates working on the Bombardier dash 8 told me about uneven cargo distribution.

Thanks for the other info.did you work on some plane as well?

[WebMaximus 372]

Turns out to be a really interesting thread this, thanks for all input!

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Thanks for the other info.did you work on some plane as well?

 

Welcome.

 

I'll probably leave a few planes off, because contracts changed so much, but:

 

Aircraft (Operator):

SF34 (CJC)

CRJ200 (IDE, ASA, ASH)

CRJ700 (ASH, GJC)

E145 (BTA, LOF)

E170 (RPA)

A319 (IDE)

 

Probably more - fueling experience, and loading experience on more (larger) GA/bizav aircraft, but I don't feel like listing all of that (and it's not as relevant).

[777cap 12]

 

 

SF34 (CJC)
CRJ200 (IDE, ASA, ASH)
CRJ700 (ASH, GJC)
E145 (BTA, LOF)
E170 (RPA)
A319 (IDE)
 

 

Nice..must have been some experience,working on so many planes ^_^

[aceridgey 330]

Thats weird because i thought cargo is almost never distributed evenly on small aircrafts,or that must be when there aren't to many passengers.

 

Not all, lets define cargo as well, I am talking about passenger baggage, cargo is similar to freight.

 

So for our fully loaded 738s we evenly distribute them,

 

A common 737-700 split is 70% in the back and 30% in the front.