jordanal

Hey all,Fully enjoying the MD-11 and I completed my first trans-atlantic flight yesterday as well. My observation over the past several flights using a full Profile-descent directly to a coupled ILS autoland is that once I'm at or below the 240kt initial approach speed, the FMS assigned speeds don't seem to change unless I drop the slats and flaps first, then the speed-bug reacts appropriatly. Where as on the Boeings, it always seemed like the speed-bug would drop ahead of time and I as the pilot would apply the appropriate flaps on schedule.So, is this a normal difference between the MD and the Boeings where it seems the current MD approach flaps drive the current FMS speed? Or, I am doing something inappropriate?Also, the other thing I noticed yesterday was that when I was well above the FAF for the chosen ILS, the G/S still coupled at the same time as the LOC and it started a forcefull descent (~ 4Kft/min), quite drasticaly, down to put the G/S center-scale. My point here is, I was always under the impression that if you came in high on the ILS, the G/S would not couple because of the unsafe nature of a drastic descent at such a low altitude. Is this a possible bug or does the real MD-11 allow above G/S captures?Regards,

I'd be careful with assumptions like that though, becuase some of us, myself included, have not had time to fire up the old-queen since the installation the MD-11. ATT, I am unsure where I stand on the issue. Perhaps there are others as well.Regards,

Take your time Dan, you've earned it :-beerchug

Better yet, get the entire MS SysInternals Suite with all the utils contained in one nice download at the bottom of the MS site here:http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinte...7c5a693683.aspxI use ProcMon and AutoRuns routinely. Don't leave home without it. Copy all the executables directly into /Windows/System32 and you'll have all them readilly available in the Run bar. Check back every once in a while as the Suite is updated regularly with new versions of the individual utils.

Google, LOL... :-spam1

Yes, FSBuild2 is a very common, long standing, well supported, flight-planning tool which works with many major add-ons. One feature allows you to prview all the runway dependant SID/STARS. From the transistions of these SID-STARS, I build my exportable flightplan (without the SIDS and STARS) so the FP always lines up nicely with the transitions selected on the FMC/MCDU. It also gives me the chance to review the other various SID/STARS while I create the FP, in case anything changes enroute. Owning both FSC and FSBuild2, I prefer to use FSC on a second monitor with it's moving-map and AI-Display capablity, while I continue to build good FP's with FSBuild2.Regards,

In otherwords, you mean the RW 744 has RTA?

Having read the manual "Fix" section several times, let me ask this; is there a way to designate a 40nm abeam point to the track or is abeam always perpendicular to the track? In otherwords, have the MCDU figure out where along the track a 40nm abeam point would exist?Or perhaps, is there another way to easily create a waypoint (direct - as the crow flies) 40nm from the arrival/last-VOR, along the current track, upon which we can build the required crossing restriction?

Just a few simple words to describe my new-found satisfaction.Weeeee, just havin' fun.... :-bigangelThanks for another very cool big-iron to add to my fleet! :-beerchugRegards,

Hi all,As I have always done with the PMDG 737 and 744, I have added an arrival Fix using the MCDU, being exactly 40nm (direct - not along track) from arrival thereby creating a crossing restriction. This is important to make Radar Contact play-nice with PMDG VNav descent capabilities. I have always been able to add the arrival fix (airport or VOR) on the MCDU Fix page and just simply enter " /40 ". Then, where my my FP crosses the 40nm range-ring, would then be downselected and uploaded to my Legs page, making a perfect crossing restriction.In the MD-11, I can't figure out how to translate the same procedure. I understand the MCDU's are not quite the same. The Fix page doesn't appear to accept just a /40 input. Any advice is welcome.

Thanks again Andre. Swapping back in the original spotlight.bmp did indeed fix the problem. I can now see the landing lights on the ground in front of me.Regards,

Not a bad idea there Dan and Chrsitmas is coming up and I'm sure the wife will be nagging me for ideas soon enough. Since new hardware to burn cash on is somewhat at a standstill this season, maybe I'll ask for a gift certificate to take such a check ride.Thanks again all, I'm still awefully embarased, LOL...

Thank you for confirming. Don't I feel like a fool after all these years with FS. That's a gonna take a while to correct my natural reaction.

OK, let me ask a real newbee-type question. Having never operated a real aircraft, when viewed from within the cockpit, when I push forward (away from me) the right rudder pedal, in which direction does the nose of the aircraft steer/yaw? (I don't have dedicated tiller hardware ATT).This question came up in a related thread with Pete Downson and I can't beleive I may have had the rudder-direction reversed all these years.

Thanks a bunch Andre, that's probably the ticket as I do use ASG. Will check that out as soon as I get home this evening.Ho hum, another long day waiting to get back and kick the dog some more, LOL... I am really starting to like the automation in the plane. Well done guys!

