Lseatflyr

Yep - I'm experiencing this and can reproduce this. Compare my latest takeoff, OMDB-OPKC linked below where I test this, with my previous takeoff, YPAD-OMDB also linked below. In the previous takeoff I apply excessive nose-down trim (increase the reference speed) and then it all comes rushing in when I center the column. In that previous takeoff it looks like I engaged autopilot and it chased the F/D down, but that's not actually the case - it was trim coming in. OMDB-OPKC (anticipating absence of trim): YPAD-OMDB (fighting absence of trim):

I find flightstats.com extremely useful for researching current routes. You can search for an airport (DAC), filter for an airline (Biman), then use the "hide codeshares" functionality on the resulting list to clean it up (except that there doesn't seem to be any codeshares on Biman out of Dhaka, hah). Also sorting by equipment type can be useful on longer lists than this one. Today it looks like the 777-300 is operating the following: 0200 BG39 DAC-RUH 1030 BG23 DAC-CGP 1645 BG27 DAC-CGP 2100 BG86 DAC-KUL 2230 BG37 DAC-CGP 1215 BG23 CGP-MCT 1830 BG27 CGP-AUH 2355 BG24 CGP-DAC

Also remember that you don't necessarily need to stick to the most efficient route if ETOPS is your limitation. Say you're flying for an airline that doesn't have 207 minute ETOPS - you might have to route a little bit further North to stay within 180 minutes of an ETOPS alternate in order to operate a YBBN-FSIA leg.

Here's a little cheat I'm using: Until some 777 profiles are released for TOPCAT, and some less-powerful 777 models are released by PMDG, I'm using the 747-400 TOPCAT profile and plugging in my 777's takeoff weight + 100,000 lbs, which is about the difference in MTOW between the 744 and the 77L. Flaps 10 will be Flaps 5 in the 777 and Flaps 20 will be flaps 15 in the 777. Now I know that I'm not taking into account many many things; takeoff performances being based on limitations like deceleration rates before the runway end, engine out climb performance (in theory it's a 25% loss in a 747 and a 50% loss in a 777), the fact that these two airplanes are different in almost every way possible, etc. But since this is just a sim and I'm not a fan of rocketship-like takeoffs, I'm sacrificing that measure of realism to gain a reliable (and lazy-man's) reduction in performance without chasing charts. This method has worked for me in every takeoff scenario I've had so far. Even on light-weight takeoffs, things happen slowly enough to be manageable by a non-professional such as myself. Thank you, Boeing, for de-rates! Something the MD-11 didn't have. -Tony Fiore

Tord- Thank you for your extensive explanations on step climbs. I've found over a series of flights since my last post that, with reference to the Auto Step Climb behavior which is an ingenious "cheat," for lack of a less negative word, that PMDG gave us, setting the STEP SIZE to 0 causes the leg-programmed step climbs (/370S on the LEGS page) to be ignored. Not sure if this is intentional. However, leaving STEP SIZE set to RVSM will cause Auto Step Climb to recognize leg-programmed step climbs (370S on the LEGS page). When leaving the STEP SIZE set to RVSM, if the FMC wants a step climb *sooner* than the manually-programmed step, the FMC will disregard it's own calculations on waypoints prior to your manual LEGS page entry. For example: on waypoints A, B, C, D, and E the FMC is calculating a step climb from FL310 to FL330 between waypoints A and B. My flight plan says the step climb to FL330 should be at waypoint D (and I will personally follow the flight plan which uses a further-reaching wind matrix than the FMC which is only using data it's experiencing at the current time). When I enter /330S on waypoint D on the LEGS page, all earlier waypoints will update to the previously compliant lower level; waypoint A will stay at FL310 while B and C bump down to FL310. The STEP SIZE logic will resume after my last manually-entered step climb. Also, based on your PPRUNE responses, a common procedure is to change the STEP SIZE to 0 after your last step climb. For example, my flightplan from RJAA to KORD left me at FL370 as a final altitude over much of the US all the way to TOD to take advantage of winds while the FMC, unaware of the winds ahead, indicated that at my speed and weight I could (and should) get to FL410. So after my last step climb to FL370, I changed STEP SIZE to 0. ...Incidentally, this could complicate some flights that don't reach maximum altitudes where my intention is to use AUTO STEP CLIMB all the way to PAUSE AT TOP OF DESCENT. Guess I'll actually have to pay attention sometimes. Interesting stuff! -Tony Fiore

