FS9. FSX & P3D CTD Guide - NEW!
FSX / P3D Configuration Guide - UPDATED!
Simulation's Premier Resource!
AVSIM is a free service to the flight and simulation communities. Please help us keep it that way. Donate what you can today! Thank you for your support!
PSS 757 Review
9 replies to this topic
Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:02 PM
With the Pratt 4037's, the 757 is too slick to come down the glideslope with flaps 15 at 180KTS at idle. Flaps 20, or flaps 15 gear down does the trick.Once in my airline's landing configuration of flaps 25, 1.05 EPR is a good target setting for VREF flaps 25 +5 KTS.The other morning on a short flight at 26,000 feet I noticed one EPR was 1.0 and the other was .98 for a long while. While the 757 is very clean and efficient, we laughed at the fact that it had to be producing some thrust to be airborne, so obviously the EPR indications are not completely representative of the thrust being produced. After all you have thrust from the core and from the fan. There is probably some magic caluculations being done to massage the data before it is presented to us on the EICAS displays.The winglet equipped 757's are even slicker in the descent and IMHO a pain to get slowed down and configured. But, it sure is nice to look down and see lower fuel burns than an MD88 while going 30 to 40 knots faster with 40 more revenue passengers in the back.Prof - another bored 757/767 First Officer.
Please donate today!
Posted 13 January 2007 - 11:13 PM
EPR for a 737-200 (low bypass ratio JT8D engine) cannot be compared to EPR in a 757-200 (high bypass ratio turbofans). Takeoff EPR in a 737-200 can be in excess of 2.0, much higher than the takeoff EPR for a 757.EPR is a relative measure of thrust and not an absolute thrust unit.Kevin
Posted 30 December 2006 - 08:14 PM
Just flew the approach to home base tonight and at low weight (80,000kgs) I needed about 1.18 EPR with flap 30 gear down going down the slope. Normal EPR is about 1.20 - 1.22 s the weight gets higher. This was on a normal 3 degree slope! The B757 engines are huge and as a result need less power to keep a given airspeed, that combined with a far sleeker wing and the fact that the engines are high bypass means we get lower EPR. Bear in mind full power EPR on the RB211 is about 1.74 and we often use only 1.58 for take off (equates to +54C assumed temp)Hope that helpsKris Heslop
Inactive Member_Mr Chips_***
Posted 20 December 2006 - 09:22 AM
Yes, thanks for a very comprehensive review. I have one question, the 1.2 EPR on approach that was suggested as more realistic sounds far too low. I'm not sure what to expect, but normally one would expect to need much more thrust. My only direct experience is the 737-200 which requires around 1.5 to 1.6 EPR on approach as opposed to 1.3 clean straight and level 250kts. Could it be the case that the PSS 757 isn't too far off in this regard?
Posted 18 December 2006 - 12:37 PM
Thanks Joe. Appreciate your comments. When you compared the PSS product with LevelD, I just went "postal" and I apologize for any rude comments. :) I have the LDS767 and it's not up to MY standards, especially the 2d and virtual panel/cockpit. In addition to what I said earlier, I like the fact that you can change the fuel load on the PSS757/767 by simply going into the setup. It's like loading the aircraft with fuel while the pilot/FO prepare the aircraft for takeoff. Your review was well organized and presented well and shows you did a lot of hard work researching the aircraft. Thanks.Best regards,JimYoung
Posted 18 December 2006 - 03:03 AM
Hi Jim,Thanks for the feedback and taking the time to post your thoughts, much appreciated!As we know, the LDS 757 has not been released yet, so obviously we can't use that as a training sim :-) And before we received the product, I learnt from Kris that he did have the Captain Sim 757 - but considering the Block F with advanced systems has not been released yet I think it is not fair to compare the two addons in the sense that you refer to.Regarding frame rates. As always, these comments are based on the reviewers own personal experiences with the aircraft. I have had other detailed aircraft in my sim that perform better than the PSS 757, which is why I made those comments. My system has proved it can run highly detailed aircraft which is why I can honestly say the 757 is hard on frame rates throughout my experiences."That's okay to make a statement like that if you tell your readers exactly why you think PSS is not in the same league. It's not fair to your audience if you don't."The review summary clearly shows the aspects of the aircraft which were not up to other companies standards that I mentioned.Thanks again!
Posted 31 December 2006 - 08:20 AM
Enjoyed reading the review by Joseph Ellwood. Appeared to be "fair and balanced." It was nice to read comments from a real world 757 FO/pilot and he liked the package. He even plans on using it prior to his periodic sim training! He's not going to use LevelD's upcoming 757 or Captain Sim's 757, he's going to use the one from PSS! That says a lot. Comments concerning refresh rates and/or stuttering I found questionable and not revelant in your review as they definitely do not occur on my system (a Pentium 3.6 GHz system w/2gigs of DDR2 SDRAM). I can see why you may have had some stuttering or poor refresh rates based on the system used to test this product. A Pentium 2.66 GHz system w/only 512MB of RAM? Yikes! Why even complain in a product review about poor refresh rates with a system that slow? If you're going to mention stuttering or poor refresh rates in a review, you should state it could be as a result of my poor or substandard system the product was tested on or something like that. The CDU crashing occasionally has been fully explained in the PSS forum in several threads and I was able to fix my crashes (starting with the PSS 767's CDU) by following the recommendations of the experts who discovered the problem and offered a solution. You could have mentioned that the problem had been fixed or there's a fix for the problem but you didn't. Lastly, I am quite tired of individuals making comparisons of the PSS products with PMDG and LevelD products and now you make it in an official review. You state, " I think Phoenix still have a ways to go in creating a fully functional airline sim that can be considered in the same league as PMDG or LVL D". That's okay to make a statement like that if you tell your readers exactly why you think PSS is not in the same league. It's not fair to your audience if you don't. PSS doesn't have enough employees as LevelD or PMDG? They are on a tighter budget? Then state so! What's "fully functional"? Don't leave us readers wondering exactly what you meant by that weak and poorly written statement. Thank you Joe Ellwood for reading and your time. I look forward to reading any future product reviews. And Thank You Kris for your fair and honest comments! I greatly appreciated them and hope you transition soon to the Pilots seat.Best regards,JimYoung