fstulm

Hello all, Regarding the topic and particularly what you have mentioned Kyle, in my opinion, Boeing not allowing PMDG to publish the FPPM is also a matter of legal liability. In order to truly operate an aircraft you must do (or the dispatch office) the TO calculations with the FPPM or dedicated approved software. As mentioned before, the two biggest and most important questions cannot be answered with what PMDG provides with the software: Here is a field and atmospheric conditions; can I take off with the load I have, OR, how much load can I take and still be able to take off? If I can take off, how much can I derate in order to save the engines and still be safe Nobody can say that they trained with the sim and went out and failed with the real thing while it worked in the sim. In the sim - as provided - we don't have all that is necessary (legally) to fully operate like in reality hence no liability. Also, I think that it is part of the Boeing safety philosophy that a human conscientiously requests from and sets to the aircraft the TO performance and not allow some hidden computer in the avionics bay take these crucial safety decisions. However, the FPPMs were definitely used to produce the PMDG planes and they are true to the real thing as advertised. I was fortunate enough to have a real fppm and of course I jumped at the opportunity to test the performance at SLLP with one of the PMDG planes. It was just like the graph said (big smile on my face). Way to go PMDG! I am considering making a dedicated performance program for 777; does anybody know what would be the legal/commercial bounds in respect to PMDG and Boeing? Regards, Ionut (John) G. Micu

Thank you for your responses, it does fly very smooth and it if for sure second to none! I can't wait to build my dedicated controls for it ... Ionut (John) G. Micu

Hello all, I have seen a lot of information regarding the service pack updates and the massive changes that the 300 and SP1d bring in terms of flight controls model and autopilot logic. Q1: How come that such a radical difference had to be implemented after the initial design? Was it due to latter discoveries about the real design/behavior of the aircraft? Was it to make it more user friendly? Was it to make it more realistic? Was it to reduce complexity as compared to the real airplane and therefor easier to run on a limited environment (FSX) and hardware resourced at a minimal cost to realism? I am assuming that given your (PMDG) expertise you know from the start what it is that you want implemented and then just corrections follow as it is a massively complex undertaking. Q2: As they stand now, with all latest patches on 200 and 300, are there differences in the FBW and AP implementations of the two models? What are these differences and why? I know the two airplanes have a real massive difference in terms of size and performance but the FBW and AP basic logic should still be the same is it not? Which of the two stands closer to the real thing? My main interest is in how close to the real C*U behavior are these birds when hand flying them. I know that this is a very hard intellectual property of Boeing and this is what really makes this awesome aircraft what it is; as such, aside from a few publications that I read on the subject, it is after all a real industrial secret and real equations are not given away. I apologize in advance if this topic has been addressed before and there are other threads close to this topic. Sincerely, Ionut (John) G. Micu

Kyle, Sorry to take so much of your time, I think there is something that I misunderstood; you see, I only have the 200, I don't have the 300. So, in my case, would the latest update for 200 provide datalink and weather or do I need also the 300 be present in order to have these features in 200? Ionut (John) G. Micu

Hello Kyle, I was not aware that the latest update for 200 from Aerosoft contained the fully working product. Can you please confirm me that it is so? Also, like it was mentioned above, does the latest update for base 200 contain datalink and weather radar like 300? I thought that these feature are only available on the 300. What is the situation here? Thank you in advance, Ionut (John) G. Micu

Kyle, Thank you so very much for your quick and precise response, I got it and it seems to work fine. Sincerely, Ionut (John) G. Micu

Hello all, I have the boxed version of 777-200LR/F from Aerosoft which includes updates up to service pack 1c. I want to get the latest service update - SP1d - and I don't know how. Per PMDG's website instructions, the only way to get SP1d is via an electronic purchase: "You will need to log-in to your eCommerce account and redownload the 777 installer from your View previous orders page or from your original purchase email." Since I have not purchased it through eCommerce (and obviously there is no email), how can I get Service Pack 1d for my 777-200LR/F ? Thank you all in advance, Ionut (John) G. Micu

Well said Kevin! Diana, it's not oversized not even at 27''. Here is how you know: give or take, when you are in front of your monitor, you are roughly at the same distance as you would be say in front of a Cessna instrument panel. In that situation, if you measure one of the analog instruments on the screen and come to 9cm (I am guessing you live in a metric system country :smile: if not make it 3.5'') then you see the correct size. Anything under that is too small either due to too much zoom out or the monitor is too small. Sincerely, Ionut (John) G. Micu

Diana, The use of anything less than 1.0 zoom is completely wrong because the entire depth/distance perception is gone way, way off so you cannot accurately operate the by visual cues. The best possible visual operation is to have 5 monitors with zoom 1.0 placed all around with your head exactly in the middle, monitors being in front, two at 45 deg and two on the sides, This will give you approx 180 deg visibility. The images should be proper VC views at the correct respective angles. A 6th monitor should be the 2D image of the instrument panel in front of you a little lower so you can see the front VC monitor. Now that's a way to hand-fly this birdie