The purpose of doing it this way is to basically give priority over the flightplanning engine's determination of when to climb. The flightplan can optimize using a bigger picture of the weather conditions along the route as opposed to the FMC which optimizes based on current conditions the aircraft is experiencing. I'll play around some more with specifying my own step climbs on the legs page using /###S and different conditions of FMC-determined climbs (RVSM/2000/etc). I believe the priority is given to whichever step climb comes first - the FMC-determined step or the pilot-input step. Thanks for your thoughts Tord; your reply is appreciated! -Tony Fiore

Hey Guys- Has anyone noticed any issues with Auto Step Climb and pilot-input step climbs (i.e. FL340S)? I've had success with Auto Step Climb using FMC-determined step climb points. However, when I set the step climb 0 and manually enter my step climbs on the legs page per the flight plan, Auto Step Climb seems to blast right through them and maintain the current altitude. Obviously, it goes without saying that I profusely apologize for missing anything in the documentation that covers this. -Tony Fiore

I'm not admitting to making any .cfg tank capacity edits, but last Saturday I flew KBFI-URSS in the N920DS repaint. Flightplan distance 5414nm, flightplan ETE 12+19, burn 63,600 lbs. (2,034 lbs to alternate URKK, 2,973 lbs for 45 minute reserve, and 1,893 lbs on the extra line for a total ramp fuel of 71,000 lbs. Pretended to have no payload and an empty weight of 99,000 lbs for a takeoff weight of 169,500 lbs.) -Tony

Generally speaking... OEW/BOW 99,000 lbs to 102,500 lbs Payload 200 lbs to 3800 lbs (1-19 pax) -Tony

I just load my planes to ZFW. I have a weight value that I use per passenger (ie; U.S. Military charter on a Miami Air 737-800 would be 275 lbs per pax). I try to learn the ZFWs of the aircraft that my favorite airlines fly (BBJs are another story I could spend an entire thread discussing. And sadly, I don't know how much Miami Air 737-800s weigh for my example scenario, so I just guess 95,000 lbs). Then I add them together and type that into the ZFW line on the load planner in the FMC. It's all about ZFW, so the weight PMDG programmed each plane to weigh is irrelevant unless the aircraft I'm simulating flying weighs less and I'm flying it empty.-Tony

(...while I'm on a rampage of this thread... sorry about that guys...)Steffen,The -700 with 19 pax (typically the most a BBJ is certified to carry) will probably make New York to London since it's about a 7-hour airplane at those weights I think. For fuel planning all you need is enough fuel to get there, get to an alternate, and then have a 45 minute reserve after that. General Aviation reserves are more pilot preference than anything else. The most conservative BBJ operator I know likes 10,000 lbs of fuel at the destination. Most guys like to see 5000 to 6000 at the destination or the alternate.Until the 737ER/BBJ comes out (I'd never ever suggest editing the max capacity of the center tank in the -700 .cfg file :( ), you could take the old trusty route that all the old salty business jet pilots took before bizjets could fly for 12 hours. (And the way that today's business jets that should stay continental get across)....Origin-CYQX-EINN-DestinationOr depending on the great circle between your origin and destination, Origin-BIKF-Destination might make more sense for you.I've sent many many planes with tiny range on routes like that... Citation Xs, Hawkers, early Falcons...-Tony

For an idea of the practical world of BBJs - of all the BBJs I've met, fuel capacities range from 63,000 lbs to 70,200 lbs. (Customer preference of fuel tank configuration - more fuel tanks sacrifice cargo space.) ZFWs range from 98,400 lbs to 102,500 lbs. The heaviest BBJ I know weighs 102,500 lbs and while it probably has a tank configuration that can hold more, for flightplanning we consider it's max tank capacity 69,000 lbs (which adds up to the BBJ's Max Ramp of 171,500 lbs) That's rare... the gap between full fuel and max ramp is usually a few thousand pounds.-TonyEdit: These are all BBJ1s by the way. I'm very disappointed to report that I've never gotten my hands on flightplanning one of the handful of BBJ2s (-800) flying around out there.

