The plane doesn't fly right, just as the 727 didn't fly right before it had the community flight model tweak pack. I've noticed that it seems longitudinally unstable, like the rudder has minimal effectiveness. Also to maintain a -3500fpm descent at 250 knots you have to keep the throttles up at 50% N1. The elevator trim is too sensitive, needlessly complicating flying, and confusing the autopilot under time compression.

The elevator trip I know how to fix, set the elevator trim effectiveness to 0.3, but the other stuff I don't know. Ideas, anyone?

There are some three mods around tuning the FDE.

First, the highly recommended gauge and tweak from Paul. http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1356995479
Second, the one from Bud which can be combined with Paul's work. http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1339198966
And Ryan was also testing some new values. http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1354222724

And there's some recent discussion here. http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1355538264

Hoping it helps.  :) I'm using Bud's FDE with the gauge from Paul.

Well hopefully, with the triple 7 is completed, now we can get a service pack for the 737. I guess we will have to wait and see. ::)

marvic wrote on Jan 29^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

Well hopefully, with the triple 7 is completed, now we can get a service pack for the 737. I guess we will have to wait and see. ::)

Question is, which will come first, the service pack or Version 1.0's first birthday party?.... ;)

It's the way that the plane loses altitude when banking at even relatively shallow angles that annoys me. Does anyone have a fix for that, or is it actually realistic?

Christopher Low wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 4:18pm:

It's the way that the plane loses altitude when banking at even relatively shallow angles that annoys me. Does anyone have a fix for that, or is it actually realistic?

With the autopilot? If you are hand flying, without pulling back on the yoke
in a turn the aircraft will descend. Wings that are not level will lose lift. Gravity is the LAW.

marvic wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

Wings that are not level will lose lift. Gravity is the LAW.

I'm not happy with the first statement, Mark. You are gaining a horizontal component due to banking the wings, that's what actually leads to turning your plane. By this, the vertical component is reduced while the total amount of lift generated doesn't get altered. So you are losing altitude because some of the generated lift now turns your plane and doesn't support it vertically as much as before banking. Result of a tilted lift vector. You are pointing it somewhere else.

'Wings that are not level will lose lift' may therefore be 'wings that are not level will lose on the vertical lift component and gain on the horizontal one'. Well, as long as they generate lift.  :D The vector of gravity isn't changed and now wins over the reduced vertical lift component. You are losing altitude.

To compensate, one would increase the angle of attack, which would increase the total amount of lift generated. This causes more drag which roughly explains why you need some more power in a turn which doesn't descend. Yaw tendencies and corrections not included. The autopilot does take care of the aoa increase, but since it also shots some bank angles of up the 30°, it seems to lag behind and then ends up in over-correcting at times.

A while ago, I've posted a very rough fix for those sort of turns. It's about altering the max allowed bank angle for the AP to only 25°. One could try if this fixes the problems Christopher mentions. http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1335134700/46#46 Since he spoke about shallow angles, it may fail though.  :-/

From hand flying her, I'm ok with the current behaviour though. Maybe I just got used to it.

CoolP wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 8:56pm:

marvic wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 7:07pm: Wings that are not level will lose lift. Gravity is the LAW. I'm not happy with the first statement, Mark. You are gaining a horizontal component due to banking the wings, that's what actually leads to turning your plane. By this, the vertical component is reduced while the total amount of lift generated doesn't get altered. So you are losing altitude because some of the generated lift now turns your plane and doesn't support it vertically as much as before banking. Result of a tilted lift vector. You are pointing it somewhere else. 'Wings that are not level will lose lift' may therefore be 'wings that are not level will lose on the vertical lift component and gain on the horizontal one'. Well, as long as they generate lift.  :D The vector of gravity isn't changed and now wins over the reduced vertical lift component. You are losing altitude. To compensate, one would increase the angle of attack, which would increase the total amount of lift generated. This causes more drag which roughly explains why you need some more power in a turn which doesn't descend. Yaw tendencies and corrections not included. The autopilot does take care of the aoa increase, but since it also shots some bank angles of up the 30°, it seems to lag behind and then ends up in over-correcting at times. A while ago, I've posted a very rough fix for those sort of turns. It's about altering the max allowed bank angle for the AP to only 25°. One could try if this fixes the problems Christopher mentions. http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1335134700/46#46 Since he spoke about shallow angles, it may fail though.  :-/ From hand flying her, I'm ok with the current behaviour though. Maybe I just got used to it.