Hello all, Absolute joy to hand fly the NGX even just with the mouse. Of all sim activities, hand flying this bird is one of the best, alongside very few other airplanes from other companies. After flying real airplanes, I too agree there are very few sim products that behave as they do in reality. The narrow aspect/view is easy fix with proper setup and settings. Like mentioned above, there it should be only zoom 1.0 and correct aspect ratio and view angles. Aside from that, REALISTIC input controls are a must. Not to brag, but I make my own input controls, real yokes, and mechanisms that are true to life with VARIABLE force according to IAS. I just wonder, how many people know that a real 7XX column, through artificial feeling, at max IAS develops approx 100 LBS force at full deflection and that a full deflection of the pedals will steer the front gear just 7 degrees (that makes a world of difference in keeping it straight at high speed on the runway). How many people have that in their sim for realism? Not to mention controls driven back by AP and CORRECT tiller behavior with rudder pedals movement (tiller moved by pedals, and almost 180 deg tiller deflection for 65 deg on gear) :smile: I completely agree; turning everything off and hand flying is awesome, aside from the marvelous Boeing style automation assisted procedural operations. Happy flying all, aviation is awesome real and simmed! Ionut (John) G. Micu

Wilhelm, With all due respect for your respective experiences, allow me to disagree with you gentleman. When you are in the air without power, you can maintain any airspeed you wish but cannot maintain altitude. Regards, Ionut (John) G. Micu

Hello all, Thank you to all of those who responded to my post. Please, don't get me wrong, I know that is very hard to hand fly at high altitudes, I was just trying to say that it can be done. As for the power pitch equation, of course that once you are trimmed and power is constant all that is left to do is to make small elevator inputs to keep it at level (AP does it too) and that indeed is a lot of work because is has a great effect and very rapidly. Wilhelm Brucken: I really like your humor I hope you are not implying that the statement is incorrect ... Ionut (John) G. Micu

Hello all, Kyle, my apologies, I was thinking too much about the non moving throttles on Airbus. I realized I made a mistake after I made the post but I did not get the chance to correct it. I made quite a few autolands with the Queen and yes, Boeing does retard, it's just the reversers that have to be deployed manually and speed brakes put down manually also. Regards, Ionut (John) G. Micu

Hello all, No airplane retards automatically, throttles have to be retarded manualy, Airbuses included. At that point the AT steps out of the picture and that is a mandatory safety thing. In low vis approaches even if fully coupled, it is the crew that decides upon minimums if they land or not. Should they continue to go on with the landing, a GA is still not out of the picture even if they have touched the runway. NOW, if at that point AT would have spooled down the engines the GA can be a disaster. On landing, no AT robot can take the decision to spool down or GA, only a human, and it should stay that way. Ionut (John) G, Micu

Hello all, What are you people talking about? What does altitude has to do with hand flying??? IAS is IAS be it at 50 or 50.000 feet and a trimmed aircraft is trimmed regardless of altitude. So, noise aside, if you ever lay you hands on a REAL airplane there is only one thing to know when it comes to AVIATE: pitch is speed and power is altitude. Power or not, it will always pitch for a given speed. As a real pilot, NO, we don't have that problem, unless the aircraft designers have really screwed it up (they don't). NATURAL stability arround all axes is one of the most important design goals regardless of aircraft size or speed. Of course I would not cross an ocean on manual, but it can be perfectly flown on manual though. If you want to learn more, Aerodinamics for Naval Aviators is a great book that will give you a lot on this subject. Ionut (John) G. Micu

Hello Hubert, What are you trying to do and why? This seems to be a very strange procedure and I fail to see the rationale here. To give you a quick answer no, on POS INIT 1/4 you cannot transfer from 1R to 2R. 1R is - as the name implies - the last recorded position, and 2R are the official coordinates of the airport, usually somewhere close to the center of the airport perimeter. REF AIRPORT is used to give you a rough position situation compared to last (dont forget aircraft can be moved without being powered) and - most importantly - with the GPS receivers. In other words, there will most likely be a difference but it should be small, indicating that the GPS is working and that you are not on the other side of the planet than the one where you think you are :smile: Hope this helps. Ionut (John) G. Micu Romania

