Aircraft Specifics

[Lude2Envy]

Since there's no detailed aircraft loading option with this airplane, what are the weights that you guys used when developing this plane? I can't seem to find any of this information in the documentation. 

Empty Weight, Max Zero Fuel Weight, Max Take-Off Weight, Max Landing Weight, and Max Ramp Weight? 

What is the cargo capacity weight as well? 

Was this plane modeled on the CFM56-3B-1 engines or the CFM56-3C-1 engines? 

Does the Ground Services menu allow you to exceed the CoG limits of the airplane when you're setting it? In the documentation it says it'll allow you to exceed the Max Zero Fuel Weight slightly. If it does allow you to exceed it, what is the normal CoG range for the aircraft for the entire range of takeoff weights? 

Thanks. 

[Tom Stian]

This is what I use. I belive it should be reasonably correct

In kg..

In lb..

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Tom Stian

[Morten]

The weights will vary from airline to airline dependent on interior configuration, operator type etc.

CoG envelope will also very a bit with weight, but max envelope is about 4-30% MAC.  Tom Stian' numbers are a good suggestion

[Lude2Envy]

12 minutes ago, Morten said:

The weights will vary from airline to airline dependent on interior configuration, operator type etc.

CoG envelope will also very a bit with weight, but max envelope is about 4-30% MAC.  Tom Stian' numbers are a good suggestion

Yes, I'm aware of that. I fly for an airline and I calculate our W&B before every flight. I want to know the specifics you used for this aircraft when you modeled it. I thought this was a study-level aircraft. 

[Morten]

 

Not sure I like the tone in some of your posts Lude. You can see this in sim in XP's weight menu

OEW 73.380 lb (Airline dependent)

MTOW 139.374 lb (airline dependent)

MLW 115.800 lb

As for pax/cargo, x-plane only deals with "payload" (sum of pax & cargo) 

[Lude2Envy]

2 hours ago, Morten said:

 

Not sure I like the tone in some of your posts Lude. You can see this in sim in XP's weight menu

OEW 73.380 lb (Airline dependent)

MTOW 139.374 lb (airline dependent)

MLW 115.800 lb

As for pax/cargo, x-plane only deals with "payload" (sum of pax & cargo) 

I'm not sure I like the quality of support I've received from you thus far. All I asked for was some aircraft specifics about your "study-level" aircraft so I can put together an accurate PFPX profile. You advertise this plane as "study-level" on X-Aviation and so far it's far from it. Flight Factor and PMDG both have accurate W&B management for their aircraft so don't blame your limits on X-Plane or your sub-par documentation. Secondly, I can't even fly this aircraft because of some problems that I've already posted about in another thread, and I've received nothing but short, unhelpful responses from you. All I asked was to be able to send you a video so I can specifically show you the erratic behavior I'm getting from this plane, and you can't even accomodate me there. So I'll tell you what, tomorrow morning I will call my CC company, dispute the charge for this aircraft with them, and get my money back since you don't want to man up and offer the kind of support that one would expect to come with a $75 "study-level" aircraft. Rotate Sim was more than helpful when I asked for similar information  to build a PFPX profile, and they also ask for videos so they can see the problems users were having first hand. Maybe you should take some customer support tips from them. It's a shame that such a beautifully modeled 737 is backed by such terrible support staff. 

 

[Morten]

We have - and are still - here to help you with any problem you might have.  However for this to work it also requires some usefull information from YOU, like you are trying to make a pfpx file (that someone probably already made), what kind of throttle you have (there are plugins and 3rd party software that might help you with your axis problem as I suggested). Further instead of repeatedly insulting us and trying to send insane big files via email, try atleast FIRST to give us a hint (chain of events) of what this "erratic" behavior is about, we just *might* know what it is and a screenshot is often plenty.  If we need the video, we will sort that out then.

