Boeing 737 MAX 9 Now Released!

    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!:)

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

    • Official Post

    The APU switch has three positions: OFF, ON and START. Move the switch forward to the start position, hold if for 3 seconds then release and it springs back to ON. In Aerofly you don't really need to actually hold it 3 seconds, I made it more user friendly than that. Just make sure you move the switch all the way forward, then release.

    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 :D).)


    - 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.

    Kind Regards,

    Dylan

    • Official Post

    Thanks for the feedback!

    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 :D).)

    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.

    Kind regards and safe flying.

    -Thekingbuji333

    • Official Post
    Quote from FlyingDylan

    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 ?

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

    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!

    - Idrive66

    Even if fuel consumption isn't featured yet, it would still be totally worth it to let us adjust both fuel and payload already
    within reasonable limits. Otherwise flying the same plane quickly feels repetitive due to the lack of weather.
    This would have no disadvantage for those who don't bother as they wouldn't need to change the settings.
    So: Big improvement, relatively small effort compared to other features like ATC or weather.
    And even after implementing fuel consumption, which I think should be the next thing anyway, there could be a checkbox "infinit fuel".

    Edited 3 times, last by Mr_Smith (February 26, 2024 at 4:54 PM).

    • Official Post
    Quote from Mr_Smith

    Even if fuel consumption isn't featured yet, it would still be totally worth it to let us adjust both fuel and payload already
    within reasonable limits. Otherwise flying the same plane quickly feels repetitive due to the lack of weather.
    This would have no disadvantage for those who don't bother as they wouldn't need to change the settings.
    So: Big improvement, relatively small effort compared to other features like ATC or weather.
    And even after implementing fuel consumption, which I think should be the next thing anyway, there could be a checkbox "infinit fuel".

    That's pointless. If we take time write a menu to allow you to change the weights of all payloads and fuel we may as well do the last 20% of the work to make the weight of fuel decrease over time.