nharwood

FSBuild & TOPCAT. Regards, Nathan Harwood

Like I said, it was awfully nit-picky on my part. Don't ask me to quote any CAR's! On longer flights, I personally like to evaluate different routing and altitude options to minimize fuel burn based on winds aloft. That isn't practical to do in the FMC. Regards, Nathan Harwood

You are my hero! I've been looking for the best way to cut my reverse without applying forward thrust. Thanks, Nathan Harwood

Using the documentation PMDG provides with the NGX, I started to create a very sophisticated spreadsheet with all of the tables, using matrix TREND() functions to find the exact value between air miles, etc. I finished the calculations and all I needed to do was create a UI. In one of my first tests, I compared my actual flight results with both my shiny new spreadsheet and FSBuild. For that particular flight, FSBuild and my spreadsheet were only off by less than 200 lbs. I promptly scrapped my project and continue to use a combination of FSBuild and TOPCAT (as a fuel sanity check, as well as the remainder of my performance calcs). It's nit-picky but don't you need 45 minutes reserve in this case? IIRC reserve fuel is 45 minutes or 10% (of trip fuel), whichever is greater. For this flight, 45 minutes would be closer to 4,000 lbs. I usually plan for 45 minutes and see if that number is > 10% and adjust accordingly. Regards, Nathan Harwood

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I thought that ETOPS-compliant APUs must be flight-startable at altitudes up to the aircraft service ceiling. If the APU or its electrical generator is not available, the aircraft cannot be released for ETOPS flight. A cold soak APU start, at altitude, is also required every 30 days for ETOPS compliance. Many airlines track this and send an ACARS message to in-flight crew when this time comes to perform and log this. FCOM 7.30.1 states that "The APU starts and operates up to the airplane maximum certified altitude." However, the QRH section 6.5 states "Note:APU start attempts are not recommended above 25,000 feet." when both engine driven generators are inop. To start the APU above FL250 might require more battery capacity (due to multiple start attempts) than recommended. I guess I'll be trying this more during tomorrows flight! Regards, Nathan Harwood

I thought the 25,000 start recommendation was for the 737 classic, with no (start) limits on the Allied Signal unit used in the NG. Regards, Nathan Harwood

I can get the software to work just fine, better in fact than what I can get out of FSUIPC, but I can't stop the phantom key presses and view changes that come along with it. The gear going up and down, view changes all over the place, and autopilot disconnects, all happening at random drives a guy crazy. You've never had those problems wildtrout? Regards, Nathan Harwood

FSUIPC, I believe, is sending a direct throttle setting to FSX instead of an "axis." This direct setting is interferring with NGX and no matter what throttle override setting you select in PMDG Setup, you'll override and trip the A/T with an FSUIPC configured throttle. I think this is exactly why PMDG recommends NOT using FSUIPC for hardware calibration and suggest you use the software that came with your yoke / throttle / rudder instead. Since I have the Saitek Pro Flight hardware, I have no chioce but to use FSUIPC. With Saitek's software running the show, my NGX's A/T works perfect but the constant phantom button presses and view changes, notorious with Saitek's programming software, drives me crazy. I'd rather have a touchy A/T. YMMV. Regards, Nathan Harwood

Just tried it and it did not recognize any of the three positions. Regards, Nathan Harwood

Unless ATC restrictions exist, a good rule of thumb is to maintain V2+20 until "acceleration height" which is usually an airline independent procedural altitude above ground level. 3,000' AGL is not a bad guideline. Then decrease pitch and accelerate to 250 KIAS, retracting flaps accordingly then pitch up and climb to 10,000' at 250. Then pitch down again and accelerate to 290 KIAS, climb at 290 KIAS until you reach Mach .73 and then climb to cruise at M.73. As you gain altitude obviously your vertical speed will decrease to maintain speed at a specific N1 AT setting.Of course these are rough numbers you can use in "dumb" aircraft but in a model with a working FMS, let VNAV handle it.BTW - The speeds above are different depending on the aircraft but they will get you in the general vicinity.

For the record, I've just spent a few hours prepping and getting my MD-11 airborne and I have to say, this is one awesome piece of software! I'm a real world pilot and absolutely love all the payware aircraft that I can get my hands on... but this one takes the cake (in the best possible sense)! Thank you PMDG for all your hard work to make this baby FLY!Regards,Nathan HarwoodPS - In response to Jeff, you are of course correct and its no matter, I've put on my rose color glasses now that I'm behind the yoke! ;)

That is an awesome idea. Thanks!

Ryan, thank you for your prompt response and I will respect the confidentiality of the situation.I would like to make two recommendations:Make it obvious on the product page that PMDG is not able to provide all the information necessary to use this product (and obviously that there are reasons beyond your control as to why and the options your customers have to work around this situation). I will hesitate and research considerably more in the future before I make a purchase decisions with PMDG due to this lack of transparency. PMDG should work out a partnership with TOPCAT to provide verified PMDG customers with discounted TOPCAT full version products - seeing that it seems necessary. If this violates your agreement with Boeing, then offer some sort of rebate or retro discount to compensate our additional and in my case unanticipated cost. After reasearching TOPCAT it appears this product is world class as it relates to takeoff and landing performance calculations but is elementary at best from a total fuel planning standpoint. Their manual even states that fuel burn calculations are Estimates only and "does not relieve the PIC from accurate flight planning." So this option only gets us 30% there.My parting comment is that I sure hope this situation does not turn into a trend in the commercial add-on space. If it does, I would rather have a less accurate flight / engine model with ficticious fuel burn characteristics if it means I can have a corresponding planning tool to match but that's just me.Thanks again for the clarification,Nathan Harwood

I've been a long time customer of PMDG, having purchased every single product (some of them more than once - call that "stupid tax" on my part :( ) but I've been out of the hobby for over a year now for various reasons... Anyway, I noticed a week ago that PMDG had released their MD-11 which I had been anticipating for a long time... So I purchased it without much research / study because I've always been overly impressed with the fidelity of PMDG's products regardless of the cost.That being said, I was shocked while studying that I didn't find flight planning data (fuel burn, etc) and I'm quite concerned now that I've spent a few minutes reading some of the posts here in the forums regarding this issue.Could someone (preferably a PMDG representative) point me to an official statement regarding this? I'm somewhat surprised to not see this addressed in the product page on the website, FAQ portion of the product wiki, nor a forum sticky here. Admittedly I haven't done a thorough search of the forums for this but quite frankly I just spent a respectable amount of money on this product and feel, to some extent, that I've been misled (or not told the whole story).I'm not trying to get everyones opinions here, I'm just looking for the facts from the source (or a link to the facts if already provided).Thanks, and keep up the good work - it's still an awe-inspiring simulator! (and I'm still secretly hoping someone calls me an idiot and tells me to check the FCOM manual, page L.00.22)Nathan Harwood