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Morten

[Lude2Envy]

2 hours ago, Morten said:

We have - and are still - here to help you with any problem you might have.  However for this to work it also requires some usefull information from YOU, like you are trying to make a pfpx file (that someone probably already made), what kind of throttle you have (there are plugins and 3rd party software that might help you with your axis problem as I suggested). Further instead of repeatedly insulting us and trying to send insane big files via email, try atleast FIRST to give us a hint (chain of events) of what this "erratic" behavior is about, we just *might* know what it is and a screenshot is often plenty.  If we need the video, we will sort that out then.

 

I already downloaded a 737-300 profile for PFPX. I'm trying to customize it so it matches your aircraft specifically. I'm not sure why I even need to tell you that in the first place. I asked you for some specs about the aircraft that should already be in your documentation given that it's advertised as a "study-level" aircraft. Not once in your manuals does it even mention which CFM-56 engine the airplane is modeled on, let alone any of the weights. You say it's airline dependent, yet every livery of your 737 has the same empty weight because you obviously modeled it off of one specific real world 737. You say the MTOW is 139,274 because that's the max weight you can increase it to in the sim, but in your documentation it also says that you're able to overload the aircraft so I want to know what the structural MTOW and CoG range is for the aircraft that you used to create this model. Wikipedia says the MTOW for the 737-300 is 138,500, but maybe the aircraft you collected your data from had some sort of heavy weight mod. I don't know. That's why I'm looking for specific numbers. 

Secondly, the video is only 388MB - 88 larger than the forum limit. Not sure how that's "insanely huge". I was trying to provide you with a simple video to show you first hand what the aircraft was doing instead of writing an ambiguous book on the forum for you to read. 

Finally, I haven't "repeatedly insulted" you. I called you out on your reluctance to offer support in a manner that's pretty standard in this industry among third party developers. All you have is a forum. No support ticket system or any other open line of communication. I'm over it though. Thanks for nothing. 

[frumpy]

7 hours ago, Lude2Envy said:

 "study-level" aircraft

How do you define "study-level"?

Concerning the MTOW, 138,500 vs. 139,274lb: Would you notice the 700 pounds difference? I wouldn't. And that

pretty much summarizes what this is all about: in a flightsim you'll have to make concessions. Even a $350 tagged PSX

does have some (okay, very little) things that are not "real". I mean do you go in a level D sim and complain about

the duration of g-load in certain situations?

I think the bottom line is that the IXEG is one of the best (...) aircraft for XP. Don't you agree? Glas is still half empty?

Why don't you look at the things that were done very good, rather than trying to find things you don't like?

 

 

 

 

[Morten]

MTOW: We have put in the highest MTOW we could find good sources on.  This so you can simulate any airline you want!  The reason MTOW varies with airline has to do with landing fees and not really any physical limit reasons.  Higher MTOW, higher landing fees.  So airlines want to set their (paper) MTOW as low as possible.  A charter airline that flies long sectors, full aircraft, with passengers stacked with luggage will need a higher MTOW on paper than a network company that flies shorter sectors with business pax with hand luggage.  So talking about a specific MTOW is not really relevant except for the hard end of the envelope which very few if any airlines actually use in real life (AFAIK).  And no we do not know what MTOW each airline uses, it might even be different for different aircraft individuals in each airline...

CFM56: We model the -B1 engine as you can see on the FMC

CoG envelope: You got that from me.

Documentation: Could always be better off course

[Lude2Envy]

5 minutes ago, Morten said:

MTOW: We have put in the highest MTOW we could find good sources on.  This so you can simulate any airline you want!  The reason MTOW varies with airline has to do with landing fees and not really any physical limit reasons.  Higher MTOW, higher landing fees.  So airlines want to set their (paper) MTOW as low as possible.  A charter airline that flies long sectors, full aircraft, with passengers stacked with luggage will need a higher MTOW on paper than a network company that flies shorter sectors with business pax with hand luggage.  So talking about a specific MTOW is not really relevant except for the hard end of the envelope which very few if any airlines actually use in real life (AFAIK).  And no we do not know what MTOW each airline uses, it might even be different for different aircraft individuals in each airline...

CFM56: We model the -B1 engine as you can see on the FMC

CoG envelope: You got that from me.

