Anyone made 737 max follow the LNAV and VNAV?

Exactly!! The 787 FMC is very user friendly and intuitive. The 737 FMC is archaic and feels like it is from the 60s. Very frustrating but once you learn it, you love it.

Another reason I went back to 787 is many fewer clicks to get going.

Fix discontinuities and set FL on VNAV and you are good to go… oh and set altitude in AP.

My challenge now is to optimize FPS and TLOD… that is kinda fun when the system works… I am flying the 787 between San Jose and San Francisco on the ILS and optimizing the FPS on landing.

I can do cycles rapidly to try various settings when it is quick to use the AP.

1 Like

I created a video to show how to set up the LNAV component of the 737. The EFP setup is around 2:20 and the flight LNAV capture is around 8:15.

1 Like

Hi,

Nice work. I looked at the video and this does get you off the ground for LNAV.

On the VNAV it is more complicated as you flight plan needs to have the altitudes and speeds in it for relevant waypoints. The MS flightplanner I found does this for many routes. But you need to set the cruise altitude… it defaults to FL350 (35,000’). You will then see on the screen the T/C and T/D show up… top of climb and top of descent.

In the autopilot flight computer for VNAV also need to make sure that that altitude is in there… and if you are using another altitude you have to change it.

On descent you need to put in (dial in on the dashboard) the the first altitude on your approach then VNAV takes over at the T/D point and drops you down correctly. When you hit the IAF (Initial Approach Fix) you switch over to the ILS. often you can switch to the LOC before but the GS you need to be almost on the LOC to use it… this is very realistic. Then the AP will take you right to an AUTOLAND if it is CAT3.

Anyway, I tested this in the 737 and it does work but it is harder than in the 787. A good flight to test this on is from LAX to SFO and you can go direct from LAX to the approach at 28R at FL350. There is just enough distance to get T/C and T/D. You can got from Reno to SFO at 17,000… shorter flight.

Anyway, the guys at MSFS should get some credit for this because it is actually very accurate. I have a Commercial License with IFR rating.

I have flown the ILS to SFO many times to hone my FPS and graphics systems so I know this works well. You can take off from San Jose and repeat this very quickly as a CAT 3 and you will get exactly the same flight to test your graphics (TLOD etc). Fly at 3000’.

Feel free to ask questions. I used to do research in aviation and had a flight deck clearance from the FAA prior to 9/11 so I know the cockpit at the time primarily in 767, 747 and 737. For real I used to fly the C-182 and C-210 which were a handful in IMC… retired when I turned 60! when the G1000 came out… passed my instrument competency test and said that was it at my age! The G1000 was quite a shock when you were trained on analogue gauges…

3 Likes

Good job Gringo!! I kept wanting to click your communication window closed!!!

1 Like

So you don’t fly IRL anymore?

Nope, no more flying IRL. You see my gamer tag (68y/o) that was in 2017 when I started playing COD WWII… now I am 75.

The research we did had to do among other things with aging effects on pilots and it became pretty clear to me that single pilot IFR in the older age-range was not a good idea for longevity. I found the G1000 worse than flying by hand.

This link has a good deal about the research including videos of our now vintage flight simulator and ways to contact me via email if you have questions.

https://web.stanford.edu/~yesavage/AIR.html

Cheers,

JY

1 Like

Plus if you don’t own your own plane, flying is expensive. In Vancouver, Canada a wet rental is about $300 an hour. So to fly 10 hours a month in the summer is pricey.

We had a Frasca 141 which was a certified training simulator so you could log IFR approaches in it. Yes, very pricey nowadays… the price of a 172 is astronomical… even with all its faults MSFS 2024 starts looking good…

One advantage of a simulator is that you can fly an approach, reset and fly it again without having to fool around. But the actual aircraft was always easier to fly than the simulator…

We did not have motion in the simulator… that doubles the price… it cost $150k circa 1985… purchased with NIH money in one of the war on drugs to test the effects of marijuana… hangover effects…

1 Like

I have flown real planes. Cessnas, mostly 172s and 185s. They are way easier to fly. I have also flown the full motion training simulators used by the airlines for the 727, 767 and the 787. The real simiulators are easier than MSFS 2024 and harder than the real jet. I could land them no problem.

My airline pilotm friends tell me that they always look bad on their simulator check rides.

1 Like