Announcement

Collapse

PMDG Forum Rules

1) SIGN YOUR POSTS. Since 1997, we have asked users to sign their real name, first and last, to all posts in the PMDG forum. We do this in order to keep conversations personal and familiar. You took the time to be here, we want to get to know you. This is one of the few rigid rules that we enforce regularly. We do so because we feel that forums in which users must engage one another personally are generally warmer, more collegial and friendly. Posts that are unsigned will be quietly removed without comment by the moderators, so to make your life easy- we recommend enabling your forum signature so that you never need to remember. Do this by clicking the username pull-down at the top right, then selecting "User Settings." You will find the signature editor on the ACCOUNT tab, about half way down the page. Look for "Edit Post Signature." Be sure to click the "Show Signatures" box.

2) BE NICE. We are all simmers here and no matter our differences of opinion, we share a common love of aviation, computing and simulation. Treat everyone else in the forum with respect even when you disagree. If someone frustrates you, walk away from the conversation or ask for a moderator to get involved. Speaking of Moderators, they prefer not to be treated as "The Thought Police" but if any behavior infringes on the enjoyment of another user or is otherwise considered to be unacceptable in the moderator's judgment, it will be addressed in keeping with our view of ensuring that this forum remains a healthy environment for all simmers.

3) BE LAWFUL: Any behavior that infringes upon the law, such as discussion or solicitation of piracy, threats, intimidation or abuse will be handled unsympathetically by the moderators. Threats and intimidation may, at the moderator's discretion, be provided to law enforcement for handling.

4) BE FACTUAL: When you post, always be factual. Moderators will remove posts that are determined not to be factually accurate.

5) RESPECT COPYRIGHTS: Posting of copyrighted material such as flight manuals owned by Boeing or various airlines is not allowed in this forum. If you have questions related to copyrighted material, please contact a forum moderator for clarification.

6) RESPECT PMDG: We love to hear what you like about our products. We also like to hear what you think can be improved, or what isn't working. Please do tell us and we will always treat your feedback with value. Just be sure to treat the team respectfully, as they do put a significant amount of effort into building and maintaining these great simulation products for you.

7) RESPECT PMDG DEVELOPERS: All of the developers will spend some time here. Given the ratio of developers-to-users, it simply isn't possible for us to answer every post and private message individually. Please know that we do try to read everything, but developer workload is simply too high to manage personal contact with tens-of-thousands of users simultaneously. In most cases, members of the development team will stick to conversations in the forum and will not answer private messages.

8) RESPECT OTHER DEVELOPERS: PMDG has always advocated for a strong development community and we have many friends within this community. Every developer offers something unique that helps to make the simming community larger and more vibrant. We insist that you treat our friends respectfully.

9) RESPECT MODERATORS: Moderators have a tough job, and none of them enjoy having to stomp out negativity. If a moderator has to weigh in to keep a thread peaceful, please respect that effort and refrain from giving the moderator any grief.

10) If you require official support for any of our products please open a support ticket through the support portal, https://support.precisionmanuals.com

11) This forum is designed primarily as a vehicle for the PMDG development team to interact with our customers, and for customers to interact with one another in a manner that is positive, supportive and assists in the general advancement of understanding the simulation and helping to make this and future simulations better. Any other use of this forum is not permitted, including but not limited to discussion of pricing policies, business practices, forum moderating policies, advertising of non-PMDG products, promotion of events, services or products that are not approved in advance by PMDG or any other topic deemed unacceptable by any forum administrator

12) HAVE FUN: This is the whole point of it all.
See more
See less

-700 stopping distances seem short to anyone else?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Captain Kevin
    replied
    Originally posted by Headley View Post
    With respect, but:

