Still looking for the Aerofly FS2 B737 basic specs

This is intended for Jan, but, any contribution or discussion would be greatly appreciated.

I have a renewed interest in exactly which B737 is included in our default airplane inventory. The only thing I think I know is that it is intended to be a Boeing model 735, usually referred to as a 737-500. I also think I know this is commonly called a "classic" which narrows it down to the 737-300, 400, and 500 group. The earlier ones are called Originals and the later ones NGs for New Generation.

My online research says the -500 was built for short haul routes for those airlines that were already using the B737, usually the -200 or -300 model. The 500 model was the smallest of the classics and the last member of that family A total of 389 were built and most have been retired. Probably all are retired from standard airline service. This is due to the newer purpose built commuter aircraft like the Q400, A318 family, or one of the Embraer direct competitors.

The -500 is easily recognized by the stubby and fat fuselage, large low slung engines forward of the wings with the flat bottom nacelle. I think this might make a nice 'private jet' ie, Boeing Private Jet with one of GACSavannah's special repaints, once IPACS gets around to releasing the paint kit. This is not a problem as we have a large number of default repaints to choose for our sim flying until then.

This renewed interest was generated by a post of a new AFS2 user asking if we had any flight tutorials. I answered that we did indeed and many were really good ones. But, the B737 is not among that group. I posted a "Familiarization flight pdf last February" but it was only intended as something to plug the hole as we waited for a real tutorial. That was 16 months ago - my how time flies when you are having fun.

I decided that it would be a good idea to update and clean up this intro for those that are still seeking some sort of flight tutorial. The first thing that popped up was the lack of a firm spec for the plane. I looked back at some of the posts and recalled that I quit asking when it was obvious there were no easy answers.

Notwithstanding the outstanding contributions of Jan, but I still do not know the specs for this airplane. While, I do already have a Masters Degree in Engineering from many, many years ago, and others are still seeking the same, that is not important to me. What I fail to accept is that the SI unit is the aviation standard of the world, just because it was chosen by IPACS for Aerofly FS2.

The standard is Length, Width, Height, Weight, and Thrust among others. These can be in feet or meters as long as they can be converted. Mass does not replace Weight in the context of MTOW, as this is a worldwide standard. Thrust may be a little different but, should be able to be converted to something related to pounds. See blue chart below. Fuel volume should be US Gallons for clarity and can be converted to metric as needed.

So to be crystal clear, as they say, could someone select one of the five specs from the bottom row as the "closest" or "intended" spec used by IPACS for the -500. I am fully aware that an upgrade or improved model could appear an any time, or never appear in our steam downloads.

To answer Jan's question of why is it even important to know little things like specific specs of an aircraft, how about a simple "why not"?

Assuming no one at IPACS is working on a flight tutorial for the 737-500, and provided I can narrow down the specs, I will update the 16 month old familiarization flight pdf and make it available at the Higgy site for downloads.

Regards,

Ray

Can sometime help me understand the following SI units used in the tmc files. I would like to see the numbers expressed as knots/hour for speed, and either stature miles or NM for distance, and feet for distance, and feet for width or wing span for the 737. It would be great if IPACS would use the // and tell us these simple things like they did for the cruise altitude line.

I think Jan told me once what the Q signifies but, I have forgotten. Anyone know what QSpan, QMass, QSpeed, QThrust and QRange relate to and how to express them in U.S. numbers?

Regards,

Ray

I found some of the answers in my archives. I now see why the specs are confusing and don't exactly match up with any existing models.

Regards,

Ray

Quote from drhotwing1

I'm a bit confused at to what point you are trying to make with this thread?

Hello Jeff,

We don't have a flight tutorial for the 737-500 and a new user was asking about one over the weekend. I uploaded a rough familiarization flight 16 months ago but, nothing else has been added since. I would like to update and clean up that intro but there is so much missing or erroneous spec data (or I just don't understand it) that it is tough to proceed.

I am trying to determine the specs of the AFS2 737-500 so I can make some speed and performance charts. I understand the fuel system is missing so the practical distance is unlimited as all the other planes, but flights can be calculated within reason if we know a little more about the performance, speeds, range, etc.

The problem is that I haven't been able to relate the tmc SI data to something that I understand. If I knew the cruise speeds and range I could get by for now. Nothing that should take the developers away from their work, for sure. I am familiar with the general 737 specs and speeds at the wiki site, but this is suppose to be a specific model, 737-500.

Simple answers would be small engines or big engines, typical range, climb speeds to altitude, economy cruise speeds and range, typical cruise speeds and range. Descent speeds. I realize this is a flight sim but, it would be nice to have a little more data to fall back on to make the flight somewhat immersive.

Regards,

Ray

Thanks Jan. This is what I was looking for. Sorry to take you away from your work. I am not complaining about IPACS using SI units and having a more efficient loading and flying sim, I am just trying to get them into a unit that I understand.

I will never understand your comment that weight in pounds is useless and can not be converted, yet weight in KG can be converted and is useful. We just went to different schools. There is a great big world out there that still uses MTOW for airplanes and it works for them and for me. Not that it is important to this conversation, just saying.

Thanks again.

