Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

557 Excellent

About Doug47

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/20/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Wine, women and song

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

1,073 profile views
  1. The only thing I want is weather that is realistic for any time of day that I fly. Even for the day before or the week before. I rarely use current weather as I fly in different time zones, and go by the departure time of the VA’s I fly for. This has been this way for most simmers for as long as I can remember. All good wx programs provide historic weather. What I DO find strange is that since MSFS came along, regular sim experiences, and features we’ve all used for years upon years are now suddenly unheard of, or even considered unimportant. Its just….odd.
  2. 1 year ago you would’ve said the same about P3D. MSFS : Visually yes, everything no.
  3. 99% of videos I see if it support the statement. It does seem ‘toy plane’ like.
  4. Because they’ve been know to be dissapointingly inaccurate.
  5. Usually saying nothing indicates they have nothing. Or care either way.
  6. He flies a lot of different airplanes. The helicopters in one of the Mission Impossible movies. He has a P-51. Flies some jet planes.
  7. I guess since the original posts were 6 years ago, and most of us have moved on to Windows 10, it’s probably quite relevant that he can explain the process.
  8. I’m super confused. Because didn’t you say it would be a LOT less then what I quoted (5200 ft)? The point being which that illustrates, is the take off run would by extended with zero flap, and at a weight ‘well over mtow’ by some margin.
  9. Out of curiosity, how much runway do you think a 737-700 uses at max weight and with 24k engines?
  10. Not correct. There’s no way a 737-700 at MTOW takes off at much less than what’s quoted by offical Boeing sources. 154,500 lbs. 26k. Optimum flap settings. 5200ft. There’s no way at well over the MTOW, and zero flap will it use less (LCY airport). Sorry, but either MSFS or PMDG or both have it wrong. No surprise as it’s a game.
  11. Well it is relevant. Because no doubt PMDG would’ve based their data also on something available like this. 26k engines, MTOW. Optimum flap setting. It needs a runway longer then LCY. Take off a few hundred feet for the factors you mentioned, it needs the full length or very little left over to take off. Now go ‘well over MTOW’ and use zero flap and it seems very unlikely. If he had’ el used flap 5/25 or something then it may be considered reasonable. But zero flap uses a lot of runway. I guess nobody has tried it yet? Surprised as these are the scenarios i often use to test add-ons to see how realistic or accurate they are.
  12. I’m not arguing or trying to ‘claim a superior knowledge position’. it’s just a game. 🙂 I was only highlighting official data from the manufacturer of the real airplane showing runway required based on weight and thrust ratings for the -700. At MTOW, 26k thrust rating, (flap unknown. 1? 5? 25?) LCY would be tight, possibly doable. Possibly. MTOW, 20K , seems to indicate not doable by a considerable margin. The OP strangely never did say what the weight was (well over is all) . Or what the thrust rating was (recall PMDG seemed to go with 24k for the -700). I’m surprised we’ve gotten this far and no one else has tested some more for comparisons sake.
  13. I only based on official data from Boeing. Not my own thoughts. And since anything else is pure speculation, that’s all, we have. Which I’d trust more than Topcat as well. Has nobody tried the test with the -700 yet?
  • Create New...