opherben

Hello all,could someone prepare an El Al livery please. If positive, a photo and registration data can be supplied. It will be used by hundreds of enthusiasts for sure.

In addition to the quoted info below, see if setting the engine to CONT thrust limitation helps. I found that CRZ rating is insufficient under certain conditions well within the operating envelope but no real interest ensued. Identical conditions in another, professional level B747-400 simulation do not have such issues. 36 years of flying including as chief experimental test pilot in highly acclaimed organizations real world. >What was your maximum altitude indicated in the FMC? Maybe>you were too heavy to reach FL380 so sudden?>>- Jake

The HUD is there to upgrade a Category II aircraft to Category III, not as a toy.Quote:Yes we pilots love toys! Michael Pare.

Someone on another forum calclulated the energy dissipation for stopping at 100Kt and MTOGW to be 756 Megajoules. The decision to reject or to continue the takeoff becomes more and more critical at higher speeds, due to the enormous energies involved. The increasing risk of wheel fire, or tire or wheel loss obviously needs to be weighed against the severity of the fault or failure requiring the decision to be made. Indeed, in many cases, it is often safer to take an otherwise serviceable and controllable aeroplane into the air and deal with the problem there, before dumping fuel and returning. For this reason, Boeing has made 80kts a cutover point for B747-400 RTO. Below 80 kts, the takeoff would normally be aborted for engine failure, any fire or fire warning, system failure, master caution, abnormally slow acceleration, takeoff config warnings, predictive windshear alerts, unusual noise or vibration, or if the aircraft is unsafe or unable to fly. Above 80kts and prior to V1, the takeoff is generally only aborted for fire/fire warning, engine failure, predictive windshear or if the aircraft becomes unsafe or unable to fly (in the Captain's opinion).

The inability to use APU to run utilities in flight in the Boeing 747-400 series aircraft is a serious deficiency which should be corrected ASAP. There have been incidents where engine power or electric power was totally lost. In one case the crew had just minutes of battery power when they landed. That's because it happened right after takeoff, from Bangkok, lucky!

Hello,we need this one for our Online Virtual Air Force:http://www.iai.co.il/Default.aspx?docID=37...s=0&pos=0&btl=1Interested parties please contact me at:oc(dot)viaf(at)gmail(dot)com

Found it in the install read me.

Hi,can someone please remind me where the 747-400 Freighter System Documentation can be found, I can't locate it. Thanks

My 2 cents as "layman": FSX with DX10 namely Vista, things run slower. How much depends on refinements to current software, hardware and the add-ons to be run in support of the flight. to me all this means slow. My home forum ran a poll 2 days ago regarding what people use, and although quite a few recently bought computers like yours, 5% expect to be flying FSX as their main sim for quite sometime into the future. Most said FS9 for them was a great product, to be kept into the foreseeable future.>This question has to some degree been brougth up before but I>haven't really found a definite answer.>>Since I have a lot of money invested in add-ons for FS9, I am>a bit reluctant to move to FSX. Therefore I was very>pleasantly surprised to read that we will have the MD-11 and>probably the 737V2 for fs9 too. But are there any major>improvements regarding functionality that I will miss if I>stick with the FS9 versions as compared to the FSX ones? I do>have FSX installed so I certainly know what the sim looks like>visually.

a. Requirements for crosswind landing flight envelope are usually defined in the FAR /JAR according to which the aircraft is to be certified. The certified envelope assures the pilot that ample control and predictable response is available for such landings.b. There is nothing miraculous or spectacular in terms of pilot performance and technique during crosswind landing, while within the certified envelope. c. Greater ground clearance of lower aircraft surfaces such as engine nacelles, wings and horizontal tail, enable larger crosswind component landings, provided that the flight control system is also designed for this.d. The Boeing 747-400 is certified to 30Kt crosswind component for takeoff and landing, and 25Kt crosswind component for autoland. These figures are also valid (with one minor deviation) for all current Boeing transport aircraft.e. FAR often require applicants (usually the manufacturer) to demonstrate greater ability than is applied for. In such case, it is reasonable for the certification of 30Kt crosswind landings, that consistent landings be safely demonstrated during certification flight tests with a 40Kt crosswind component. Did that for a living ;-)>I read a while back that the new A380 did 6 landings in>Iceland during trials late in 2006 in cross winds of a steady>40 knots gusting to 56 knots. I could hardly believe it.>>On a flight into KDCA from KLGA last winter, we were landed in>our MD-80 in 40 knot winds which scared the heck out of me>when the pilot said we were going in, but he approached and>landed quite brilliantly.>>At times during the year, there are horrendous winds in my>region (northern VA) and I am amazed how jets continue to>operate in fierce winds.>>My question, then, is: what is the maximum cross-wind the 744>is certified to land in? I have read it is 25 or 30 knots for>an autoland (I think), but in view of the foregoing, does it>ever land in a 40 or 50 knot headwind or crosswind>(hand-flown, perhaps)?>>Jonathan

Hello,why expect people to help with such complex simulation when you can't even sign posts?

