JRBarrett

Some additional background on the TA/RA switch. (I am an avionics tech for a corporate jet operator). As long as the transponder is in "standby" mode on the ground, it is OK to leave the TCAS set to TA/RA. The TCAS processor is a separate unit from the ATC transponder. It has two directional receiving antennas - one on top of the fuselage, and one below. These antennas receive signals from the transponders of other other aircraft in flight, and the TCAS calculates the bearing, distance and relative altitude of airborne targets. The TCAS has no transmitting ability on its own. In order to send interrogations to other aircraft (known as "squitter"), the TCAS uses the transmitter portion of the aircraft's transponder as its link to the outside world. As long as the transponder is selected to standby (either manually, or automatically via weight-on-wheels sensors), the TCAS cannot transmit. In years past, it was always standard practice to place an aircraft's transponder in STBY mode as soon as exiting the runway after landing, and to not turn it on until entering the runway for takeoff. Now, however, many large airports with heavy traffic volumes are equipped with surface detection radar known as ASDE-X, which permits ground controllers to see the exact positions of taxiing aircraft, even at night or in conditions of poor visibility. At such airports, all aircraft moving on taxiways are required to turn their transponders "on", so ground controllers can see them on ASDE-X. In this situation, the pilot should turn the TCAS to STBY or OFF, to prevent it from sending squitter interrogations through the transponder, which could cause false TCAS alerts in other aircraft which are in the process of taking off or approaching for landing. Many aircraft are equipped with ATC control panels which combine both TCAS and transponder control in a single rotary knob - with transponder modes coming first, followed by TCAS modes. The control panel emulated in the IXEG 737 is one in which the transponder and TCAS mode selectors are separate.

Probably depends on the operator's route structure. If they serve a lot of airports with RNP approaches, it would be worth the cost to upgrade. More and more RNP approaches are coming online every month worldwide.

Hand flying is always approved! (Especially at PSP, which often has very clear skies). There may well be some 733s which have been updated for RNP approach capability - especially those which have been converted for use as business jets. Many 737-600, 700, 800 and 900 NG aircraft are RNP capable. I believe all of those manufactured in the last 5 or 6 years are - but the upgrade path to add RNP to the older Classics is probably too expensive for most operators.

In the case of "bent" tracks at MTHG, it similar to the issue I responded to in another topic entitled "Cheesy route drawing at KPSP". Like the RNAV approaches at Palm Springs, the RNAV02 approach at Toncontin is an RNP RNAV approach which uses curved leg segments. Typically, the FMS in a r/w 737-300 would NOT be capable of flying RNP. At the time that the FMS in the Classic 737 was designed, curved RF legs did not exist. Not all RNAV approaches are RNP, but those which are, cannot be flown by a "stock" 733. That's not to say that other types of distorted track displays in the IXEG 737 might not be caused by programming bugs, but in this instance, it is a limitation of the real aircraft, which might very well display similar track distortion if an RNP approach was attempted.

The RNP approaches at PSP require an FMS capable of plotting and following curved RF (radius-to-fix) legs. The FMS in the 737-300 was designed and certified long before RNP RF procedures were implemented. Unless it had extensive avionics upgrades, a real 737-300 would not legally be able to fly any of the RNP approach procedures at PSP, and would likely show similar distortion on the NAV display if it did try to follow the approach course. The only instrument approach legally available to a typical 737-300 at Palm Springs would be the VOR/GPS-B

It has to be so, I think Jan explained that in another post already. So basically the Primary Altimeter gets some fancy computer calculations to correct the altitude, while the standby one doesn't (its just static) -> they can divert up to 400ft. Cheers, That is exactly correct. The primary flight displays receive their altitude from air data computers, which correct the altitude for temperature and airspeed. For flights within RVSM airspace, the altitude readout must be accurate to within +/- 45 feet maximum. The standby altimeter is just a plain barometric altimeter - no computer involved, and barometric altimeters tend to become increasingly inaccurate at higher altitudes. The disparity between PFD altitude and standby is perfectly realistic.

Thanks for the confirmation. I was pretty sure that the config menu was the accurate indicator of the installed version.

Strange! This was my initial install after purchase. The config menu on the left side shows version 1.0.2, but the FMS shows version 1.0.1... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW, I just purchased the aircraft yesterday, and have completed six flights already with no crashes or major issues at all. This is a clean install of 1.0.2. The only issues I found were the incomplete PROG page in the FMS, (which I was aware of in advance), and twice a spurious left duct overheat light with no obvious cause. I did note that the ground spoilers did not auto deploy on landing, (known issue), but after changing the flaps call out setting to "1" in the user pref file, the spoilers have been working fine. The only (very minor) bug I have not seen mentioned yet, regards the VOR course selector knobs. The pilot side selector shows "0" when set to north, while the copilot side shows "360". The flying characteristics are superb. The best I have ever seen in any XP or FSX add-on, and I have all the major ones for both platforms. I am running XP on a Windows 7 PC, and have minimal XP plugins. Other than Gizmo, I have the dataref viewer plugin and SkyMax Pro. Jim Barrett

If you remove the 737 completely, and do a full reinstallation, do you not get the latest 1.0.2 version? The reason I ask, is because I just purchased the aircraft yesterday, April 30, and the installer zip file still said Version 1.0, but when I ran it, and it connected to the X-Aviation server to download all of the components, the aircraft version I ended up with was 1.0.2, without having to apply any hotfix patches through gizmo. Jim Barrett

Why do you need to copy a post "for the record"? Considering that Mike Ray's 737 Classic book has been in print for well over 15 years, (and is available from his own web site, as well as multiple other online vendors), it should be rather obvious that it was not written specifically for the IXEG 737. There is nothing on the X-Aviation product page that implies it was. You (evidently) made an incorrect assumption, and seem to feel that this is somehow IXEG's fault? Their making a PDF version available at a discount was a nice gesture. They certainly do not need to "defend" having done so. As for the rest of your rant, you do yourself no favors by posting such opinions, and none of it is applicable to flight simulation.

The cover of Mike Ray's manual is shown on the X-Aviation web site, where it is offered as a companion product to the IXEG 737. Even a cursory reading of that cover photo should make it clear that it was written as a check ride prep book for r/w 737 pilots. The book has been in print for probably 15 years (or more.) It IS directly applicable to the IXEG aircraft to the degree that the simulation accurately emulates a real 737-300 in many regards, and it is written in Mike's excellent style, which makes highly complex systems and flying techniques easy to understand - for simmers AND real world pilots.

Usually, individuals who spend substantial amounts of money on flight simulator add-ons are (rightfully) offended when the developers do NOT include sufficient documentation or tutorials with their products. You are the first person I have ever seen who has taken offense because the developers (IXEG) DID include ample documentation and video tutorials. To say that your complaint makes absolutely no sense is an understatement. The documentation is not "hidden", it is right in the Documents sub folder, exactly where one would expect to find it. It is the first folder I look for when I install any new add-on for XP. As for Mike Ray's book - I see nothing on the X-Aviation product page for the IXEG 737 that implies that the book is "required". It is simply offered as a supplement for those who may want additional information about the entire 737 Classic series. (And, at a substantial discount over the normal cost of the book in printed form I might add). Though Mike has written many excellent books specifically targeted at non-pilot flight simmers, his 737 Classic book was published years before the IXEG add-on was created. This particular edition was written for real-world pilots transitioning to the 737, though there is much that is directly applicable a highly-accurate simulation of the aircraft. Since you mention that you are well aware of Mike's work, and even say you have met him in person, what is your issue?