I will +1 +1 +1 on this. Like I mentioned in my review, this is a PMDG level study sim aircraft.

 

Actually some parts are even more realistic than PMDG.

 

For example, in PMDG aircraft, when you add fuel too late after N2 is more than 16, all engines will still start.

 

However, in FlightFactor's 767, if you add fuel too late, the engine starter will overheat, and the 2nd engine will not start at all. The only way to fix this is to go into the 767 options and select the maintenance button. How cool is that??!! You do not get that in any PMDG aircraft. The 767 forces me to treat it like the real thing. Any pilot error actions will cause the plane to have man-made failures - just like the real thing. And this engine startup is just one example. There are TONS more.

 

Glad you're enjoying this aircraft!

 

Hmm, this makes me wonder - usually the starters on airplanes like this are built to "motor" the engines for an extended amount of time. This is used to "vent" them in case of a wet start or a tailpipe fire. I was never certified on the 757 or 767, but it would surprise me if you couldn´t motor the engine with the starter for at least 2 minutes. For example on the 737 you could motor the engine (turn without adding fuel) for 15 minutes....

 

And even IF you overstress a starter, why would the second engine not start? They each have their own starter, and the second engine´s starter (they are basically just windmills that get driven by bleed air from the APU) was not even used yet?

 

The normal procedure to add fuel during these manual engine starts is to wait AT LEAST until you have a minimum N2 to avoid the hot-start. But going over by a bit should not hurt the process at all, and I would be willing to bet  that you can sit for a full minute in a real 767, watching the starter motor the engine before you add fuel without damaging anything at all...

 

Jan

Great explanation Jan, always had my doubts about those systems, so the rule of thumb could be to spool up N2 about 20% and then add the fuel? Thanks.

spool up N2 about 20% and then add the fuel

 

Alex - I think in one of "Mister Colebman" (I believe) videos, he said that 18% was perfect.

 

John

 

Edit:  Link is here: 

Great explanation Jan, always had my doubts about those systems, so the rule of thumb could be to spool up N2 about 20% and then add the fuel? Thanks.

Alex, I let N2 spool to 20% and then start with no problem.

Thank you guys. Happy new year!

 

 

Alex - I think in one of "Mister Colebman" (I believe) videos, he said that 18% was perfect.



John

 

18% works fine for me John. The only time I had problems starting the engines was my fault by not following correct procedures and setup. I use the APU and it works every time.

 

...and Happy New Year to all!

Hmm, this makes me wonder - usually the starters on airplanes like this are built to "motor" the engines for an extended amount of time. This is used to "vent" them in case of a wet start or a tailpipe fire. I was never certified on the 757 or 767, but it would surprise me if you couldn´t motor the engine with the starter for at least 2 minutes. For example on the 737 you could motor the engine (turn without adding fuel) for 15 minutes....

 

And even IF you overstress a starter, why would the second engine not start? They each have their own starter, and the second engine´s starter (they are basically just windmills that get driven by bleed air from the APU) was not even used yet?

 

The normal procedure to add fuel during these manual engine starts is to wait AT LEAST until you have a minimum N2 to avoid the hot-start. But going over by a bit should not hurt the process at all, and I would be willing to bet  that you can sit for a full minute in a real 767, watching the starter motor the engine before you add fuel without damaging anything at all...

 

Jan

 

Very interesting, thanks for your explanation Jan. I guess I'll dive into the FCOM and see what's up with this.

 

Though my point wasn't really trying to stress FlightFactor got the engine startup logic correct, my original point was to stress that the aircraft is realistic enough that small pilot errors can cause a failure and sometimes be severe enough that maintenance must be performed before the aircraft could continue service.

 

But thanks again for the info! And Happy New Year!

i have in the past bought ff products and have been moderately satisfied however i am not sure about buying this.  

generally I expect a few years out of a good aircraft and after 6 months to a year a comprehensive bug fix update.  i get this wiih pmdg and with aerosoft however not FF..  In fact in an interview the developer dismised faults in past planes and said that it wsas time to buy a new one.

This is not playing the long game and makes me reluctant to buy this one.

I believe my first airliner for X-Plane 10, on my return to the platform, will be the iXEG 737....  Simply looking at the videos shows an attention to detail that I am sure will make any other airliner add-on for x-plane 10 look arcade.... sorry...