Documentation: Could always be better off course

Specific MTOW is very relevant. The structural MTOW for the aircraft in question is always the absolute limit. Has nothing to do with landing fees. An operator is always going to carry the maximum amount of revenue payload they can, followed by the minimum amount of fuel required for the flight unless they're tankering which is a whole different subject. That's how they make money. After that you have MFPTW which is either equal to or less than the MTOW. MFPTW restricts the aircraft even further due to burn off to make sure the aircraft is under the MLW when it arrives at the destination. Then you have runway specific takeoff weight which may or may not reduce the MTOW even further based on braking action, climb performance, runway length, obstacle clearance, and some other factors. All I asked for, very politely, was the specs on the airplane that you modeled in the sim - the structural MTOW. I've always seen these numbers in the documentation of other study-level aircraft and they can also be looked up in the specific aircraft.cfg files for FSX/P3D aircraft. I've taken off in real life at the structural MTOW many times and even have to throw extra ballast in the cargo compartment just to keep the CG within limits at times. It also doesn't say -B1 on the FMC. It only says engine rating 20.0K. There was a 20K version of the -3C-1 too. 

 

1 hour ago, frumpy said:

How do you define "study-level"?

Concerning the MTOW, 138,500 vs. 139,274lb: Would you notice the 700 pounds difference? I wouldn't. And that

pretty much summarizes what this is all about: in a flightsim you'll have to make concessions. Even a $350 tagged PSX

does have some (okay, very little) things that are not "real". I mean do you go in a level D sim and complain about

the duration of g-load in certain situations?

I think the bottom line is that the IXEG is one of the best (...) aircraft for XP. Don't you agree? Glas is still half empty?

Why don't you look at the things that were done very good, rather than trying to find things you don't like?

 

 

 

 

Study level is just that. You can study the airplane. Read the documentation, learn the systems, follow procedures, watch it perform the way it should in the real world. I'm sure the IXEG does many of those things minus the detailed documentation and realistic W&B loading. It only takes an 800 pound imbalance to throw off the jet that I fly. I'm not typed on the 737 and again, since this is a "study-level" sim, I wanted to know the specific weights it was modeled on so I load it and plan flights accurately. If it was all just rough estimates, then why does PFPX allow you to customize all of these numbers? And what do G-forces in a Level-D have to do with anything. They're not real airplanes just like a desktop sim isn't a real airplane. Level-D's can still simulate the loading of the real airplane though - just like other study-level desktop sims on the market. Is the glass still half empty? I can't tell you because I have yet to get the damn thing working. Maybe if you read the full post you'd realize that I didn't come on here to point out the things I didn't like. I came here to get some specific information that I couldn't find in the manuals and in my other thread, to try and get the aircraft working properly. Instead of being helped I was given a hard time instead of a straight answer - numbers that are easily found in the documentation of other study-level sims on the market. 

 

 

[Iain]

Support has suggested you explain your problem more, post screenshots or post a Youtube video.  Either one takes 5 mins to do, but you choose not to?  I'm really interested in your LVL change problem, but also frustrated that I don't have much to go on apart from your original explanation.

The support team are very passionate and proud of their software, they are always looking for ways to improve and are frustrated that they haven't managed to improve or produce patches as much as planned, private situations and unexpected events in life take priority.  I am sure they don't have such a large team, a large budget or a nice office in downtime DC like PMDG have.

I am sure they are wanting to hear from people like you that have lots of experience in simming and/or real world, so maybe a bit of give and take and a bit of patience is needed to get the most of their sim, your suggestions are very welcome. 

Morten has been very tolerant, ending a thread with "thanks for nothing" is way below the belt in my opinion, nobody deserves that kind of talk in this short existence of ours.

IXEG are one of the only developers I have seen where a list of "things that are not going to be in V1.0".  