Hah! I never even thought to try that! An easy process made even easier! Thanks Matias!!(Doing it that way will probably keep the CG in a better spot too!)-Tony

The interior won't matter in FSX. But weights will. The BBJ1 (and 737-700ER) has a max takeoff weight of 171,000 lbs. Also, BBJs weigh a lot more, empty, than normal 737s. I know of a couple BBJs (BBJ1s / -700 airframe) that weigh around 102,500 lbs without payload and fuel. Compare that to a normal 737-700 OEW of 84,000 to 89,000 lbs and MTOW of 154,500 lbs.(Truth be told... except for MTOW and Max Fuel, all the weights can be simulated in the current 737-700 by just loading the thing to achieve a desired ZFW. For example, if my "simulated" BBJ weighs 102,500 lbs and I'm pretending to carry a full load of 18 pax at 200 lbs each, I'd try for a ZFW in the FMC of 106,100 lbs. ...and I'd use whatever pax counts and cargo figures I'd need to get there... I don't care that PMDG's load configuration page in the FMC says 58 pax, as long as I get a ZFW of 106,100 lbs.)-Tony

There are a few different things being touched on in this thread:On the benefits of owning a BBJ/Private Jet:When you reach a certain level of wealth in your life, your priorities change a little. Time becomes more valuable than money. Sometimes privacy does too, but time is the biggie. For the owner of a BBJ, you can fly long distances very comfortably and bring along as many friends/relatives/colleagues as you'd almost ever need to - usually seating around 19 pax. Even corporate CEOs, the ones who get the most scrutiny for flying private jets, see extreme time savings and productivity increases with bizjets. So you pay your CEO hundreds of thousands of dollars, right? Would you rather pay him that much to wait in line at an airport, experiencing cancelled flights, and missing meetings all the time; or be present when needed and where needed to make sure your company continues to be successful and grow?On the benefits of flying a BBJ/Private Jet in FS:Variety! Sure KLM subcontracts to PrivatAir for daily BBJ service (with 40-some first class seats, I think) between Amsterdam/EHAM and Houston/KIAH... but aside from that and ANA flights to India, how else could you realistically fly a 737 from the middle of one continent to the middle of another? Flying General Aviation, the whole world is in your route network! And there are many things to simulate... for example, every year there are gatherings of the rich and powerful in various places around the world - a biggie being the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland... bring your executive to Zurich/LSZH in February! Also, for Thanksgiving here in the USA, there has been tons of heavy metal (private 762s, 763s, 747SPs, BBJs) heading into Nassau/MYNN from various places in California, Nevada, North Carolina, etc. So you could simulate the real-world business and pleasure movements of the wealthy and the powerful - or you could just fly your own family/friends around! For example, one of my cousins came here to Houston for Thanksgiving from Denver - well, Loveland to be precise. Even though she drove all the way down to Denver/KDEN to catch her commercial flight, I simulated picking her up at Fort Collins/KFNL (MUCH more convenient) and flying her down to Houston/KIAH - which just happens to be closest to my parents' house where she was staying. If it were my house, I could have used Hobby/KHOU or Sugarland/KSGR! ...and I do that all the time. Another example; lots of my coworkers ended up in New Orleans this week, so I'll probably fly a hop from KIAH or KHOU to KMSY with about 10 people onboard to simulate flying them there. Lastly, make up my own excuse to explore something of interest. I've been studying Cuzco/SPZO at work a bit lately, so because of that I've got an interest in trying the approach out for myself. I might make up my own backstory as a reason to go there or just add a few hundred lbs onto the empty weight of my BBJ and fly it down just for the enjoyment of studying the approach a little more interactively.On the subject of simplicity:Yeah, you typically run into fewer operational performance restrictions in BBJs than you do commercial operations since your payloads are really only around 200 lbs to 3800 lbs - but your airplane itself is *much* heavier - 99,000 lbs all the way up to one BBJ1 I know that weighs 102,500 lbs. Simulate putting your wife onboard and taking her to Papeete/NTTA (And since Bora Bora/NTTB is domestic, you have to plan an alternate of Rarotonga/NCRG which is 1+45 away); with a 102,500 lb airplane, 200 lbs of payload (includes her luggage!), and 68,800 lbs of fuel to get there - you're going to have yourself a MGTOW departure of 171,000 lbs after you spend 500 lbs getting to the runway....therein lies the attraction for me. Variety (yet still technical!).-Tony