ahuimanu

Members
  • Content Count

    1,570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Neutral

1 Follower

About ahuimanu

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

5,013 profile views
  1. Thank you Simon and Kevin, I suppose my real issue is that the change broke some harmony between the PFPX profile and my planning routine. Perhaps the new PMDG product will allow us these variances between aircraft. I will use the suggestions provided to improve my PFPX utility.
  2. Thanks. The pre-update 747-400F and PFPX aligned almost perfectly. Since the update, not so. I suppose my issue is to develop a better PFPX profile.
  3. Thanks Kevin, If you look at Michael's response to me, there were changes from the pre -8F and post -8F versions of the 747-400 base. The changes are actually a reduction from the previous max weights. The increased weight meant that I could fly further with a full load.
  4. Thank you Alex, I will review it and ask questions.
  5. Hello Michael, Thank you for your answer. I'm guessing that this will now curtail the published/expected range with full load? I ask because some variants are indicated in the livery downloader/manager as containing an aircraft config that was verified as being accurate (likely panel, options, systems). However, it seems that all 747-400Fs are the same (this odd addition of 50,000 lbs). I ask because the -400ERF numbers are what Boeing publishes, but these -400F numbers are modified. With the change, many routes are no longer viable. I'll end with a question please: If I manually change these values in the aircraft.cfg file, what would the negative impact be? I think I hear you say that the plane is now "tuned" to these values in terms of the .air file. I appreciate your reply.
  6. Thanks gents. What I am wondering is why this changed when the product was upgraded in conjunction with the -8 release.
  7. Hi, I'm near a computer and able to better illustrate with data. On the Polar Air Cargo model I prefer to fly, the following engines are modeled: GE CF6-80C2-B1F at 56,500 lbs of thrust x 4. I made a table below based on this Boeing document - http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/freighters/747-400f.pdf - which shows that a "basic" 747-400F configuration will facilitate, and the values found in the .CFG file for the 747-400F as would be installed as of this writing: Boeing B747-400F Values PMDG B747-400F Values MTOW - 800,000 lbs (362,870 kgs) 850,000 lbs (385,554 kgs) <-- why is this value higher? MLW - 652,000 lbs (295,740 kgs) 652,000 lbs (295,740 kgs) MZFW - 610,000 lbs (276,690 kgs) 610,000 lbs (276,690 kgs) So, I wonder why the MTOW numbers are higher? I noticed this as values for flights that used to work just fine in the 744F (using PFPX and the FMC) have been wrong since the -8F was released (which caused the base product to be updated too). I would just manually edit the max_gross_weight variable in the aircraft.cfg, but that doesn't seem like a good idea.
  8. Hi Paul, That's a great thread and it was what I used to grab a 747-8F profile for PFPX. However, what I'm talking about is changes to the 747-400F. Before the 747-8 release, the numbers seemed to have allowed for greater weights. Now, however, the numbers are lower. Thanks.
  9. Hi, Did some values on the 747-400F change after the update to include the 747-8F? My PFPX values don't work correctly now. Thanks.
  10. Hello, Since the release of the 747-8, I notice that changes were made to the default panel states that ship from PMDG. Specifically, on the 747-400F (and 747-8F), the external power is plugged in and the cargo doors are open. Is it possible to access the "old" cold and dark? Thank you,
  11. ahuimanu

    The Joy and Anguish...

