Perfect!
This is exactly what we needed to be confirmed 
many thnx for information. I can also confirm that this VNAV path copy is functional without problems.
Guys - I am flying with “A Pilots Life 2” and there it punishes you if you climb more then 20 degrees.
Now, When I create a Simbrief Profile, I often get Cost Indexes that make the plane climb quite steep.
How can I “manipulate” the OFP so that the plane will climb more shallow - like 12 - 15 degrees?
Thanks!
Can’t you use a reduced thrust setting for the climb? That’s independent of cost index.
You mean in the FMC? Like CLB/CLB-1/CLB-2? Or TO/TO-1/TO-2? Sorry - not sure how to do as you said
I heard that if your CI is low (i.e. 5 etc.) it will also make the climb more shallow?
Maybe that was wrong though.
Quite opposite. Lower CI = lower speed and higher climb rate. And as @BarbedClient514 said you should use derated take-off’s. Performance calculator in the EFB can calculate that for you.
1 Like
I see! Thanks - will try to find out about that
In relation to this, how does one determine when to use CLB / CLB-1 / CLB-2. If CI drives the climb rate then when and how do you determine when to use CLB derates and how do they affect or how are they affected by the CI figure?
You certainly get no output from the take off calculator to determine CLB setting. I’ve always been confused when to change these CLB modes. Even on the 737.
As I understand it, climb derates - and to at least some extent, takeoff derates - are a matter of company/operator policy. In the sim, do what you want.
1 Like
I can understand how that can be the case, but what does CLB, CLB-1, CLB-2 actually do if CI actually dictates the climb rate already. Or does CI get overriden by choosing the different CLB derates? I’m just really confused by it.
I understand it as CI determines speed/climb rate (for climb phase), speed (cruise), speed/descend rate (descent phase) with the fuel consumption as the main factor while derated take-off’s and climbs limit engine max thrust rate to limit the wear (and passenger comfort too).
2 Likes
Not directly related to CI, but this is a paper I found from Rolls Royce; as such, the details relate to the RR Trent powered 777-200 models. but the analysis and details should be generally analogous to the GE-90s and the -300ER.
Well worth reading to get a basic idea of why climb derates are used.
3 Likes
It’s not very intuitive to fly a RNAV approach with the 777, is this method you described a regular basis that the real pilots follow with the 777, because it seems to me a not very precision approach, especially with low visibility. Maybe the real pilots prefer ILS instead of RNAV in most cases?
RNAV is by definition a non-precision approach.
2 Likes
OK - so I tested a take off with TO-2 and CLB-2 . The CI given by Simbrief was 17.
With these settings it kinda climbed a bit less steeper - but it did cross the 20 degree limit still. Not sure what else I could do to make it climb less.
Oth it’s a bit stupid of APL2 to punish for +20 climb - as it seems that this is not uncommon after all?
Edit: I tested now with a heavier plane - loaded for longdistance et al. And in this case I can clearly see the difference with TO-2/CL-2! So - that’s the solution I guess
Very interesting thank you for sharing.
Your only other option is to climb at a faster IAS or use V/S and set the climb rate accordingly. That’s what business jets sometimes do to have a more pleasant ride in the back. And yes, climbing in V/S invokes strong feelings in some people but if you pay attention it’s perfectly fine and safe.
1 Like
Yes, I know, RNAV it’s a highly NON precision approach, and I find the 777 rnav approach not so intuitive (B737 and A320 are much more easier and precise), for this reason I ask you what type of approach the 777 pilots are using in the real world in most cases. My first option would be an ILS approach (no autoland, in good visibility condition).
The rnav landing is a very different and weird feeling considering there is no “button” to push to engage it … Especially when used to the airbus or 737 but…
This where we need to adapt and learn to use/understand how the real plane operates and I certainly hope pmdg don’t add ficticious functions to cater for those who are “used to the A320/737/787 way”
but there are two reasons for RNP…
One is cost/practicality vs installing and maintaining ils system
The other is…
Efficiency, back ups and cutting corners…
If you look at many of the RNP/Rnav approaches, you will find that they have short sweeping approaches that cut out your 12-15nm approaches and during busy times and spacing aircraft, you can slot a couple of aircraft especially prop planes onto a quick RNP approach in between ones on ILs approach…
It’s now basically in place at many airports as a alternative to ils for if the ils are ever faulty or out of operation/maintenance…
I guess it’s really down to ATC and how busy it is and ultimately down to pilots and what they want to do…
Some pilots want to mix it up and refresh their skills on the rnav, cutting out time if behind on schedule and ultimate down to using the ILS if there is a high workload situation
The big question for anyone reading this message…
What now for you guys…
I’m absolutely loving the 773er, what a amazing plane and just the sim rate alone and doing these nice long haul flights in a high fedality aircraft, we’ve all been craving for and all…
What about the 772er…??? Will this still be relativity similar price…??
For pure nostalgia, Air nz, I will definitely be getting the 772er, and especially considering they are far more numerous than the respective 737-7, especially regarding the variation of current 772er operators…
I guess they have a practicality in certain situations that the long 773ers don’t have… Especially being shorter and better served on the more shorter routes…
How many of you guys are wanting the 772er or especially the 77LR???
I know the 77F will be going like hot pancakes considering the amount of 77Fs out there…
Also…
Would there ever be a demand or for pmdg to make and sell the 777-200 and the 777-300 as a cheap lead in like they did for the 736??
That would absolutely complete the family maybe that 777 BBJ equivalent that currently is on the market but not sure if anyone here is into BBJ heavy flying…
OK, so finally getting round to trying out this beauty. So far it’s pretty awesome. Took a bit of time with AAO to get my hardware up and running, but all good now - although I still haven’t figurted out the parking brake properly. Need to get into that tomorrow - even on simple setting doesn’t seem to quite work for me. I don’t have toe brakes on my rudder pedals, so maybe that’s the issue.
Anyway, been practicing landings with FSiPanel, which works pretty well - occasionaly the set up is a bit wonky, but 9 times out of 10, all good. It’s an expensive tool, but for learning an aircraft, it’s invaluable, and they’ve added the 777 already.
Anway, have to say that this thing is amazing and worth every penny so far
5 Likes