Hello all, As Kyle said, the scenery is the issue. You can fix it yourself if you want; get a BGL (airport design software), open the airport and move the glideslope antenna approx. 1000 ft. past the RWY threshold. It is probably placed at the threshold or worse, before the RWY threshold. I also noticed something very bad: the localizer antennas seem to be placed way before the RWY thresholds. What is going on here? Is it just a misrepresentation in FSCommander or someone is completely out of touch with what they’re doing? Those antennas should be PAST the entire RWY at the OTHER end. Here is a method to check the Glideslope antenna: Get a low seating aircraft – stock Cessna’s are perfect Disable object collisions in sim Put it at the TO position on the RWY – AKA on the numbers Tune the ILS. At this point I don’t know if the glideslope indicator is visible or active as we don’t know yet what is going on. If the slope indicator shows that you are below GS (horizontal bar up from middle) the antenna is ahead of you as it should. If not, continue the investigation Put Sim in slew Start moving backwards at slow speed and WATCH the glideslope indicator If the slope indicator was down and at some point starts to rise, stop the motion immediately and see on the FS map where you are. At that moment you are where the GS antenna is – obviously in the wrong place if that’s the case. Can’t wait to see what you get J I have designed an airport (including ILS and addition to PMDG FMCs) and it’s fun. Ionut “John” Micu

Hello all, Changing altitude long into the flight requires permission plus that the exact optimum point to do it really depends on a couple of factors. BUT, just for fun, if winds will stay the same, you could automate just the next step: set next alt in mcp, make a pseudo point at the distnace indicated by FMC, set current alt restriction till there and then MCP alt as cruising alt from pseudopoint onward. Queen should "step up" just as with any TO profile Ionut "John" Micu

Hello all, From what I know, procedure turns are not used in radar controlled environment; they are designed to provide adequate separation where pilots have to organize themselves to get to the runway. Should you have to perform this with an FMC equipped aircraft you have to actually do it manually or better yet using manual MCP operation, especially HDG select. Once you have performed the 180 to "come back", you arm the LOC capture anyway if any. Regards, Ionut "John" Micu

Hello all, Poster, please be so kind and respect this forum, sign with your full name. As for your problem, forget the registries, I think they are fine. You have to make sure of only one thing: the mag deviation used in sim matches the one in FMC. Ususally the magdev is newer than the sim so you can go back a few cycles till you match the environment. Yes there is one update made by a french person and it works fine in FSX. The link was posted in a thread here, I believe it was for 747-400. Regards, Ionut "John" Micu

Hello Dave Did you set the correct position of your fictional airport/RWYs in the FMC database? Are you sure there is no name conflict? Are the coordonates correctly set in the definition of the airport in scenery? Give us the airport entries so we can see them and the actual coordinates where you want the airport. Pay special attention to the Lat/Long format and conversions! Ionut "John" Micu

Hello all, Great find Kyle, thank you for sharing. Rob, why don't you plan a light load Boston to Dublin? This should be well within the ETOPS range and you can do it without fuel stopover given the tailwind... In reality there are regular flights on 320/737 but they are in business only config - aka light weight. Ionut "John" Micu

Hello all, The easyest way to plan ETOPS is using the ETOPS maps 120,180, etc. which basically, for a given type willl have circles drawn from all possible alternates like airports close to shore around the Northern Atlantic for example. In planning, you must always be within these surfaces inside the circles. If the middle of the ocean is not covered by say 120 minutes circles, you cannot go there. Ionut "John" Micu

Hello all, Great thread and information above. Just one mention though: regardless of plane, some cable/mechanical control remains even in the most advancd FBW. For example, in 777 cable controls run from yoke to spoilers 4 and 11 in order to provide mechanical backup for roll control. It basically spoils (pun intended) the lift on one or the other wing to add in lowering that respective wing. At Airbus, there is mechanical backup to control the horisontal stabilizer (the trim wheels) and the rudders. So, I don't think that there is so much a problem of cost and certiication as it is an apprehension on the engineering side to leave an aircraft completely electric/hydraulic without any mechanical backup. In 737, indeed, cables control directly the hydraulic actuators but with a computer that intermediates the direct motion of the control depending on the airspeed. In other words, as speed increases, the maximum possible deflection is reduced to protect the structure and against overcontrol. When the HYD is out, the mechanism does not assist with power, defelction computer is out and gives direct deflection control this time fully proportional with control movement, feel mechanism on the feel and center unit does not artificially create any feel because it cannot anymore (also HYD actuated) and you are dealing with the real forces now anyway . Oh, and there is also mach trim to prevent mach ducking based on pitot like sensors on the vertical stabiliser and a computer just for that. In 747, cables go to hydraulic actuators and that's it as mentioned above. That makes possible the "falling" of the controls when off as well as the locking of the ailerons after M.53 or 256 IAS. Hope the numbers are correct as there is a small hysteresis loop going up and down through speed; in that case flapperons do the jub from the root of the wing. In B777, ailerons can also droop while flying to act as flaps and still do the roll job because are mechanically independent. Ionut "John" Micu

FL340 Ionut "John" Micu