Boeing 737-900ER and MAX 9 Now Released!

Please increase the default flying region 🥺

Ich möchte für meine Kleine Frage nix neues aufmachen.

Es ist nur eine Frage,vielleicht bekomme ich eine Antwort,wäre schön.

Wird es in Zukunft auch Abgasstreifen (Kondensstreifen) für die Airliner geben?

Hat man über das Thema bei IPACS schon mal gesprochen, oder gibt es schon Ideen es übers Jahr mit hinzuzufügen??

Danke im voraus!

Quote from FS-Flieger

Ich möchte für meine Kleine Frage nix neues aufmachen.

Es ist nur eine Frage,vielleicht bekomme ich eine Antwort,wäre schön.

Wird es in Zukunft auch Abgasstreifen (Kondensstreifen) für die Airliner geben?

Hat man über das Thema bei IPACS schon mal gesprochen, oder gibt es schon Ideen es übers Jahr mit hinzuzufügen??

Danke im voraus!

Display More

It may be, but it may not be, only IPACS knows, but I don't think you'll say anything about it beforehand

Quote from ThomK

It may be, but it may not be, only IPACS knows, but I don't think you'll say anything about it beforehand

Danke,und wir werden schauen..was da noch kommt übers Jahr.

Ich finde es würde einfach für mich noch mehr realismus ins Spiel bringen,so wie noch fällende Rollwegszeichen am Flughafen!!

Hi,

I can‘t get the APU started after a cold and dark setup.

BAT ON

External power on

Fuel pumps on

…. that should be the prerequisites to set the start switch, right?

The switch works, but nothing happens

I also cannot find an APU indications on the screens

pls. advice

Hold the APU switch to on position for 3 seconds and wait a little bit. The APU generator light will illuminate.

It also not necessary to on the fuel pumps, because in modern 737 NG and MAX the fuel feeding to the APU automatically starts when the APU switch on.

Hi everyone !

i finally had time to try the new 737MAX 9, and here are my feedbacks :

- Overall a very nice addition to the fleet (maybe now time to give Airbus a little bit more love ?)

- I have the same issue with the -900ER, the basic FOB value is way too high (very rare to see a 737 loading this much fuel on the average flights people do, i suggest to get the same value as the A320 (7.7T) since the fuel is frozen, so when using simbrief we can have a higher loaded plane without getting to land the aircraft with a 70T (which is way above MLW) and also enables us to cruise at higher altitude (especially since 737 pilots love to flex on A320 pilots that they can cruise higher to FL410 ).)

- When i compare the startup of a real 737MAX with the one we have in the sim, and although i love the fact that the BRM (Bowed Rotor Motoring) is modeled, i still find the startup of the engine to be too quick (average start time for a CFM LEAP-1B is 1m15s per engine). I don't know if you guys in the coding can make the startup last longer ?

- I also find the wheel well light to be excessively bright, same with the taxi/turnoff lights (i know they are LED lights, but i'm sure they aren't that bright, the current in sim brightness for the taxi/turnoff lights are similar than the landing lights).


I hope this feedback is constructive enough and can't wait to see the response of the dev team.

Quote from FlyingDylan

also enables us to cruise at higher altitude (especially since 737 pilots love to flex on A320 pilots that they can cruise higher to FL410 ).)

i dont know if youve tried it yet, and i wanted to find out from other users, but if you climb above any altitude further than FL340 and put either the 739 or 739 Max into the CRZ thrust detent that the airspeed will slowly bleed back? it's almost comparable to the 747 or even 77W when that gets above FL420, like the 737 is almost too heavy to sustain flight at those altitudes without losing airspeed?

this doesnt really affect the experience with the jumbo or the triple because you can fly those between kind of 36 and 40,000' (unless of course you try and take the jumbo to 45,000') but for both new 737s to be losing airspeed at 37,000' unless left in CLB or CLB 1 is kind of sad...

I think this will just be a question of when the developers are going implement a system that allows us to modify the fuel quantity, passengers, cargo weight as well as the center of gravity for all aircrafts. That would realistically allow us to fly at higher/lower altitudes without worrying that the plane might stall as currently the FOB/weight of every single plane is unmodifiable which is kinda restrictive in terms of flight levels for certain aircrafts.

Quote from Phil747

i dont know if youve tried it yet, and i wanted to find out from other users, but if you climb above any altitude further than FL340 and put either the 739 or 739 Max into the CRZ thrust detent that the airspeed will slowly bleed back? it's almost comparable to the 747 or even 77W when that gets above FL420, like the 737 is almost too heavy to sustain flight at those altitudes without losing airspeed?

this doesnt really affect the experience with the jumbo or the triple because you can fly those between kind of 36 and 40,000' (unless of course you try and take the jumbo to 45,000') but for both new 737s to be losing airspeed at 37,000' unless left in CLB or CLB 1 is kind of sad...

Quote from Phil747

i dont know if youve tried it yet, and i wanted to find out from other users, but if you climb above any altitude further than FL340 and put either the 739 or 739 Max into the CRZ thrust detent that the airspeed will slowly bleed back? it's almost comparable to the 747 or even 77W when that gets above FL420, like the 737 is almost too heavy to sustain flight at those altitudes without losing airspeed?

this doesnt really affect the experience with the jumbo or the triple because you can fly those between kind of 36 and 40,000' (unless of course you try and take the jumbo to 45,000') but for both new 737s to be losing airspeed at 37,000' unless left in CLB or CLB 1 is kind of sad...

That's why fuel consumption should be modelled. We could climb quickly if lightly loaded or plan for step-climbs on longer flights.

Quote from Jozilion

At last , we can now rest for all those players bothering us with max all the time. Very soon they will be tired of it and start wanting another plane. Please can we now focus on the most thing within is ATC and Multiplayer?

Hwo the hell needs multiplayer?!? ATC and Real weather is the goal!

Hi Jet-Pack (IPACS)

I was wondering, why on the A320 you guys froze the value a 7.7T yet on the 737 family you froze the value at 15.4 ? like i said in my feedback, i just don't see the logic behind so much fuel in the tanks whereas the real counterpart on the majority of its flights isn't taking that much uplift ?

Report with regard to time-skipping:

Time skipping can lower the altitude, putting the plane back in climb mode,
when used shortly after reaching CRZ ALT.

Example: I reach CRZ ALT of 20.000 ft and shortly after engage time skipping.
Now I'm back at 18.000 ft, climbing.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Because the fuel is not simulated the fuel values are still arbitrary.

If this is ever implemented, can you make sure there's a setting in the settings menu to allow for arbitrary fuel again for those of us who may not want to deal with the fuel aspects? That would be a great thing to have so that we can still enjoy as we do now as far as fuel goes. Thanks for all you do! I never cease to be amazed by Aerofly especially on Android! Works great on my S24 Ultra on max settings!