    Nothing has changed on my system ©, other than their update, so you would think they know what they are doing?
    PMDG has made a typical ground friction model for this bird, so i suppose the braking-model is also their creation?
    I know nothing changed other than their update, that's not what I asked. I asked if they ever managed to figure out why there was an issue. I know Robert acknowledged that there was an issue, but at the time of that post, it didn't appear as though he knew why it was happening. There are people here asking why they haven't issued an update to fix this yet, but it would be a little difficult to do that if they haven't figured out what was causing the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • nopixar
    replied
    They have said there is something not right but dont know what is causing it. The data they input for deceleration rates (and i trust them) is accurate however it seems something else is screwing the rates.This was just under 2 months ago so naturally people have been asking if they found the culprit as nothings been said since. Its a shame. However in the meantime the workaround is to use auto-brake 1 (gives you similar distance to auto-brake 3) or manual braking. 2,3, MAX you'll resemble a fighter with an arrestor cable. Really hope they fix it soon. I use TOPCAT and their EFB alot to work out what I want to do on landings and what kind of braking is required.

    Leave a comment:


  • Headley
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Kevin View Post
    Did they ever say they figured out why it was happening in the first place?
    With respect, but:

    Nothing has changed on my system ©, other than their update, so you would think they know what they are doing?
    PMDG has made a typical ground friction model for this bird, so i suppose the braking-model is also their creation?

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Kevin
    replied
    Originally posted by AirBadger View Post
    You would think that an issue that's reproducible 100% of the time while following normal operating procedures on an A-B flight would get fixed ASAP.
    Did they ever say they figured out why it was happening in the first place?

    Leave a comment:


  • AirBadger
    replied
    Originally posted by Slick9 View Post
    Being in the prestigious position of Chief Pilot at “My Oen Airlines” I have simply sent out a Notam that until this issue is resolved on all series of 737NGXu aircraft, aircrews are to conduct “manual braking only”. Autobrakes on all series of NGXu aircraft are to be considered non-operational.

    Richard Bansa
    You would think that an issue that's reproducible 100% of the time while following normal operating procedures on an A-B flight would get fixed ASAP.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slick9
    replied
    Being in the prestigious position of Chief Pilot at “My Oen Airlines” I have simply sent out a Notam that until this issue is resolved on all series of 737NGXu aircraft, aircrews are to conduct “manual braking only”. Autobrakes on all series of NGXu aircraft are to be considered non-operational.

    Richard Bansa

    Leave a comment:


  • Roberto0203
    replied
    Yesterday I landed with the 900 in Egmc 6000 ft runway, the aircraft stop at 1/3 of the runway.

    Robert Koolstr.

    Leave a comment:


  • hallweston31
    replied
    Yeah noticed landing on 31c MDW with a full -800 a week ago that the airplane came to a stop before 4R. With 40flaps and autobrake 2. Usually that’s a max reverser, flap 40, max auto brake landing in real life.

    Leave a comment:


  • DDowns
    replied
    Originally posted by 19ab67 View Post

    You could simply switch on the presentation of the indicators to help here....
    I've seen the brake temp indicators working after every flight. However, I've never noticed them rise above normal values even with aggressive braking but then I always use autobrake above 40 kts and have not done a RTO lately.

    Leave a comment:


  • 19ab67
    replied
    Originally posted by Airhunter View Post

    I usually dont fly airframes with brake temp indicators so I don't know.
    You could simply switch on the presentation of the indicators to help here....

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Kevin
    replied
    Originally posted by Airhunter View Post
    Yeah but they can simply push a small update for this very issues via the OC. Nothing major.
    I guess the first question would be if they even figured out what caused it in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Airhunter
    replied
    Originally posted by Cat3508 View Post
    Haven't got the NGXu, but as a matter of interest, has anybody had a look at the brakes temps. Are they excessively high, or normal ?
    I usually dont fly airframes with brake temp indicators so I don't know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cat3508
    replied
    Haven't got the NGXu, but as a matter of interest, has anybody had a look at the brakes temps. Are they excessively high, or normal ?

