DEINIOLENMAN

Looks very good. Thanks for the tip.

I enter the details of the flight in the FMC in the normal way and then get the fuel from the Progress Option. This tells you how much fuel you will have left on reaching your destination and, for obvious reasons, should be close to that shown in the chart.However, if you want to test the system by assuming 0 wind and no diversion airport (in other words origin to destination only) then since wind and diversions are not entered into the FMC, if you load the fuel indicated by the chart, it should be very close to that shown by the FMC/Prog. In fact, the latter tells you you have not enough fuel on board by quite a considerable margin.Or, is it the case that the FMC automatically allows for a diversion?I usually have a cost index of 100 and a ZFW of 118.8

I am grateful for that but, for the sake of exercise, planning a route with 0 wind and no alternate surely the FMC and Load Estimation chart should agree, shouldn't they? Or does the FMC automatically add in an amount for wind and diversion - that, at least, is what it seems to be doing.

But surely the FMC figure is the basic route until alternate (etc) figures are added.

I have just completed a test, the basis for which is Heathrow to Tel Aviv at fl350 winds zero and no reserve or diversion allowances. These are the figures I get via the various sources.FS flight plan : 15.855 lbs of fuelFlight Load Estimation chart : 22,200 lbs of fuelFMC : 27,800 lbs of fuel (So far as I can tell this does not take winds or diversions into account since wind speed/direction is not entered)5,600 lbs is a fairly significant discrepancy, is it not?

The fuel load estimation chart shows the basic for the journey (climb, cruise, descend) as requiring 22,300 lb of fuel. If you go into the aircraft and programme a journey of that length (and at the same height, etc) into the FMC and adjust the fuel until you have exactly the amount needed, there seems to be quite a difference.

I am a trifle confused at the data in the 737-800 (etc) fuel load estimations. According to the table a 2000-mile journey of 4h 40 mins at FL 370 should require 22,300 lb of fuel. However, when the journey is set up in the FMC, the fuel required is about 28,000lb. Both figures exclude diversion and contingency fuel.The discrepancy seems to be considerable.

Thank you. It is nice to see someone on this group can give a courteous answer. I have gone through the stuff you mention without finding anything that gives what we used to term yardstick figures. Somewhere in them they suggest that 30 and 40 degrees of flap are used for restricted areas only which seems to leave 25! There are one or two other contradictions that I have noticed but FMC's et al are after my time and I like to have basic data on paper.

It is all a question of manners. If someone asks a question then it seems reasonable to either give an answer if you know it or to keep quiet, if you don't. What people don't join these forums for, is to be given a lectured by someone who knows very little about the subject but wishes to appear an expert. The author of the manual in question states quite clearly that his experience of 737 aircraft is limited to a few hours in a simulator.For your information, expressions such as v-ref are relatively new and landing speed was the term generally used in my time. Of course, all this might be a sign of old age but then, I am getting on.

I have downloaded the advanced tutorial (which, incidentally, seems to be compiled by an amateur) but nowhere does it mention a landing speed. In all the aircraft with which I have been associated you always had a yardstick of a landing speed at sea level/zero wind. For the 737-900 this seems to be about 130 knots/25 flap but confirmation would be nice.JC

Thank you but I have been flying - REAL flying - since 1952 and I do not appreciate sanctimonious cleverness from ill-mannered airline wannabees. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no reference to the question I asked in the manuals and tutorials which seem to be strewn over the net and a sensible ball-park answer would have been helpful.

Can someone tell me what the recommended landing speed for the 737-900 is under normal circumstances? I can't find it in any of the manuals. To date I tend to reduce speed from 250k to 160k whilst dropping to 25 of flap immediately before picking up the localiser and then reducing to 130 (still with 25 flap) prior to picking up the glideslope. The aircraft seems quite stable but I wonder how far this tallies with the authorised speed.Jim

Preventing my wife from having me carted off to the nearest lunatic asylum seems to me to be a reasonable basis for making a decision. With a 747 the engines are started in pairs History repeating itself! I remember Air France doing the same thing in the 1950's when they routed one of their Paris - Far East flights via London which gave you the opportunity of doing the trip in a Super Constellation. (The food was a lot better than BEA's!)

Very many thanks for the response and on the strength of advice I have invested in a Level D 767 ER. The reason I have not (yet) purchased a PMDG MD11 or 747 is because I prefer to take off and land without the space of an hour: a policy that rather rules the very large jets out. I think if I were to simulate a transAtlantic crossing, staring at a computer screen for seven and a half hours, my wife would probably have me carted off. Unfortunately one of the weaknesses of the PMDG aircraft is that you don't seem to be able to 'move them forward' during a flight. A pity.Many thanks again,Jim.

I have been flying aircraft for flight sims for several years now and have found nothing to touch the PMDG 737 800/900 for realism. It is certainly (and deservedly) streaks ahead of the competition. However, I would like to expand my fleet a little and wonder if members think there is any other brand of aircraft that are comparable to PMDG.Jim C