Regards,

Ray

Jeff and Jan,

How about this suggestion for a plan until variable weights (mass) and fuel are added. Someone at IPACS update the 737-500 data charts at the wiki site and remove any options that the users do not have enough information to relate to.

For instance. Pick one of the 3 columns for Weight (Mass) for the Landing Flap Speed Schedule and delete the other two or maybe just highlight the one column that should be used. The range is now 20 kts for any given setting.

For Take Off Speeds, pick one of the weights (mass) lines and tell us which one to use. There is a lot of difference between 104 kts and 147 kts for VR to some pilots.

For Landing Speeds, pick one of the weights (mass) lines and tell us which one to use. Same here, 107 knots or 140 knots for over the fence speed?

I can narrow down most of the other speeds to use but the 3 above would be considered critical knowledge to me.

Regards,

Ray

Quote from Jet-Pack

Just saying that weight is a force measured in newtons or pound force and mass is measured in kilogram or pound. And that weight depends on which planet you are on and where on the planet you are at (e.g. north pole and equator you measure different weight for the exact same aircraft) and also depends on the attitude relative to the ground which is a vector pointing towards the center of the earth (roughly) but mass remains constant and is just a scalar value, not dependent on where you are. In space you couldn't even measure the weight of the fuel on board because you are in micro g-s and any scale would show zero and then your scale would also float around like the rest in your spaceship. But you could estimate the mass by measuring the volume and measuring the density (e.g. by measuring temperature and pressure) of that fluid... and then also the thrust of your engines don't depend on that weight which is neglitable, it depends on the mass of particles that you push out of your engines.... So yeah weight is pretty much useless in a physics engine, regardless of the unit you measure it in Mass on the other hand is pretty useful

In you're everyday life mass and weight are interchangable. And even in normal commuter category aviation mass and weight are used as if they were the same.

Good info, but I seldom fly a 737 over the North Pole or in orbit around Jupiter or even to the moon and back, but I did work on the Manned Landing on the Moon and return and understood enough at the time to help get it done.

The older I get, the simpler I like things. Simple as that. I already have a pocket full of licenses and ratings and a log book with a lifetime of logged hours so I am just trying to enjoy what is available, dream about what I didn't do or see and try to share some of my knowledge with the up and coming guys and girls.

Regards,

Ray

Hey Gang,

Here is where I am having difficulty balancing the information available and the goal of somewhat practical flying. We all agree the airplanes in AFS2 have a fixed weight (mass) and this is not going to change one iota during the flight, either long or short, high or low.

Now here is the rub - all, yes all, performance charts assume a heavier weight (mass) at takeoff than when landing. Actually, the big ones require you either burn off a good amount of fuel or dump fuel to reduce landing weight should you have to return to the airport. There could be a ton of difference in the max takeoff weigh and the max landing weight. A lot of early Learjets broke a lot of wings until they got it right.

So now, if we use a higher gross weight to determine our takeoff speeds and climbs how do we use the lower gross weight to determine our arrival approach speeds and flaps configuration.

The answer is we can't, so do we use a middle of the road chart for both? Whichever we choose, High, Low, Middle it has to be the same for takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing so we need to consider all these phases of flight when choosing.

We can't just pick and number and run with it. There is still a feel of sorts when flying these birds in the flight sim. We can experiment with neutral trim settings, wind - no wind, various flap setting, etc. and see the airspeed when the plane flies off the runway on its own accord.

And we can do something similar for landing to see when the controls feels mushy or it falls out of the sky. Too fast and it bounces off the runway, too slow and we crash, etc. somewhere in the middle must be right.

Climbs are easier, because they are factors of v2 + some speed and we know the best angle and best rate speeds. Descents require a little more thought but it comes down to time and distance to a point at an altitude with a comfortable angle for the passengers.

Any comments?

Regards,

Ray

Quote from Jet-Pack

Right now all aircraft have or should have a weight set between the maximum landing weight and empty operating weight.

So for the 747 you're way overpowered compared to a typical takeoff weight but at least you can turn back and land without smashing the landing gear.

Descent profiles are not far of from the original because the landing weights are in normal range. And you don't use that much fuel for the descent and approach so that difference isn't as noticeable.

Consider all aircraft set up for a short haul medium capacity flight. All with lots of room for maximum takeoff mass but realistic for landing or shorter flights which are common in aerofly. I've yet flown around the globe in Aerofly, even tough you could technically fly from KJFK to LSZH. But who has time for that or enjoys watching the autopilot do its thing for 8 hours straight

Thanks Jan, This is good and useful information. Could you have a look at the 3 charts - Takeoff, Flaps, Landing - I posted above found at the wiki for the -500 and choose a recommended starting point for using each of the charts? This is simply a weight (mass) determination.

Regards,

Ray

J van E,

I think that was what kept me from writing the review of the updated Concorde. Any flight was going to be very loooonnnggggg.

Regards,

Ray

Quote from drhotwing1

Until i finish my updates on the wiki i'm going to keep all charts as they are.

Thanks. OK, I understand.

Of course, all the 737 charts are basically useless without knowing which 1/3 of the numbers are generally correct, and which ones are not to be used.

I just wish there was some method for users to know which weight line or column applies to the AFS2 model, but, heck, it has been like that for the last 1 1/2 years so waiting for an update for another year or so shouldn't make much difference.

Regards,

Ray