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Iain

[frumpy]

1 hour ago, Lude2Envy said:

If it was all just rough estimates, then why does PFPX allow you to customize all of these numbers? And what do G-forces in a Level-D have to do with anything. They're not real airplanes just like a desktop sim isn't a real airplane. Level-D's can still simulate the loading of the real airplane though - just like other study-level desktop sims on the market. Is the glass still half empty? I can't tell you because I have yet to get the damn thing working. Maybe if you read the full post you'd realize that I didn't come on here to point out the things I didn't like. I came here to get some specific information that I couldn't find in the manuals and in my other thread, to try and get the aircraft working properly. Instead of being helped I was given a hard time instead of a straight answer - numbers that are easily found in the documentation of other study-level sims on the market.

That's a point.

Personally, I don't undertake this detail of planning. I check fuel, weight, CG and off I go. Study

qualities, but consumer market.

 

A sidenote: In PSX I saw graphically how a gradual increase in fuel shifted CG back and forth. Extremely

detailled and exact with the numbers, it's got vulcanic ash and elms fire simulation too. Maybe that's

what you are looking for.

[Litjan]

1 hour ago, Lude2Envy said:

Specific MTOW is very relevant. The structural MTOW for the aircraft in question is always the absolute limit. Has nothing to do with landing fees. An operator is always going to carry the maximum amount of revenue payload they can, followed by the minimum amount of fuel required for the flight unless they're tankering which is a whole different subject. That's how they make money. After that you have MFPTW which is either equal to or less than the MTOW. MFPTW restricts the aircraft even further due to burn off to make sure the aircraft is under the MLW when it arrives at the destination. Then you have runway specific takeoff weight which may or may not reduce the MTOW even further based on braking action, climb performance, runway length, obstacle clearance, and some other factors. All I asked for, very politely, was the specs on the airplane that you modeled in the sim - the structural MTOW. I've always seen these numbers in the documentation of other study-level aircraft and they can also be looked up in the specific aircraft.cfg files for FSX/P3D aircraft. I've taken off in real life at the structural MTOW many times and even have to throw extra ballast in the cargo compartment just to keep the CG within limits at times. It also doesn't say -B1 on the FMC. It only says engine rating 20.0K. There was a 20K version of the -3C-1 too. 

 

Study level is just that. You can study the airplane. Read the documentation, learn the systems, follow procedures, watch it perform the way it should in the real world. I'm sure the IXEG does many of those things minus the detailed documentation and realistic W&B loading. It only takes an 800 pound imbalance to throw off the jet that I fly. I'm not typed on the 737 and again, since this is a "study-level" sim, I wanted to know the specific weights it was modeled on so I load it and plan flights accurately. If it was all just rough estimates, then why does PFPX allow you to customize all of these numbers? And what do G-forces in a Level-D have to do with anything. They're not real airplanes just like a desktop sim isn't a real airplane. Level-D's can still simulate the loading of the real airplane though - just like other study-level desktop sims on the market. Is the glass still half empty? I can't tell you because I have yet to get the damn thing working. Maybe if you read the full post you'd realize that I didn't come on here to point out the things I didn't like. I came here to get some specific information that I couldn't find in the manuals and in my other thread, to try and get the aircraft working properly. Instead of being helped I was given a hard time instead of a straight answer - numbers that are easily found in the documentation of other study-level sims on the market. 

 

 

 

Hello Lude2Envy,

first off, let me say that I am always very pleased to meet a fellow airline pilot. I just came back from a four-day rotation, and wasn´t able to chime in earlier (like I usually do) because my laptop is in the shop for a broken graphics adapter. Great.

Being an airline pilot you probably had your share of CRM training - and if remember that, you may have an idea why our communication didn´t go into a very productive direction initially. We are just humans, too - and it rubs us in a bad way if we are being mocked about claiming to be a "study sim", but then alluding that we are not due to some real or perceived fault on our part.

I see that you are from the Philly area and probably had to deal with all the snow and cold which can be a real hassle when flying - so I write our bad start off to that causing a lot of stress for you . Fortunately our winter here is pretty mild, so far.

But - as we airline pilots are trained to do - lets put our initial rough start behind us and concentrate on the facts at hand, so we can get to the best possible outcome for everyone.

Anyway, here we go. Much of this may not be new to you, being a certified airline pilot, but I explain it anyway for the benefit of other users that may read here.

