Litjan

No, there will only be one configuration.

Some more early morning testing...

No (it could be modeled, but we aren´t going to, I think I mentioned the big reason why we won´t a while ago already) and no.

Sometimes they just don´t clap...

Show ´em the fire warning spill lights, show ´em the fire warning spill lights!

Only XP12.

You hope in vain.

I believe the 737-300 for XP12 would be like another product, so that should be possible.

This thread (and this forum at large) are the correct place - although there will be an email newsletter when the plane is ready for XP12. We are in the final stages of updating, I am not going to dare and put a date on it, but the plane is flying fine and the remaining work is some 3D, some minor bug squashing and a final user-experience polish. Cheers, Jan

No, I forgot what those lines mean - it´s been a few years since I worked with the VRconfig. All the info I had was here: https://developer.x-plane.com/article/aircraft-vr-configuration-_vrconfig-txt-file-format-specification/

@Ian Hi, I have checked the behavior on the XP12 version I am testflying right now, but I am sure that the logic for this was not touched since the XP11 version: When moving the pack switches to OFF (moving between auto and high should have no effect) the N1 indicated on the N1 LIMIT page increases by 1.0 percent N1 - this is correct and according "to the book". It makes sense, too - without the bleed air being extracted to drive the packs you can create more thrust before you hit the EGT limit. What is probably missing is getting the same effect when turning OFF the engine bleeds - as you would in a takeoff where the APU powers the packs (as opposed to having packs off for an unpressurized takeoff). I will add an issue to our internal list to also add this dependency. Cheers, Jan

The problem in the 737 warning system design (that we have faithfully reproduced) is that the warning horn for the takeoff configuration and the warning horn for excessive cabin altitude (it being >10.000 feet i.e. not enough pressure to breath) is totally identical. Boeing reasoned that pilots are smart enough to figure out that if the warning horn sounds on the ground, it can´t be the cabin altitude warning and if it sounds in the air, it can´t be the takeoff configuration warning. The Helios pilots proved them wrong. After that incident they implemented a new Abnormal Checklist for this, it is called "warning horn intermittent" (or so). It goes like this: If you hear an intermittent warning horn, find out if you are A.) on the ground - this means you are hearing the takeoff configuration warning horn, do not take off! B.) in the air - this means that you are hearing the excessive cabin altitude warning horn, do the "Excessive Cabin Altiude Abnormal Checklist". The vast majority of pressurization problems are due to forgetting to turn on the packs, either after engine start (where you turn them off to have enough bleed pressure to start the engines) or after takeoff (if you took off without packs operating to squeeze out some more power from your engines).

Just for XP12.

Well, what was your cabin altitude? Just moving the switch to FLT and setting the correct FLT ALT and LAND ALT is not enough, as the Helios pilots found out, too. The next time it happens please take a screenshot of your cabin altitude indicator and also of your pressurization panel (bleed air switches and pack switches). Oh, and it wasn´t the TO config warning, this can only sound on the ground (or to be more precise while the air/ground switch is sending a ground signal).

This will probably answer your question - as the pilots asked themselves the very same question that you just asked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

It is perfectly legal to fly the 737 Classic with the FMC inoperative - in that case you would consult the books to find the correct N1 value, set the carots in manual mode and use the autothrottle or manual throttle input to set the power accordingly.

Jet engine performance is complex. A modern jet engine is limited by 3 main parameters: Maximum rotational speeds (N1, N2) Maximum mechanical pressure (maximum thrust) ITT or EGT temperature (metallurgical limit). You are usually limited by the one you reach first (although two simultaneously is possible). If you operate in a high density cool air, you will reach your maximum thrust with a low N1, long before rpm or temp becomes a problem. If you operate in hot temperatures, ITT will become the limit, long before rpm or thrust are maximum. If you operate in very thin air, maximum rpm will be reached before you ever get to max thrust or ITT. I will have to look at the bleed logic again, normally the FMC will sense the bleed extraction logic and allow for the hotter EGT - but it is entirely possible that we have a bug in that logic :-) Unless you enter a TASS, you will always get the maximum rated power for the prevailing temperature, there is no need to do anything "manual". The engine is "flat rated" at ISA+15C, which means that at a temperature below +30C at sea level you could theoretically run it faster and not exceed EGT, but you are reaching "maximum thrust" already. As for fuel - if you land with 2.4 tons of fuel remaining, you are probably doing fine if not even having a bit "too much". The required fuel at touchdown is alternate fuel (ca. 800kgs, depending on distance to alternate) plus 1200kgs (to fly for half an hour). If you go to a situation where you need MORE fuel to get to the alternate, you need to limit your payload, this is completely normal and sometimes done (for example when we fly to BIKF and the weather in the general area is lousy).

Yeah, look in that other thread (they all have a "last post" notice at the end).

Don´t worry, it even happens to real pilots sometimes (ask me how I know ).

The cause for this in 99.993% of all cases (flight simulator and real aircraft) is that the pilot forgot to select the correct inbound course on the ILS´s side.

Yes, it is.

Another successful testflight this morning - Flagstaff, Az to Tucson, Az. We are still ironing out some issues, but here are two screenshots (one showing the current look of the new GUI).

We are making good progress!

I would like to chime in here - I have worked with Tom on this over the last week intensively - previously I had test flown the 737 in XP12 (after we fixed the major roadblocks of even getting if flyable, like making the flaps work, etc.) and I had tuned the flight model. Tom worked hard on 3D modeling over the last months with little for me to do (I am too stupid for blender and those things) and now with him approaching the end of that work, I dove back into flight and system testing. The more I test, the more stuff shows up that does not work anymore, because Laminar changed things - and these changes are all improvements in modeling systems, yet they still leave our "old" way of doing/overriding them unusable. So in a very real way we have to redo a lot of the things we already did for XP11, it is not a quick conversion at all - and this is something we definitely underestimated when we initially said to "upgrade to XP12 for free". The move from XP11 to XP12 is not an upgrade, it is in many areas a repeat of the dev work work we already did for XP11. And I am thankful for most of our customers to be very understanding of the fact that we charge a small price to compensate us for this! I think the old 737-300 still has a lot of life in her, I thoroughly enjoy my "test flights" and find myself again and again to "just finish this approach" even though I was just testing some autopilot PID constant ... simply because it is fun to fly and looks great in XP12 . Cheers, Jan

Maybe work on your eyesight before taking up flying