Yes. They're like a rocket ships!

I have changed (decreased) the static_thrust settings for all of the 737's. These:

737-100 - 14500
737-200 - 16000
737-200C - 16000
737-200F - 16000
737-200 ADV - 17400

Even with those settings, they still feel overpowered, but not as much as they are with the original settings.

boeing247 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 2:24am:

The FDE needs to be done properly. There are some user tweeks but the plane needs CS to finish it and fix the bugs. I thought it would have been done by now. No such luck. I haven't given up on CS, just want the plane finished.

I am noticing the "zippy-ness" but it doesn't bother me too much. I will give the new thrust values a shot.

Two threads sum up the current FDE variants. Happy testing.  
1) Bud's mod. http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1339198966
2) Ryan's mod. http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1354222724
Additionally, check Paul's work on the Vref gauge and callouts. http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1353062742

I guess you have a point. From reading, the 0.9 values were fine and the 1.0 ones then incorporated the high power FDE. I don't know about the reason behind it though. Maybe some of the testers can tell. Same as you, I'd wish for a refined FDE in 1.1, getting rid of the 'need' for user mods.

Markoz up your fuel fiow upto .510 as the JT8D likes its fuel alot
There is a reason the NGX can get a lot more miles out of only 13,000 more fuel lol

If your running the -100 the thrust should be fairly low around 12000-14000lbs IIRC I'll look it up to be sure

Markoz wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 1:59am:

The values in the above quote are the settings for the 737-200ADV.

For the 737-100 this is what I use:

[TurbineEngineData]
fuel_flow_gain = 0.002                          //Gain on fuel flow
inlet_area = 9.6                               //Square Feet, engine nacelle inlet area //19.6
rated_N2_rpm = 29920                            //RPM, second stage compressor rated value
static_thrust = 14500                        //16000      23000
afterburner_available = 0                       //Afterburner available?
reverser_available = 1                          //Thrust reverser available?
ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.385             //Thrust specific fuel consumption (Jets)
AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0      //TSFC with afterburn/reheat engaged

So the poor 737-100 has trouble climbing higher than 32,000 but can get to 35,000 feet (it's service ceiling). I wouldn't want to try to get higher than that, it might not get there.

If I fly it at a maximum speed of about M0.78 (~465 - 480 knots GS), it would be hard pressed to exceed the maximum range of 1540nm. It consumed about 40-45% of the maximum fuel in 600nm (I do know that an awful lot of fuel was consumed in the takeoff and climbing phase), but I still wouldn't push for much more than 1200nm flight just be sure I won't run out o fuel, especially if I'm encountering strong head winds.

Markoz wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 6:31pm:


Does changing the inlet area affect anything with FSXpaul's v-one gauge?

Ok sounds good.

You would have thought that something as simple as "the aircraft is way overpowered" would have been picked up during beta testing a long time ago...

boeing247 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2012 at 7:41pm:


I'm curious, do you normally fly short flights (light fuel load)? When I was doing FDE modifications I noticed fuel load makes a huge difference in power requirements and fuel burn. With a light fuel load (empty center tank) I can climb at 3000 fpm or more all the way up to about FL180.

I just flew a 4+ hour flight (about 1700nm) in the 737-200, so I started with full tanks. Although the initial climb to 10000 feet was done at about 4000 fpm, using full power, by the time I reached FL310, I was struggling to maintain 1000 fpm with an airspeed of about 240 KIAS or less. That was using the settings I mentioned above (regarding the inlet_area = 9.6 and the static_thrust = 17400). I wouldn't call it overpowered any more. Certainly not like it is when using inlet_area = 19.6 and the static_thrust = 25000. So I'm pretty happy with the performance now. It may not be exactly right, but it isn't too bad.

10 years later...  Try this:

rated_N2_rpm=12250

You will definitely no longer see rocket ship performance.  I loaded up to max TOW in ABQ in 20 degree C and it was a real struggle to get through the flap retraction.  Keeping thrust at mac continuous, the best she could do at 270 knots was 2K.  Bu the time I got to 2000, 1K was about it.

For the first time ever, my jet is actually UNDER powered.

I got the number here:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT8D

Nice bit of info there, but I got the following engine thrust rating figures for the

737-100 @14,000 lb (62 kN)

737-200 @14,500–16,400 lb (64–73 kN)

from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Specifications

I assume that the higher thrust rating is for the 737-200ADV.

Also, a search on google for the thrust rating of the 737-100 (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=b737-100+thrust+rating) came up with this:

How much thrust does a 737 engine have?

The engine chosen was the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-1 low-bypass ratio turbofan engine, delivering 14,500 lb (64 kN) thrust.

So that's 2,250 lb above your suggestion. If you're talking 737-200, then the difference is 5,150 lb (I found that 17,400 lb was the thrust rating for it (google search)), although that could be the 737-200ADV, and perhaps 16,400 lb is more relevant to the 737-200 (a difference of 4,150 lb above your suggestion).