1.) The weights

When a manufacturer puts an airplane out on the market, he usually publishes limiting weights for it - most notably the structural weights, like maximum landing, zero-fuel, taxi and take-off weights. There is also an "empty weight", or a "dry-operating-weight", but these are dependent on the configuration the airline chooses (more seats + equipment + crew -> more DOW...). The maximum landing and takeoff weights can also differ, some airlines choose to limit these artifcially, because they can save on landing/handling fees that way.

Our plane won´t break its gear or wings - I can guarantee that! Thats why we as IXEG don´t publish maximum weights - you can load the aircraft to 100.000kgs and it will still fly, take-off and land. We model our plane to fly CORRECTLY at every weight, though - so it will fly just like the real 737-300 would, if you load it to 100.000kgs. Hence our claim that you can "make up" your own weights - the plane will simply fly like the real one would.

That being said, the "lightest" our plane will be (empty weight) is 32.831kgs, this is set in the aircraft model file. The maximum fuel it can load is 16.000kgs, this is also limited.

There are usually two different weight sets published when looking for weights of the 737-300, the standard and the increased gross weight set (Boeing offered those later). Both planes will fly exactly the same at the same weight, though - so the question "which one do we model" is moot.

Here are the weights my airline went by:

Max Taxiweight: 57830

Max Takeoffweight: 57600

Max Landingweight: 52600

Max Zerofuelweight: 49450

So if you want to operate our aircraft "realistically", heed those values - or other ones you can find on other manuals or airline specifications. Our plane will fly correctly for all of them (the aerodynamics don´t change!).

You can fill up the aircraft (using the IXEG menu) to a MZFW of 55.830kgs and then add 16.000kgs of fuel to that (total of 71.830kgs). This is a lot heavier than the highest maximum takeoff weight that I could find for the 737-300 (63276kgs from http://www.b737.org.uk/techspecsdetailed.htm)

2.) The engine

We may not specifically point to the correct engine specification (we should, thanks for pointing that out!), but if you look at the IDENT page of the FMS, you can see the engine rating being specified as 20k. The only CFM56-3 engine that puts out 20k rated is the B1 variant (B2 = C1 = 23.500 and B1 = 18.500). The C1 was used on the 737-400, the B1 on the 737-500. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56#CFM56-3_series

3.) The video

We generally like it better if users can post a short video here as a youtube link. All you need is a youtube account, upload the vid and make it so that you can only see it with the link (if you don´t want it to be public). The big benefit is that other users can also see it, and if they have the same problem - learn from this thread. If you absolutely can´t do that, PM the link to your download site to me and I will take a look at it that way. Oh, another CRM hint: Claiming "your airplane is doing it wrong" isn´t likely to assure a receptive and open attitude on the receiver of the communication, either .

4.) The flaps

I will take a look at the "trigger" for the flap placard speed - which also drives the VNAV limit speeds again. If we can improve tolerance to spikey or imprecise hardware for flap lever axes, we will.

5.) The refund

X-Aviation does not have a "try before you buy" policy. You can certainly try to cancel or revert the payment with your credit card company, but I think you may be up for a disappointment. At any rate, I would invite you to maybe fly the plane for another few days and we can try to get over our bad start and then you can still decide if you want to go down that route.

I hope this helps you to get started with our 737,

Cheers, Jan

 

[st1322]

Hello Lude2Envy,

I understand you are upset, but there is quite simple solution to your questions. I am also interested in creating PFPX profile (or SimBrief) profile for this plane. Various data are on the internet forums. I could not decide so... I loaded the plane, took the calculator and here is what I came up with:

All weights are in LBS!

DOW: 72753

MZFW: 105000

MTOW: 138499

MLW: 113999

FUEL: 35583

PAX:149 - this comes up from PFPX

When I compare other Boeing profiles on PFPX, I think I am quite close. I do have problem with MLW. Perhaps someone can correct me? Or can someone confirm if my above calculations are more or less ok to go with?

