Ultimate 787 Update - Version 1.1.3 Released

[ng0057a5 6]

17 hours ago, Nyxx said:

Well first flight done.

First impressions, very good, performance was very smooth. Hand flying and landing was very very nice. First flight filed. Nice landing for my first landing in this beautiful aircraft. But the HUD does make it very easy.

 

97842 kg burned for a so short flight? How many holding patterns did you do?😁 

[Nyxx 6,993]

For the 78-8 it was a short flight, I downloaded profiles for PFPX am so used to seeing fuel amount for the NG and A319, I was like....that’s a lot of fuel. I looked at fuel used comparison from what PFPX say for arrival airport and adding the SID and STAR it was about right. 

But for the flight above my first, the wife came home with the weekly shop, so entered 2000ft in the Alt, But when I got back it was still at cruise, so I did do a 360 on decent to get back on path. The second flight and still did not drop at TOD. Will do it manually to start it off then it seemed fine to put it back into VNAV.

Its no FSL-PMDG, but it’s very nice and very enjoyable. Probably the best looking aircraft imo by far. Stunning job on the model and wing flex.

I like it a lot and the HUD makes judging the landing very easy. I might stop using it, it could make me very lazy lol. Not sure I like the HUD in the flare as it hides a lot of the runway. Might just use it to around 100ft.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Nyxx

[Christopher Low 5,332]

I never bother with the HUD in this or the PMDG aircraft.

[musiol1 1]

22 hours ago, Nyxx said:

Well first flight done.

First impressions, very good, performance was very smooth. Hand flying and landing was very very nice. First flight filed. Nice landing for my first landing in this beautiful aircraft. But the HUD does make it very easy.

 

Hello.

What distance 787 (with new ver1.1.3) need to desc from eg FL390 to 3000ft ?

[cyyzrwy24 118]

39000-3000=36000 x 3 as a rule...nice and smooth

[American 833 Heavy 132]

22 hours ago, gsand said:

IMHO part of the 787 VNAV climb/descent problems lie with the default speed targets on the VNAV pages. 311/.85 for climb/descent? No way to hit .85 before the mid to high 30's in climb unless the climb is below 1000-1200/min. And the engines will be max thrust the whole way. It's even worse coming down, you have to ride the spoilers all the way sometimes. I read somewhere that with the 787 you can come down or slow down but not both. It is a slippery devil.

Back when Flight Assignment:ATP came out (in the 90's...🙂) it modeled the 400, among others. I flew for one of the first VA's, Sun Air Express. The chief pilot was a 734 capt for a major and one thing he told me was their SOP was to put 270/.70 in the climb targets so they would be at .70 between FL 270-290. Climb rates would then go back up but engines were a lot happier. They also did the same for descents. I've been doing this ever since in all the Boeings and it works really well for me. I do vary the speeds depending on the aircraft, generally I climb at about 270-280 and use a Mach of .06 lower than my crusie number. Course I really enjoy interacting with the plane so this keeps me in the loop and thinking.

.70 is too slow climbing to upper 30's (too close to yellow) so I edit the climb/descent to 280/.76 and usually transition to .76 by around FL 310 or 320. Might cost me a couple of minutes (maybe) but a lot less fuel and engine stress.

I also start down at 1000fpm about 20nm before TOD and dial the speed back to about .78, seems to make the transition to VNAV control a whole lot smoother. 737 has DESC NOW on the VNAV Descent page and it will start a 1000f/m descent if pressed. I can't see it on the 87 so I just do it myself.

All this is with the condition, as usual, of YMMV.😉. As I said, IMHO.

The 787 is not a 737CL. Using 737CL has a marker of expectation of 787 performance doesn't really make much sense. That's apples and oranges.

The engines are far from max thrust. They are digitally controlled by a limiting system. VNAV climbs out at the CLB Thrust Ref. This is what our airplane does and is not different than say a 757/767 or 777/747.

The 787 is a transonic airplane, not subsonic like a much slower 737CL. Our speeds are from real world 787 data we accumulated over a few years. It's much closer to B747/748 speeds than any other Boeing in the Climb/Cruise/Descent regime.