Hi all,Is it just me or do others not have taxi or landing lights illuminating the ground in front of them? I noticed this at several different airports over the past two days at it was especially hard to follow the taxi line. I can see the taxi light and landing lights when looking at the aricraft as well as the light-splash on the under-belly in front of the nose gear, but nothing on the ground.If I am the exception, could it be my current copy of the halo.bmp which causes this? Any thoughts are welcome.Regards,

Michael,Very informative post and I, and I'm sure others, thank you. I'm now wondering if it is my long-standing FSUIPC button-action assigned to "Parking Brakes" that might be the cause. Maybe it sets the brakes but some unique PMDG coding is not finishing some action when applied. I will now attempt to instead assign the "." keystroke command (already assinged to parking brakes in the FSX controls) to the button action and see if that produces a different result. It definitly has something to do with the way in which I am applying parking brakes to begin with.Regards,

Help! I'm having the same problem. FSXsp2 & FSUIPC (Reg'd). Can't get the dang parking brakes to release after pushback. Been working this for the past hour, going no-where fast. There are at least three threads on this parking break issue so I think there is something unique and/or problematic in which PMDG needs to investigate. I have tried assigning a key-command shift+. to the FSX parking key assignment, and also use my more normal meathod of assinging a Saitek button directly within FSUIPC buttons assignments to parking brakes. I have unassigned and resasgned the toe-breaks in both "Direct To" and "Normal" modes axis assignments within FSUIPC and recalibrated the toe-breaks till I'm blue in the face. The only thing odd that I notice is that everytime I go back into FSUIPC, the Toe-breaks (output) is zero instead of -16383, but just tapping the toe-breaks with FSUIPC calibration, starts the axis output again but does not release the brakes, nor can I see "Brekes" or differential brakes when tapping the toe-brakes. I am fully aware of the reverse checkbox and tried that too. Never had a Parking brakes or brakes issue on any other add-on aircraft.Help, someone pull the dang chalks! LOL...(More) Oh, and my brake pressure gauge above the throttles is reading 3000PSI and all hydrolic lights are out on the Overhead.Restarted the sim & the md-11. As soon as the MD-11 is done initializing (green/white status bar) I have both brakes and differential toe-brakes. As soon as I pop my Saitek button for parking brakes that it, parking brakes are set and I can't seem to release them. From that point on, I don't get brakes or differential brake messages.

Thanks Karl,For the purposes of FSBuild2, I used 273373 lbs for the MD-11(GE)empty weight and got the TOGW within 53 lbs (pax variant) of the load-manager. So I think I'll use the above empty wieghts for the rough approximation of fuel required. In fact, the ZFW in both apps were identical, 381873 lbs.FSBUILD FLIGHT PLANFLT REL IFR LSZH-16/LEMD-18L MACH A/C MD11 W/ CF6-80C2D1F FUEL TIME CORR TOGWT LDGWT AVG W/CTAXI 001800 0015 . . . . 439820 408097 M002DEST LEMD 031723 0131 . . . . ELEV. 2001 FTRESV 012060 0045 . . . .ALTN 004783 0017 . . . . ALTN LEZG DIST 134HOLD 004020 0015 . . . .EXTRA 005360 0020 . . . . ZFW 381873 PAYLOAD 108500TTL AT TO 057947 0308 . . . . DIST 0684REQD 059747 0323 . . . . ETDCLB BIAS 0.0% CRZ BIAS 0.0% DSC BIAS 0.0%DEP BIAS 0 MIN 0 DIST 0 FUEL, ARR BIAS 0 MIN 300 FUELRegards,

For the purposes of flight planning in FSBuild2 and the MD-11 Load Manager, are the following formulas true?Pax Variants:Pax Weight + Cargo Weight = Total PayloadZFW - payload = empty weight (273373 lbs)Cargo Variants:ZFW - Cargo Weight (no pax) = empty weight (250996 lbs)If incorrect, does anyone know the empty weights for both variants? Thanks...

BTW, as far as the MD-11 is concerned, has anyone noticed a difference in mapping axis in FSUIPC using "Direct To" vs. "Normal" modes? I know the LDS-763 prefers the "Direct To" option. Thanks for any advice.

Sorry, I can't remember the exact FS9 N/S limit. It may have only been 70.0N/S or something to that affect. In other words, in FS9 you couldn't even get close to the poles.

Yes, FSX did fix the pole problem as the world was remodeled from a cylinder to a true sphere for the first time in FS franchise history. That was part of the issue with not re-using AFCADS from FS9 to FSX as it threw them of in altitude a bit along the length of the runways. The issue of circumnavigating the poles was greatly reduced in that, the banging the physical wall as you described at only 2nm, used to occure around 89.5N/S.

Ah, then based on the winglets, like the PMDG model, I would have to say it was a MD-11 that I saw. The winglets certainly don't seem as pronounced as a 738 or 752. From a long distance (maybe a 100 yards or more) and a side-profile view, I guess the winglets would be the only difference I could recognize between the two. Interesting, thanks for the reply Markus.

BTW, while passing through Atlanta yesterday, I noticed what I thought was a MD-11 taxing parallel to us, but on the other side of the runways. This brings up a question I wanted to ask. How can one tell, from a distance, the obvious difference between a DC-10 and MD-11? Don't they basically look the same?