Same here guys.

Hello Tom,manufacturer and operator flight manuals are FAA (or other authorised office) approved manuals. The procedures therein are binding, not a matter of choice but of certification and qualification.>> It is common among many Boeing>>operators to set MCP speed to V2, suitable for engine loss.>>This is the right procedure, or at least is the one officially>issued by Boeing on its 757 Operations Manual. That should be>the reason many operators decide to follow it...>>Tom>>

Hi,with 9000 real flight hours on 90 aircraft types and extensive experimental flight test background, to me it seems that we are talking about an incomplete product, like its predecessor. Look at the second forum thread as example for opinions. Judging by apparent company and forum level of activity, it appears that those finishing the development are either busy, or gone elswhere.>with over 2000hrs real>world jet time and many hours of PMDG/PIC, I find the PSS 757>to be absolutely superb. >Rake

Good question David, not so simple to answer. It depends on who you ask. Although the PSS tutorial uses V2+15, other sources say otherwise. It is common among many Boeing operators to set MCP speed to V2, suitable for engine loss. During takeoff, the pilot manually rotates to an attitude of V2+10/15/20, ignoring FD pitch command until after positive rising barometric and radar altitudes, then flying the FD, without exceeding passenger comfort attitude.>Hi,>>Quick question: there seems to be some misunderstanding about>the speed to set in the MCP Speed window at TO. Should it be>V2 or V2+15/20?>>David

Greeting Hans, having been a PMDG client and forum reader for quite a while, let me make the following observation. PMDG releases news about its evolving products when available and in due time. One cannot expect dates in such circumstances, rightfully. Their staff is working on development and cannot answer each query when clear statements had already been made. Hang around and you will know when there is more NGX news. Personally I don't expect it out before the end of 2007.

Does FS support that resolution?What does the error message identify as culprit after restart?You did not mention display and graphic adapter card and driver info.

Thank you.There is no accurate info there. Since I know how to get such info myself, it was meant mostly for the benefit of the user public, such people publish this question now and then for a reason. I was hoping that PSS acknowledge, and will add it to the manual when practicable.>try this thread ->>http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...18821&mode=full>>(the above thread was the first hit when doing a forum>search using the terms "757 weights".)>>--

Hello,would PSS kindly post empty weight data for the model variants, thanks.

To me flying is not only a hobby but also a liftime profession, and I take it seriously. Why buy and use such complex realistic simulation, if used in a way which violates basic flying rules? that is to me absurd, even if our hosts don't mind it. Reminds me of my two year old who got a powerful radio-controlled race car, and is often pushing the pedal to the metal although it is up against a wall. Don't worry about joining VATSIM if you fly longhaul but lack the required free time. VATSIM is online flying as real as it gets, our pilots man their cockpits while flying. In VATSIM there is a sort of sinkhole, a place on the globe where aircraft whose status is unclear to the system are depicted, off the shore of Ghana. Not where they planned to go, but were planted. >>I have never heard something more absurd. You want to fly->>fly! You want to sleep? sleep, don't fly!>>>Its said to hear such a comment from a so-called 'VATSIM>instructor'! There are some people here who are not going to>school or to university but who follow a regular job. Besides>simming there are also other things to do. Infact, in reality,>as you know, a B747 is controlled by more than 2 pilots, to>give the opportunity for resting and sleeping. >>So there are no 'absured' topics in this Forum. I might have>to think twice to join VATSIM if people there are so>unfriendly as you. >>ALex

>This is annoying>during long haul flight because one wants to sleep also...I have never heard something more absurd. You want to fly- fly! You want to sleep? sleep, don't fly!

My reference to memory was about RAM not storage place.>my fs9 setup typically uses around 800Mb of memory>>>alan

I wrote in my answer, that I minimize the FS9 window momentarily then reopen it. As a result, memory use is typically reduced from 500KB plus down to ~200KB.>If that's the problem you have, how do you fix it then?

Yes, ages ago when flying long routes. I believe it was due to a memory leak. If you watch the memory requirements, they grow substantially with time. Minimizing the FS9 window for a short while, overcame mine.