Flying at those speeds puts you FAR outside of the 787s designed flight envelope. Do not modify the speeds unless you have a clear understanding of the 787's performance.

That is correct you hit the Mach in the low FL300s as the 787 is cruising in the high 300s low 400s 90% of the time.

The 737CL was probably if not the slowest jet commercial airliners of its size in the last 40 years. So that isn't a recommended baseline comparison to use as you noted you were close to the stall range.

Edited April 8, 2019 by American 833 Heavy

[AUThomas 0]

On 4/7/2019 at 8:06 PM, Vali said:

By the way, does the transponder switch work for you guys on Vatsim, on my side it has no effect?

Have the problem too.

[Michael Moe 494]

11 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I never bother with the HUD in this or the PMDG aircraft.

You should try out some nasty weather with a METAR like ovc 0050 an vv020. Really where the hud is shining in my opinion. 

Helsinki and Amsterdam produces these quite often or close. 

Michael Moe 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Michael Moe

[gsand 105]

3 hours ago, American 833 Heavy said:

The 787 is not a 737CL. Using 737CL has a marker of expectation of 787 performance doesn't really make much sense. That's apples and oranges.

The engines are far from max thrust. They are digitally controlled by a limiting system. VNAV climbs out at the CLB Thrust Ref. This is what our airplane does and is not different than say a 757/767 or 777/747.

The 787 is a transonic airplane, not subsonic like a much slower 737CL. Our speeds are from real world 787 data we accumulated over a few years. It's much closer to B747/748 speeds than any other Boeing in the Climb/Cruise/Descent regime.

Flying at those speeds puts you FAR outside of the 787s designed flight envelope. Do not modify the speeds unless you have a clear understanding of the 787's performance.

That is correct you hit the Mach in the low FL300s as the 787 is cruising in the high 300s low 400s 90% of the time.

The 737CL was probably if not the slowest jet commercial airliners of its size in the last 40 years. So that isn't a recommended baseline comparison to use as you noted you were close to the stall range.

Noted on all but I have done several flights at your suggested speeds with weights between 425-450k and FL between 370-390 and have never hit .85 in climb, so for me that's the reason I started looking at this. I'm not having any speed/climb issues at 280 and it's far enough in the speed window for me to believe that it's still within the performance envelope. At .82 cruise and FL 390 yesterday with a 90 kt tailwind ground speed was 609 kts, so are you telling me that's outside of the performance envelope?

You also mis-read what I said, I didn't use .70, I use .76 or .78 and I'm over to Mach by 310 most of the time. IAS is never below 480 once transitioned so I'm comfortably away from the bottom.

I'm not trying to fly it like a 737. I did my own research and am comfortable with what I'm doing. It works for me. I stand by my original premise that 311/.85 for a 425k lb+ airplane is asking a lot. It's not so much the 311 as expecting it to hit .85 while maintaining some decent climb rate.

And for the record I was not slamming the 787, I genuinely love what QW did with the 787 and also for the record have been a long time customer. As I said in my post, this is what works for me.

 

Thanks,

Gerald

Edited April 8, 2019 by gsand

[American 833 Heavy 132]

1 hour ago, gsand said:

Noted on all but I have done several flights at your suggested speeds with weights between 425-450k and FL between 370-390 and have never hit .85 in climb, so for me that's the reason I started looking at this. I'm not having any speed/climb issues at 280 and it's far enough in the speed window for me to believe that it's still within the performance envelope. At .82 cruise and FL 390 yesterday with a 90 kt tailwind ground speed was 609 kts, so are you telling me that's outside of the performance envelope?

You also mis-read what I said, I didn't use .70, I use .76 or .78 and I'm over to Mach by 310 most of the time. IAS is never below 480 once transitioned so I'm comfortably away from the bottom.

I'm not trying to fly it like a 737. I did my own research and am comfortable with what I'm doing. It works for me. I stand by my original premise that 311/.85 for a 425k lb+ airplane is asking a lot. It's not so much the 311 as expecting it to hit .85 while maintaining some decent climb rate.

And for the record I was not slamming the 787, I genuinely love what QW did with the 787 and also for the record have been a long time customer. As I said in my post, this is what works for me.

