Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

FMC B737

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th Jun 2001, 16:11
  #1 (permalink)  
aviatorpk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post FMC B737

which C.G should be put in performance page as cruse C.G. is not given on load sheet.
 
Old 12th Jun 2001, 21:00
  #2 (permalink)  
dv8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Manual L/S and a drop line will get you a crz CG.
or
Interpolate TO and LND CG.

Try various CG's and you will see only a minor difference to your ETA and FF.

--------------dv8
 
Old 12th Jun 2001, 22:07
  #3 (permalink)  
najib
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I would be more concerned about the adequacy of loading and stabiliser setting before worrying about what I should put in the FMC. Yes, it is correct that different CG inputs will yield only a minor change in your ETA, but you may get a nasty surprise at rotation ( either a tail strike or unable to get airborne at correct point/time while precious paved surface under you zips by).
 
Old 12th Jun 2001, 22:21
  #4 (permalink)  
Flanker
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool


The take-off MAC (from the loadsheet) minus four percent.I lerrn eet from ae boook!
 
Old 12th Jun 2001, 22:34
  #5 (permalink)  
Slick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

As far as I'm aware your consideration when changing the cruise C of G is that you will change maneuver margins, Opt and Max alts. This is graphicly displayed on a speed tape or MASI. Our FMC software on the -800 is U10.3, the default cruise C of G is 5%. I maybe totally wrong (Pls correct me) but believe/heard, that this was to be left alone. A possibility I guess as the CAA maneuver margins are fixed at 1.3G or if you prefer 39 degrees of bank.

Best Rgds

[This message has been edited by Slick (edited 12 June 2001).]
 
Old 12th Jun 2001, 23:36
  #6 (permalink)  
FlapsOne
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

najib.

Surely it is better to 'look through' the FD at rotation. I don't want to use it in anger until I'm happy it telling me sensible things - like don't stike the tail on take off!
 
Old 12th Jun 2001, 23:58
  #7 (permalink)  
NorthernSky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

We don't have an SOP as such to cover this, but my normal drill is to input loadsheet %MAC in raw form, and then once level in the cruise at econ speed, look down at the trim indicator and input the figure from there. It seems to work, though it's only of consequence at high levels when considering a further climb or pondering buffet margins in choppy skies etc.

------------------
'Brighten my Northern Sky' Nick Drake R.I.P.
 
Old 13th Jun 2001, 12:35
  #8 (permalink)  
Gominder
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

I never changed these default values. But if I would do it, than acc. to our hand made loadsheet.
For best loading I can recommend to you for a -400 (167 Pax version) as much as possible in Hold 3+4 and for a -800 (184 pax version) a standard load of 1/4 fwd and the rest in the rear hold.
 
Old 15th Jun 2001, 12:12
  #9 (permalink)  
Willie Eckerslike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

At our airline we use MAC at take-off from the loadsheet less 4 because 4% is the most that the MAC would move in flight due to fuel burn.

A higher MAC will allow a higher cruise level & greater speed range.
 
Old 16th Jun 2001, 07:21
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,799
Received 121 Likes on 58 Posts
Post

Operate with Update 5, then you don't have to worry about it at all!
Checkboard is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2001, 14:10
  #11 (permalink)  
NorthernSky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Sorry, Checkboard, I'm missing your point. Please expand....

------------------
'Brighten my Northern Sky' Nick Drake R.I.P.
 
Old 19th Jun 2001, 14:46
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,799
Received 121 Likes on 58 Posts
Post

The Boeing FMC programming at the Update 5 level doesn't have an input for %CG location.

I was having a private whinge at operating old technology aircraft and avionics (and flying for a company that can't see the point buying an upgrade). Bit like using Windows 3.1 when everyone else is using Windows 2000.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2001, 23:10
  #13 (permalink)  
Jambo Buana
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

FAA operators are not allowed to change the Crz CofG leaving the default value for flight. Pretty conservative and on occasion causes unnecessary concern over margins. CAA operators can use actual CofG's and therefore you should either work out what your CoG is or use takeoff CofG -5% which as mentioned earlier is the very most the CG will change in flight under the worst circumstances. As the CTR tank empties the CG moves AFT then FWD again as the Main tanks empty.
The picture on your Speed tape is more correct with the actual CG entered and thats what I care about when it comes to the crunch, or flying the A/C to the envelope limit should it ever be required.
 
Old 21st Jun 2001, 01:16
  #14 (permalink)  
NorthernSky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

Thanks, Checkboard.

I am pretty certain, though, that we have some U5.0 aircraft, and have never noticed an inability to input the %MAC. I'll check next time.

------------------
'Brighten my Northern Sky' Nick Drake R.I.P.
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.