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

You know what, Ken - I sure am running it through a hub. I think this little anomaly predates my USB hub, but I'll make a few swaps and stick it straight into the PC anyway! The curious thing is that it's the same residual drop of brake application every time - it's very reliable. So reliable, in fact, that I actually use it sometimes on landing in the -700 when I'm pretending it's a BBJ - I'll just press the pedals on approach, with Autobrakes 0, and use that tiny amount of application that sticks (and some light reverse) to slow down gently. (Still - I'd certainly rather solve the problem than use it on landing, haha)-Tony

Shannon,I have this problem too... I attribute it to the old age of my ancient CHProducts pedals, and my work-arounds work well enough for me not to spend any more time finding a solution (I've tried increasing the null zone, and I typically recalibrate the pedals before every flight anyway). The brakes will reset to 0% if you toggle the parking brake. Manage momentum carefully, and try to avoid brake application during taxi. In the NGX, you actually decelerate pretty quickly at idle (F1) thrust. After landing, I usually spam "Ctrl + ." then "." as lightning fast as I can when I want to rid myself of that tiny residual application of braking.Not exactly the ideal solution... but hopefully it's a little more information than you started with.-Tony

For anyone interested, the BBJ (Sometimes referred to as a BBJ-700 or a BBJ1, since there are BBJ versions of the -800 and -900 too) is a 737-700 with a PATS Auxiliary Fuel Tank System; the landing gear and wings of a 737-800 giving it a Max Takeoff Weight of 171,000 lbs compared to 154,500 lbs on a normal 737-700; and -7B26 or -7B27 engines. There are probably other differences that I'm unaware of, but those are the biggies I think. The Aux Fuel Tank system is a series of three to nine containers added into the cargo hold increasing the BBJ's range to potentially over 12 hours. A BBJ with the 9-tank configuration once flew non-stop from KBFI to OEJN on it's delivery flight, which is over 6,500 nm great circle. Another BBJ once flew, I think the story goes, for 13 hours around the perimeter of the United States from KBFI to KBFI.BBJs typically only carry from 1 to 19 pax, but are *much* heavier than normal 737-700s. Usually around 99,000 lbs empty, I know of a couple BBJs that reach up to 102,500 lbs OEW (Operating Empty Weight). That extra weight is in the form of soundproofing, cabinetry, beds, showers, and other luxuries. If you want to see the inside of some BBJs, google "BBJ Interiors" or check some aircraft sales websites like controller.com or flycci.com. Even being heavier airplanes, their ZFWs (Zero Fuel Weight, or total weight of plane and payload except for fuel) are considerably lighter than the ZFW on your average airline flight with 125 pax and with the highest-thrust CFM56s mounted on it, they can be quite sporty indeed.They're really neat to fly in FS.... depart from your hometown airport of Denver Jeffco/KBJC or Van Nuys/KVNY and fly non-stop to London Luton/EGGW or Paris Le Bourget/LFPB. How else could you realistically get away with flying a 737 from Eagle/KEGE to Charlottesville/KCHO, or from San Jose/KSJC to Papeete/NFFN, or from Stansted/EGSS to Jeddah/OEJN, or from St. Maarten/TNCM to Moscow/UUWW, or from Dubai/OMDB to Delhi/VIDP, or from Las Vegas/KLAS to Macau/VMMC via Anchorage/PANC.... I could go on and on... it's so interesting!-Tony

Richard,If you want to do some research, ie some google images searches, here's a list of all of the currently registered BBJs. Note that most of the N-registered planes that end in BJ are Boeing delivery registrations and are probably in completion centers somewhere in the world getting outfitted for their new owners. My personal favorites, that I can think of right now, are VP-BEL, P4-NGK, N920DS, and N8767. N90R was very popular on the legacy PMDG 737NG. http://www.laasdata.com/corpjet/corpjet-by-type.php?t=2-Tony