 

Thanks,

Gerald

 

Gerald,

Not saying your slamming, far from it. I am glad you enjoy our product, and we sincerely appreciate your support and purchase.

I was just simply pointing out to you that what you are doing is not standard for the 787. We have had the great fortune of having real world 787 pilots working with us and have verified our performance data, our Flight Dynamics developer is also an airline pilot. And it's "on the numbers' as they say.

.82 is just ever so slightly slower than a typical cruise, actually a tad closer to a typical LRC Cruise speed on the airplane, but it's perfectly fine especially with a large tail wind as you noted. But there is really no fuel penalty to cruising at typical .84-.85 range, and you get there faster. It is not uncommon to reach the climb mach speed fairly close to the cruise altitude on the airplane. A unique combination of the aerodynamics, performance and typical cruise levels and speed for the airplane. It is also normal for there not to be a large gap in the difference between the VNAV MACH CLB speed and VNAV MACH CRZ speeds and is usually either the same or within .01 to .005 Mach. 

Most cruises on this airplane are in the .830 to .860 range. It can even do .860 - .870 no problem but that is faster than what is normally used. It's a fast airplane, one of its benefits and strongsuits.  

Just Planes has wonderful series of DVDs on the 787 where they occasionally show the PFD and FMCs, where you get a great sneak peak at 787 perf.

The 787s target Mach speed above the Mach crossover point or when in a mach hold situation should not be less than .800 mach for standard flight. Anything less is definitely outside the ideal envelope.

As I mentioned above its speeds are not too dissimilar than what a 744/748 uses, which is awesome. 311/.85 is not asking a lot, it's perfectly normal for the 787. It was the ideal lift over drag speed at the weight and cost index that was used. Lower than normal speeds in the climb segment cause higher drag due to a higher AoA and thus greater fuel burn. This is what the flight envelope is. The 787 sips fuel and has incredible wings and aero, it's truly unique.

I am pleased that works for you and gives you the experience you prefer and enjoy. But consider letting it fly on the numbers. If you are heavy its normal for it to take 17 to 22 minutes to cruise.

While on the topic of performance, another perf feature you also may find interesting incase you or others are unsure or confused about is the following :

High Speed Climb, under 10,000ft 250+ KTS climb. If heavy enough the calculated the minimum clean climb speed by the FMC and VNAV will be greater than 250 kts. Heavy jets' maneuvering speed is often over 250kts. If the maneuvering speed is less than 250kts, VNAV will use 250kts for the climb under 10K and can comply with 250/10000. The 787 for its upper 3rd of its weight range's clean speed is slightly greater than 250kts and tops out in the high 260s kts for a MTOW climb.  Those are the slowest possible "minimum clean" climb speeds under 10K. Once 10K is passed VNAV goes up to the full CLB Econ speed. This is all related to the ideal lift over drag speed. You often hear pilots at major international airports where these planes fly from once airborne request a High Speed for weight and performance reasons, as their FMC calculates this in the preflight. it is all but a formality and virtually always given for safety. Often times the controllers tell these airplanes "free speed" as they are aware of their performance needs being unable to climb at 250kts cleaned up. So just another little item I figured I'd mentioned related to performance for those unsure about it.

Edited April 8, 2019 by American 833 Heavy
typo

[Christopher Low 5,332]

The LNAV and VNAV lights seem to take ages to activate when I press them after completing the rest of the setup. I have posted a message about this on the Quality Wings forum, but I just wanted to know if anyone else has this issue, or whether I am doing something wrong? I do not recall it happening with version 1.1.2a, although I only conducted a handful of short test flights before updating to version 1.1.3

[JasonPC 173]

I haven't seen this. The LNAV and VNAV lights immediately are lit as long as the performance information is input for me. Are you talking about the VC buttons or actual hardware?

Edited April 13, 2019 by JasonPC

[Christopher Low 5,332]

The VC buttons.

[itsjase 52]

Is your FMC preflight all complete before you arm them? And both FD's on?

[Christopher Low 5,332]

I have also noticed that I need to take more care when using the FMC keyboard than I do with my PMDG aircraft. My inputs are sometimes not registered, so I have to be more careful and deliberate.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Christopher Low