Tom

[Lude2Envy]

1 hour ago, Litjan said:

I hope this helps you to get started with our 737,

Cheers, Jan

 

I appreciate you reaching out Jan. I'm not looking to fly the aircraft outside of its limitations even though it's possible to do so. That is why I asked for the weights and CG ranges to fly your aircraft realistically. Instead I got a snide remark from Morten which really pissed me off. Obviously they vary from one 737 to the next, which is why I wanted the numbers IXEG used when modeling their plane. Surely you guys looked at a 737-300 from a specific airline with a specific configuration when you modeled the IXEG 737. I'm sure you're also aware that the CG envelope varies with different takeoff weights. I'm not sure where in my OP there was any ambiguity or "lack of CRM"? I also don't understand why I was chided for requesting this information given that it's provided by many other manufacturers of study-level aircraft. In case you're unaware, just to give you an example, the PMDG DC-6 for XP comes with their own PFPX files that fit their model. On the other side of the spectrum so do the FSL A320X, AS CRJ, and QW787 just to name a few. They all come with W&B managers as well. It's become a common thing since support from the PFPX developer has declined in recent years. I didn't care that yours didn't have it. All I asked for in my OP was some accurate numbers to make a profile using the correct engine variant and CG numbers so I could load the aircraft within its limitations because XP doesn't put any restrictions on them. I couldn't get a straight answer. Yes I happen to be very familiar with study-level sims on FSX/P3D, and I also happen to beta test for six very well known developers. There's a certain standard that begins to develop among study-level aircraft manufacturers. Not once did I scold you in my OP for not having that in your documentation. I said I couldn't find it and asked for it to be provided. I am a real pilot so when I sim I like to keep it as realistic as possible. It's a sim, not a game right?

Not only is the engine variant and W&B information missing from your documentation, do you know that it doesn't mention anywhere on the IXEG website or the X-Aviation product page that this is a 737-300? I think that's a pretty important piece of information to put out there. All it says is 737 Classic. Before I bought this plane I actually had to look around the internet to find out which exact version or versions of the 737 this product included. I saw that it was "study-level" and had pretty good reviews so despite my hesitation (because I'm just getting into XP) I purchased it.

As far as the video in my other thread is concerned, I was trying to get the video out to you guys before I left on my own 4 day trip. I don't understand why I couldn't just use WeTransfer to get it over to you guys via email before I left instead of wasting my time with YouTube. You're an airline pilot. You know how valuable your time is at home - especially if you have a wife and kids. Time to sim is a rare commodity. The last thing I wanted to do was waste time screwing around with YouTube, so I asked for an email address. To me this was better CRM than writing a long, ambiguous description of what I was experiencing. I asked to send it, Morten shot me down several times, so I left for my trip and didn't post again in that thread. I also didn't bring it up again until his snide remark in this thread. If trying to send you a video to assist me with a problem, and then asking for some data to operate this study-level aircraft realistically is this much of a hassle, then I clearly made the wrong decision to purchase this plane. 

[Cameron]

42 minutes ago, Lude2Envy said:

do you know that it doesn't mention anywhere on the IXEG website or the X-Aviation product page that this is a 737-300?

Yes, we know, and that was a conscious decision. We do not hold a Boeing license, and we are not out to get into wars with them on name use issues. From a legal perspective, with the title of the product as is, we are free and clear of infringement.

Most simmers like yourself will know immediately when viewing screenshots what variant this is. Not a knock on you, but I'm giving you the back story on why we made this decision. It has not proven to be a problem for us, as the aircraft is pretty widely talked about in the XP community.

[mgeiss]

1. PFPX profile tweaked to the last 0.01% - check
2. Austin decides to tweak a few  parameters in X-Plane - check
3. Realizing that you burned 15.3 lbs more fuel than the PFPX loadsheet said - check

Back to 1.

Edited January 12, 2018 by mgeiss

[Morten]

Ok, this has been going in circles long enough so I am closing it.  Obviously both of us had some blame in why we ended up here.

Should you reconsider and take Jan's advice and give this a fresh constructive start, feel free to do so in a new topic