    Leave a comment:


  • nopixar
    replied
    I’m never expectant when it comes to these kind of things. Incredibly patient...However it does seem odd there hasn’t been an urgency to fix this... or at least an update how the investigation is going..At the moment you just have a landing calc Page on the efb that looks pretty, and an aircraft with aircraft carrier capability. Hope its sorted soon has put me off flying it for a while.

    Leave a comment:


  • Airhunter
    replied
    Originally posted by AirBadger View Post

    I don't think it'll get fixed anytime soon. Patches for the 777 and 747 are at the head of the queue now.
    Yeah but they can simply push a small update for this very issues via the OC. Nothing major.

    Leave a comment:


  • AirBadger
    replied
    Originally posted by Airhunter View Post
    So, is this going to get fixed any time soon? Seems like a pretty immersion breaking item now. How did this even get past beta testing?
    I don't think it'll get fixed anytime soon. Patches for the 777 and 747 are at the head of the queue now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Airhunter
    replied
    So, is this going to get fixed any time soon? Seems like a pretty immersion breaking item now. How did this even get past beta testing?

    Leave a comment:


  • meurkel
    replied
    I must say this is really annoying because you can only use autobreak one or brake manually. Everything else is totally unacceptable. With all due respect, this really needs to be adressed asap as the autobreak system represents a fundamental system. I also wonder how this could go unnoticed during testing.

    Mark Tegge

    Leave a comment:


  • AirBadger
    replied
    Any hope for a patch today?

    Leave a comment:


  • 19ab67
    replied
    Originally posted by rsrandazzo View Post
    Alex,

    Autobrake got a pretty significant update to improved it's ability to target the correct deceleration rates for braking. (It was over aggressive, previously)

    I ran a quick test with a 700 just now and it does seem something is amiss. In a 700 landing at 115,000lb w/ABRK 2 you should see a landing distance (measured from 50' AGL and normal flare) of around 5,600'. My test just now came in about 1400' shorter than that.

    I pulled a data dump of the autobrake module and it showed that at ABRK 2 the airplane reached a nominal acceleration rate of 8.52 ft/sec/sec, which is extremely high. (ABRK 3 is 7.0, for example)

    ABRK 2 should give you an acceleration of only 5.0 ft/sec/sec.

    This system got about 200 instrumented landings on it during the last update cycle in order to ensure the new acceleration controller was working and that the results matched the performance computation results. That data collection was within a few percent and we signed it off, so i'm mystified as to what is happening here.

    I'll dig into it and let you know what I find.
    Any news on the deceleration issue, Captain?
    Thx in advance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swaluver88
    commented on 's reply
    Aaron Cumberland what did I just read 🤣🤣

  • Aaron Cumberland
    commented on 's reply
    MeatServo Let's get Boeing and PMDG to collaborate together on an 737Maxx fix, hehehe. Run for cover when they flight test though!

  • MeatServo
    commented on 's reply
    I had the NGXu -600 stopped on a 2100’ runway one night while fooling around after a few pints. Also found weird control issues when you loop and roll her.

  • 19ab67
    replied
    Originally posted by rsrandazzo View Post
    Alex,

    Autobrake got a pretty significant update to improved it's ability to target the correct deceleration rates for braking. (It was over aggressive, previously)

    I ran a quick test with a 700 just now and it does seem something is amiss. In a 700 landing at 115,000lb w/ABRK 2 you should see a landing distance (measured from 50' AGL and normal flare) of around 5,600'. My test just now came in about 1400' shorter than that.

    I pulled a data dump of the autobrake module and it showed that at ABRK 2 the airplane reached a nominal acceleration rate of 8.52 ft/sec/sec, which is extremely high. (ABRK 3 is 7.0, for example)

    ABRK 2 should give you an acceleration of only 5.0 ft/sec/sec.

    This system got about 200 instrumented landings on it during the last update cycle in order to ensure the new acceleration controller was working and that the results matched the performance computation results. That data collection was within a few percent and we signed it off, so i'm mystified as to what is happening here.