You do not have to take my word for it.......
"Elevator back pressure should be held constant to maintain altitude."
Taken from the FAA-H-8083-25A Pilots handbook of Aeronautical
knowledge. 5 -4  
Take from this what you want.

'Out of context quoting doesn't help. Never'
International handbook of Internet posting.  :D

Sorry, just pointing out that I don't know to what you are referring to. I was answering to your sentence 'Wings that are not level will lose lift.' As quoted  :) By the way, your quote comes from these paragraphs, right?

Quote:

Additionally, because more lift is required during a turn than when in straight-and-level flight, the angle of attack (AOA) must be increased by applying elevator back pressure. The steeper the turn, the more elevator back pressure is needed. As the desired angle of bank is established, aileron and rudder pressures should be relaxed. This stops the angle of bank from increasing, because the aileron and rudder control surfaces are  in a neutral and streamlined position. Elevator back pressure should be held constant to maintain altitude.

Highlighting by me. So, banked wings still don't lose lift, even when using 'your' book.

A good book that is of course, it explains the forces in turns in chapter 4-19. Great read and a free download! http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/

CoolP wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:33am:

'Out of context quoting doesn't help. Never' International handbook of Internet posting.  :D Sorry, just pointing out that I don't know to what you are referring to. I was answering to your sentence 'Wings that are not level will lose lift.' As quoted  :) By the way, your quote comes from these paragraphs, right? Quote: Additionally, because more lift is required during a turn than when in straight-and-level flight, the angle of attack (AOA) must be increased by applying elevator back pressure. The steeper the turn, the more elevator back pressure is needed. As the desired angle of bank is established, aileron and rudder pressures should be relaxed. This stops the angle of bank from increasing, because the aileron and rudder control surfaces are  in a neutral and streamlined position. Elevator back pressure should be held constant to maintain altitude. Highlighting by me. So, banked wings still don't lose lift, even when using 'your' book. A good book that is of course, it explains the forces in turns in chapter 4-19. Great read and a free download! http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/

Whatever Dude. I'll be flying this weekend (Real Cessna 182) and if it is okay with you I'll fly my way, the one that keeps me in the air.

Mmm, still trying to understand why, on the Internet, the worst thing to do seems to be the statement 'I disagree.'  :-/

I didn't criticize your flying or anything else, I was just pointing out that 'wings that are not level will lose lift' isn't a valid statement in the above context. Shame on me, I guess.  :D I even offered some alternatives in case you did mean the one thing and wrote the other. As it happens among humans. Well, fly save and please take no offence from the explanations given.  :)

CoolP wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

Mmm, still trying to understand why, on the Internet, the worst thing to do seems to be the statement 'I disagree.'  :-/ I didn't criticize your flying or anything else, I was just pointing out that 'wings that are not level will lose lift' isn't a valid statement in the above context. Shame on me, I guess.  :D I even offered some alternatives in case you did mean the one thing and wrote the other. As it happens among humans. Well, fly save and please take no offence from the explanations given.  :)

You're right, absolutely no reason to argue with you. You have valid points and contributed so much to the CS732. We all want the same thing, to share our passion with others and help as much as we can.
My apologies to you CoolIP.

marvic wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:13pm:

We all want the same thing, to share our passion with others and help as much as we can.

I absolutely agree and there's no need to apologize, Mark.

The written word is not good at portraying the way we mean to say them. That is unless you are a great writer (which I am certainly NOT).
That is why I spend a lot of time trying to respond without it sounding like I'm criticizing when I'm trying to point out something slightly different.