 

Functionality wise, I would put the FF vs iXEG on the same line of comparison of a Aerosoft Airbus vs a PMDG NGX or 777... The Aerosoft brand certainly has many nice features, specially for users not so worried about details, but if you wan't an even closer reproduction of the real thing, then you'll have to go PMDG...  I will be very selective with X-plane 10. As a matter of fact, with just a few exceptions, I have always been that way with this sim...

 

But, before I get the iXEG, the SaaB 340 will be my nest add-on, just not right now because I had to buy SMP v3 :-/

 

The 777 was an expensive add-on, and a VERY BIG deception. I got it during one of my enthusiastic phases of X-Plane 10 use, and I already had the pmdg 777, so, it felt soooooo bad and far from what I had in fsx that it made me return to fsx ( by that time fsx:se ) to try to compensate for the disappointment... 

 

The only difference may be the fact that, AFAIK, Fellis, a GREAT x-plane aircraft designer ( il-16, il-26, ... ) is now a member of the FF team, if I'm not wrong ? I have the biggest respect for Fellis and his work!

I would put the FF vs iXEG on the same line of comparison of a Aerosoft Airbus vs a PMDG NGX or 777

Look, I don't want to start a "FF vs IXEG" debate on here, but lemme point out just one thing, Jose.

 

If you look at IXEG's forum post about features not included in the release version, and then look at the 767, you'll find that 3/4 of the not-included features in IXEG's 737 is actually already implemented and working in the 767. I will admit - FlightFactor's previous products are really disappointing, but so far almost every single customer who purchased the new 767 has been comparing the 767 to a PMDG or Majestic level addon in terms of functionality.

 

Once more, I wholeheartedly do not mean to start a "FF VS IXEG" war here, I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions to future customers. I full-on support IXEG, I think their team is awesome, the 737 looks awesome, and you can bet I will be reviewing their 737 the day/hour it comes out.

 

I just wanted to point that out there so future 767 customers aren't mislead by Jose's post.

 

IXEG, Cameron, and any of the team reading this post, I have zero intentions starting a feature vs feature debate here. You guys have my 10/10 support.

I think a lot of people are quite happy with this latest release from FF. Until something else comes along, there's not much else that you can compare it to in X-Plane. I think FF have stepped up their game and should at least be given  some amount of credit for their efforts.

 

 

If you look at IXEG's forum post about features not included in the release version, and then look at the 767, you'll find that 3/4 of the not-included features in IXEG's 737 is actually already implemented and working in the 767.

Quantity DOES NOT equal Quality.

I think a lot of people are quite happy with this latest release from FF. Until something else comes along, there's not much else that you can compare it to in X-Plane. I think FF have stepped up their game and should at least be given  some amount of credit for their efforts.

Oh, its the best product from FF sofar and alot better and stable than the 757. I will recommend it to anyone if they look for a good 767.

 

However people saying it's comparable or even surpassing PMDG quality is in my opinion simply not true. If you buy a PMDG product you want everything that is possible being modelled to the utmost accuracy and stable to the point that if something is not working, you first look what you did wrong instead of what did the plane wrong.

 

While the complexity part is getting closer and closer, the stability part of all functions in complex planes in general is still largely lacking. Personally i do not know of one complex tubeliner in x-plane that i didnt manage to break the fmc during online flights or have some other issues like vnav deciding to quit along the way. Granted they never broke completley so that you can't continue flying but you usually have to wing it somehow. Until stabilty of complex planes is not up to that standard, dont call it PMDG quality.

 

Alot of people, including me, are using the pmdg acronym as a synonym for stabilty and branding things this way is misleading. Maybe after the IXEG is released we can use that word as the same acronym in the x-plane world

Someone here said add fuel when the N2 reaches 15% and that's wrong! That creates the engine 2 not starting problem. I always thought you waited till a minimum N2 20% then add fuel and I was right. Watch this clip of a real 767 engine start and they add fuel @ N2 24%. Go to the 2.40 in the clip.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJa-I_7zs_c

Nothing like the real thing to show the way. I watched all this guys videos and learned the correct way the triple autopilots should be used. 

 

By the way the FF 757 checklist states add fuel at 25 percent.