Hey Guys,I hate to switch gears back to the original topic - but to me the actual pax quantity numbers available in the FMC or load manager program are irrelevant. Here's why... In Flightsim, pax are no more than weight in the airplane, right? We just change weights so we can experience the aircraft performing differently at the different weights. So just load your airplanes with weight in mind instead of passenger numbers. I've actually flown a NAX flight in FS, and I got all 189 pax smashed in there by loading the airplane to a Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW). Somewhat on the heavy side, I called each passenger 240lbs of payload (body, luggage, etc). In the bizjet world we typically consider each passenger to be 200 lbs of payload. Also erring on the side of heavy I gave the airplane itself a figurative OEW or BOW of 94,200 lbs. So I loaded the plane in the FMC to a ZFW of 139560 [(189 x 240) + 94200 = 139560] by manipulating the pax and cargo values to ensure CG stayed in the ballpark. I don't even care what my end passenger count is in the FMC... as long as my ZFW is what I calculate the plane should weigh with my desired passenger load. Hopefully I've explained that so it makes some sense... -Tony

I work for an international aviation service company that does international trip planning (including flightplanning/etc) for private/charter operators. This is mostly bizjets. Our rule of thumb around the office is just what Chris mentioned. Even though I sometimes think it's a little conservative (low altitude), we typically file cruise levels that represent 1000' for every 10nm of distance between the cities. Globally, it tends to yield the highest average altitude available to still account for SIDs/STARs and ATC restrictions. So a 250nm flight would be FL250. And most of our customers fly bizjets - some of the fastest climbers in civil aviation! Of course, if you're familiar with your citypairs, ATC, procedures, and airplane performance, you can adjust that to something more specific/achievable. (For example, KIAH-KDFW is typically filed by the airlines between FL240 and FL300, but is only 213nm.) Ours is just a rule of thumb we apply to any citypair you can imagine, and almost any modern transport-category passenger jet you can imagine. -Tony

Frits,Thanks very much for your info! You guys must climb off the runway like a rocket. +3000fpm is probably a leisurely pace for you...Yeah - in General Aviation, it's a much different world. Much lighter payloads, but much heavier planes. Your BBJ is *MUCH* heavier than a commercial 737-700 I'm sure, but you probably only ever put 200-1000 lbs of payload on it, so your ZFWs are comparatively light. The heaviest BBJ I know has an OEW of 102,500 lbs! With it's tank configuration (69,000 lbs), full fuel brings it all the way up to max ramp weight, so even 1 passenger starts eating into max fuel!!Thanks again for your info. At my job I do a lot of flightplanning for BBJs, so I'm fairly familiar with the range, fuel burns, cruise altitudes, and reserve fuel preferences (EVERYBODY has a different reserve fuel preference!). But I don't know how they're typically flown! (such as derates, flaps, etc)I *REALLY* hope PMDG does a BBJ. Bizjets are my Real Life world, and the BBJ is definitely my favorite.For Bermuda, I'd probably give you an alternate of Norfolk/KORF. :(-Tony

Frits,Do you guys use TO1/TO2 and/or Assumed Temp in the BBJ? (Still a 3000fpm+ rocketship I bet, even if you've got the -7B26's, as opposed to the -7B27's) What climb/descent profile do you guys use... 250/280/.80 and .80/310/250? Lastly - ever use flaps 1, or do you guys just stick with flaps 5 for everything?Thanks for letting me geek out on you! I haven't really been able to work these kinds of questions into conversation yet with the BBJ guys I work with. :((I hope this somewhat maintains the subject of the thread - apologies to the other readers if I've strayed offtrack)Tony Fiore(General Aviation Dispatcher / International Ops Coordinator "Handler")

...and if they have the upgraded brakes, their stopping distance is probably less allowing for a smaller margin on the end of the runway after V1. So Flaps1 with awesome braking action would leave lots and lots of room for derating. It's also my understanding that the 737NG is almost always climb limited before it's runway limited. So keep that flap setting small and your climb performance will be better and you'll be able to use less thrust for takeoff.-Tony Fiore

Hey guys,I think AirTran uses a super-derated CFM56-7 on their -700s. Continental, I understand, uses CFM56-7B24s as do most other US airlines. AirTran, on the other hand, I *think* uses CFM56-7B22s. Remember, it's all software - every single CFM56-7 slung under every next-gen 737 is mechanically the same, -600 to -900 to the BBJs. Max derate for any airplane anywhere is to something like no more than 70% of total thrust, so since it's factory spec is a 22k engine, the -7B22s can be derated further than the -7B24s. TO2 and 65C Assumed Temp on a CFM56-7B24 will be more thrust than TO2 and 65C Assumed Temp on a -7B22.I'm sure someone super-techy can explain it more clearly, and correct any potential inconsistencies above, but that's my understanding of it.-Tony Fiore(Forum Lurker / General Aviation Dispatcher and Int'l Handler)