We shouldn't forget that (1) English isn't everyone's first language, and (2) even those who's first language IS English, don't always say things the same way!

                            ;D ;D ;D

And here's my course on understanding Australian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsBm2llFeKM
The best part is after 02:45 I think.  :o

Yep. We Aussies sure do talk funny.

G'day mate. 'ow ya goin'. Didyaaveagoodweegend?

I am well aware that banking a plane results in a certain loss of lift. However, the CS737 seems to exhibit this to an excessive degree. I don't see the same problem in the CS707 or other payware airliners that I have...

Just curious as if anyone has tested these with the C/F versions? would like to add the data card to the F.

Hopefully the flight dynamics will be updated in the next service pack; I still can't believe how much it took off like a rocket ship. I mean you would think a major problem like this would have been taken care of long ago. :-/

Hi, I have applied all the tweaks, but funny...
descending from 12,000 ft, throttles at idle, mean no power, full speedbrake to control rising speed, and  at vsi 1000 ft per minute which is not much, the plane maintains a steady 200 kts throughout the whole descent, 12 minutes...is that normal or realistic?
12 minutes with no power and full speedbrakes and still behaving like a glider? Even making turns...

maybe I missed some tweak...?

The tweaks work for me, and what an improvement! The flight models should be fixed in the next SP, I hope.

thegromble wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 10:02pm:

The tweaks work for me, and what an improvement! The flight models should be fixed in the next SP, I hope.

I hope so too but since its now over a year since Version 1.0, I'm not sure I'm too hopeful of ever seeing an update. :'(

There will most likely be an update eventually, but it's anybody's guess as to when exactly we'll see it. :(

According to Captain Sim 2: "All updates will be released when ready. Please stand by for updates." That statement was made on 4/8/13. Maybe the updates will be released within the next month or so?

Maybe. But I wonder if they are too busy with the latest 777 update, to be able to get the 737 update out any time soon. :-/

Markoz wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 7:35am:

Maybe. But I wonder if they are too busy with the latest 777 update, to be able to get the 737 update out any time soon. :-/

That is what I was thinking as well. At least the 737 is not advanced as the other aircraft CS models, which leads me to believe that most, if not all of the bugs, will be fixed in the next update. Hopefully after the next update is released, they will work on adding some of the features we requested on the wishlist such as the Sperry 177 AP and strobe and logo lights!

It's been a long time since I was here, but I wanted to clarify my comment regarding the loss of altitude when banking. Basically, you will lose lift when you bank, and the plane will start to descend. I have no problem with that. However, when the plane's nose drops, it will slowly start to pick up speed. This will increase the lift, and so the plane's nose should start to rise again. This (for example) works perfectly with the "other 737", so I would have assumed similar behaviour from the CS plane. By the way, I am talking about manual hand flying here.

Hopefully, version 1.1 will have flight model updates to correct this.

Christopher Low wrote on Jun 4^th, 2014 at 2:17pm:

It's been a long time since I was here, but I wanted to clarify my comment regarding the loss of altitude when banking. Basically, you will lose lift when you bank, and the plane will start to descend. I have no problem with that. However, when the plane's nose drops, it will slowly start to pick up speed. This will increase the lift, and so the plane's nose should start to rise again. This (for example) works perfectly with the "other 737", so I would have assumed similar behaviour from the CS plane. By the way, I am talking about manual hand flying here. Hopefully, version 1.1 will have flight model updates to correct this.

With all aircraft, when I manually fly them and make a turn, I have to physically pull back on the yoke to raise the nose or it will drop gain speed, but lose altitude. This applies to aircraft. I always thought that is normal for aerodynamics.

Hopefully the 1.1 update isn't too far off. :)

Has anybody been succesful at tweaking the 737-100?

Should I use the flight model mod from the 737-200?

Or should I just reduce the static_thrust to be slightly under the tweaked 737-200 and leave it at that?

Thanks

All I have done was to reduce the static_thrust:

static_thrust = 14500

Or you might want to try 16000.