Flamin_Squirrel

Perhaps, but why not provide PFPX stuff for the 777 when it was for the 737? They set an expectation with the first product and didn't follow up with the second; and it's arguably far more important for the 777.

You can enter them in lots of different formats. You're best off looking for them in the manual, it'll tell you everything you need to know.

Follow the ILS, just flare less at 40ft. You're not supposed to hold off like you would in a light aircraft. Some big changes are being made to the fly by wire system also, which may change how it handles in the flare.

A massive let down. The 737 flight work gave us 8 flights including preflight planning with PFPX. With the 777 we got 3 flights, no preflight prep and no consideration of ETOPs.

I see a pitch limit indication; are your flaps up?

Gran Canaria GCLP http://www.sim-giants.com/product.asp?prod=1

Screenshots!

Always nice to hear them, keep em coming.

You can press print screen and it'll be there to paste into paint for saving or whatever at the end of your flight.

It's not the previous flight state per say that's the problem. Before engine start, the FMC takes the fuel level from the probes in the fuel tanks. At engine start, the FMC takes this fuel level as a baseline and, as fuel flows to the engine, it subtracts the fuel burnt from the baseline level measured at start (this allows the pilot to compare the calculated fuel with the fuel measured in the tanks, allowing easy identification of fuel leaks). This can be seen on PROG page 2 and is shown as TOTALIZER and CALCULATED fuel levels (these should normally match). There is a bug in the 777X at the moment where the fuel used figure (also shown on PROG page 2) is subtracted from the CALCULATED fuel level at engine start, before it's reset, leading to the erroneous insufficient fuel message. PMDG are aware of this bug and is scheduled to be fixed. In the meantime, a work around is to go to PERF INIT page after engine start, manually enter a fuel figure (doesn't matter what), then delete it. This forces the FMC to reset its baseline.

Well, they had their centre landing light on at least.

The NGX has this also. Such is the level of detail in PMDG's products.

Having the same wing across different models is also good for the manufacturer too; less design/parts sourcing/tooling etc.

Airliners are horribly complex machines. The aim of the game isn't just to design them so all their constituent parts run as efficiently as possible, but that they do so all at once. You need to understand some of the factors involved otherwise the answers on their own might not help very much. Lift/drag ratio: there will be an optimum AoA that provides the lift required for flight with the minimum drag. High speed buffet: governed by mach no. while your aircraft might not be supersonic, localised airflow over the wing might be approaching it, and that's bad. Low speed buffet: in short, the initial signs of a stall. Engine RPM: turbo fan engines generally run most efficiently at high RPM (but you don't want to wear them out by bouncing off the rev limiter). Fuel flow: for a given RPM, engines require less fuel at higher altitudes. So, you want to set the highest practical engine RPM (climb power), pitch up for the IAS that provides the optimum AoA (giving the best lift/drag ratio) then climb as high as you can to reduce fuel flow. Mach no will increase as you climb at a constant IAS until this becomes the limiting factor due to high speed buffet, at which point you climb at constant mach. As the climb continues the air gets thinner and your climb rate slows until it's time to reduce engine RPM a little to level off. It's important to note than while climbing at constant IAS results in increasing mach, climbing at constant mach will result in decreasing IAS. This is an important interdependency; more on this later. As fuel is burnt weight decreases. If you maintain speed then AoA will decrease (resulting in worse L/D ratio). If you slow down to maintain AoA you'll have to reduce engine power (less efficient), so you step climb to maintain engine RPM and AoA. Now onto your questions: 1) During the climb your highest possible speed will eventually be mach limited. As you climb at constant mach, your IAS will be reducing; if you keep climbing beyond your optimum altitude you'll reach a point where you can't go any faster due to high speed buffet, but your IAS which has been reducing gets so low you'll enter low speed buffet (stall). This is known as 'coffin corner'. 2) Can't see any reason why not; no point having the profile otherwise! 3) Wing loading is simply weight divided by wing area. While the empty weight of the 300ER is greater than the 200LR, their max takeoff weights are very similar. I imagine in practice this means that a greater proportion of the 200LR's weight at takeoff will be fuel, which it'll burn off during the flight allowing it to step up to a greater range of levels. I'll finish off with a caveat that I'm a lowly PPL holder that, although has an unnatural desire to learn this stuff, isn't qualified on these matters. Hopefully it's broadly correct.

Strange. A screen shot would help if you can provide one?