    Well, I guess this petered out. 😀 There were some good reflections here though and I've thought about them more. Since a fair bit of landing wisdom suggests that the approach dictates the landing, I am noticing that when to go from flight-director and instruments to PAPI and visual references is another factor. My point is that any changes in wind and/or moving from the ILS guidance to visual guidance, means some reconfiguration in power, pitch attitude and roll. Since my signature belies what I spend 95% of my simming time flying, it is worth noting differences between the queen and the triple seven. First, I've changed my pattern recently to stick to the 777F or 744F for about a week at at time to pay better attention to characteristics of handling. First off, HANDS DOWN (no pun), the 744F's hand-flying characteristics are so satisfyingly smooth and direct, that it is like a breath of fresh air when I transition to it from the 777F. For instance, over the last 3 days I've landed the 744F in EHAM, ZBAA, and PANC in a variety of conditions and all landings have been extremely satisfying with a nice touchdown in the "zone" and immediate and firm deployment of ground spoilers, auto-brake and reverse thrust. I contrast with my log book from the prior 7 days, all in the 777F, and all manner of weirdness was afoot. Angst-ridden moments like: I've touched down, why can't I keep the reverse thrust engaged? why do the auto-brakes tend to trip and disable more readily? why do control inputs seem to not result in immediate reaction from the aircraft (the nose won't lift). I suppose I will soon need video evidence and I'll gather that and post in a fresh thread. In any case, the 777F seems to get away from the glideslope and localizer more readily than the 744F. However, I realize that only a controlled test, in similar circumstances and conditions, could substantiate these anecdotal observations. However, I've flow the wings off these two aircraft highly frequently over the last 18 months and I want to enjoy the 777F as much as the 744F. Which leads me to make my request again: ANY talk-throughs/walk-throughs (or videos) of successful approach and landing habits in the 777 would be welcome. As I mentioned earlier, Kyle on the PMDG team had a good 777F tips video, but he does an automated approach and landing in that, so it isn't helping my "hand fly from 1500 feet" quest here. Perhaps, as Dan noted above, I came across as snarky before - it wasn't my intent. I would really like to hear from someone who likes to hand-fly, with manual throttle control, their approaches. Perhaps there is some technique advice that would provide me with a break through. I can certainly gather my logbook to substantiate the recent experience. Perhaps there is some analysis software I could use? I know the built-in stuff is good in P3D, but I don't think its monitoring in the background? Teach me sensei!
  12. The hand-flying between these two options - the 777 and the 744 - is night and day. Hand-flying the 744 IS A DREAM! I hope upon hope that the 748's hand-flying characteristics will be derived from the 744.
  13. ahuimanu

    The Joy and Anguish...

    Thank you for the fresh perspectives. No insult is intended with the "guru" part and I'll take input from gurus of any acclaim, ascent, or demeanor. Dan, yours is a good description and perhaps my stubborn desire to turn off A/T as well is something to contemplate. I too do not actually closely look at the pitch on the PFD as much as the sight picture. Wilhelm, I am very interested in your or your hockey buddy's insight.
  14. ahuimanu

    The Joy and Anguish...

    Thanks for the great discussion - wish come true and I hope it continues. I am not sure if it is trim as I keep the "fake" indicator on and move to hand-flying after the glide slope is captured and the approach is otherwise stabe. I experience more of what william talks about in terms of "disconnected" pitch feel versus control inputs. my observation from the LIMC landing this morning - around 1300Z: On short final to 35R, I was relatively stable from ~1,500 ft AGL At around 50 ft AGL, the runway threshold was certainly well under the nose and my eyes were down the runway towards the end (best to gauge sink rate) Despite the always-present slight "disconnected" feel between the stick and pitch response, I was able to get about 3 degrees of nose up. I still made the mistake of flaring and reducing throttle at the same time I think the manual suggests we flare, and only then reduce throttle so as to touchdown coming to Vref, but I still do them both together instinctively I got a 200fpm landing, which was fine (the landing sound is softer in the 777 when you land at normal-ish speeds). However, the feel remains wrong - I can only use the term "slightly disconnected." I love the 777 as a compliment to my heavy-iron flying, but the last 50 feet are problematic. If I were doing the same approach in the 744, I would have greased it on like a pat of butter on a warm griddle. I have the null zones for CTRL Wheel and CTRL Column down to 1%. These were SP1 additions the bird in 2015 I believe. To add some additional thought to the discussion on trim: I find that I have to work much harder to get the 777F back into the LOC/GS "groove" when the speed isn't right. This gives some credibility to the "trim for speed" aspect of this discussion. I guess I'm being stubborn about hand-flying as maybe speed stability is required in order to have pitch behave "like a Cessna." I honestly find that the 777 autopilot will "hunt" much more regarding speed as opposed to the B744. REQUEST Will a self-professed "guru" of the PMDG 777 please provide a talk-through and/or video on how to do it right? I've watched Kyle's B777F tip video, but he autolands it, which doesn't help in this case. Thanks.
  15. ahuimanu

    The Joy and Anguish...

    Thank you Dan. I do mention this as being my practice in my first post here - it's been so since both my earliest days of simming and in obtaining a PPL. I can almost always smoothly lay the 744F onto the runway with the proper visual technique whereas with the 777F, it always feels twitchy.