    I'll dig into it and let you know what I find.
    Captain Randazzo,

    also I experienced extremely short landing distances.

    Yesterday I flew EHAM to EGPO = Stornoway, Scotland looking for windshear at my destination...
    Aircraft: PH-XRX, Transavia 737-700. Stornoway provides two runways

    18/36, 2200 meters, 7218 ft,
    07/25, 1000 meters, 3281 ft.

    like this:

    |
    |/
    /|
    |

    Due to the predicted winds ...

    EGPO/SYY STORNOWAY
    SA 221520 AUTO 25034G56KT 9999 FEW021/// SCT032/// 04/02 Q0992 RERA
    FT 221355 2215/2224 25022KT 9999 FEW014 SCT020 TEMPO 2215/2224 26025G37KT 6000 SHRA SHRAGS BKN012CB
    PROB30 TEMPO 2215/2224 27030G47KT 3000 +SHRA BKN007


    ... I decided to give runway 25 a try,
    and this despite the fact that with 55.6 tons LW (I had the fuel on board to return to EHAM),
    and EFB had predicted with max manual braking, full flaps about 3450 ft landing distance.

    So, I was approaching fully go-around minded,
    but to my surprise the bird came to a full stop even before crossing runway 18/36 (reverse thrust applied).

    Looking forward to learning about your findings.

    Leave a comment:


  • mtrainer
    replied
    I can't help but wonder if it is something with the mass of the aircraft being taken into account - here is an experiment to try even though unrealistic in real-life. Set thrust reversers to max from a cold stop with no parking brake. As you gain a little speed rolling backwards, use your controls (or keyboard) to set the engines to normal forward idle, non-reverser. The plane instantly, without pause, starts rolling forward. I'm no 737 pilot but I can't see this abrupt transition happening in real life. There is no transition at all. Snap.

    There was another situation that escapes me at the moment but the plane felt like it had no significant mass. The NGXu doesn't feel heavy anymore like the NGX did.

    The 2nd derivative equations in calculus (rate of change) seem to have been left out of some of the aircraft algorithms (those that govern motion), which seems to have gone missing in the new code.

    Not worried - it will get sorted out.

    Thanks,

    Mark Trainer

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron Cumberland
    replied
    Originally posted by Christian Urban View Post
    Some News About it ? I feel the same Thing with the 800 since the last update rsrandazzo


    Rest assured, PMDG will break something else with the next patch, just like in all the other patches released. My advice is just to learn to live with it and never, ever update. Just don't.

    Signed,

    Aaron Cumberland

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian Urban
    replied
    Some News About it ? I feel the same Thing with the 800 since the last update rsrandazzo



    Leave a comment:


  • Swaluver88
    replied
    Originally posted by AirBadger View Post

    Sure would be a great candidate for one of those "microupdates" we always hear about but never seem to happen.
    Patience my young padawan

    Leave a comment:


  • AirBadger
    replied
    Originally posted by nopixar View Post
    Any progress on the culprit of this behavior? I find a temporary fix is to use Autobrake 1 for most landings, as it gives similar stopping distances to Autobrake 3 at present, or use manual braking for anything less. Thats for both the 800 and 700. They behave the same.
    Sure would be a great candidate for one of those "microupdates" we always hear about but never seem to happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swaluver88
    replied
    Yeah I have noticed that it seems way to I guess powerful. Tried it at MDW landing ILS 31C calm winds and also visual landing. Charts says flaps 40 speed brake 3 or ma . So I set it up full ZFW flaps 40 speed brake 3. Landed exactly on the spot and was pretty much stopped before hitting 22L/04R. So I went back same settings flaps 40 but this time auto brakes 2 and it felt the same and then with auto brake 1 it felt like how it should be with be with auto brake 2. It's short on my end for the weight tested

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X