• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About CS-TMT

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. TBH I don't see the need for this. Of course it brings extra realism, but it's just too much small details, like for example you didn't develop all variants on the A319/20: per standard the A319 has one emergency exit above each wing and the A320 has two of them per wing. Now there are airlines that have A319s with two exits above each wing (a la A320), like most low cost carriers, which have a high density seat configuration, just as opposed to some gulf airlines whose A320s only have one emergency exit per wing (a la A319) due to the extra seat pitch which translates in a capacity of only around 110 seats. I find it more important to have all three engine variants as well as both A333 and A332 rather than having all options regarding doors and antennas, but this is just me and I respect others' opitions
  2. Found out the issue was SESM. One thing I didn't notice is that this runway is quite short andat a certain altitude. Could it be that PFPX can't calculate propper values due to the shortness of the runway being it too short for an A319?
  3. Hello sirs. After trying a flight plan from SPZO (Cuzco, Peru) to SESM (Shell Mera-Rio Amazonas, Ecuador) with SELT (Cotopaxi) as alternate I came to a strange issue: no matter what airplane I choose, when pushing "compute flight" button PFPX always returns a message saying that the required fuel exceeds the aircraft's maximum fuel capacity (it is a ~900nm flight!), even with an Airbus or Boeing, just, as I said, regardless of what airplane I choose. Then, after choosing "no alternates" to see wheter the issue was the flight plan itself or the route to alternate, I found that the issue was with the alternate route. SESM and SELT are only 48nm apart from each other, so it's strange for me that the needed fuel exceeds maximum fuel capacity. Now, when trying to build a flight plan only between SESM and SELT, it gives me some weird values as well (but at least lets me compute the flight, though it takes around 2min to compute). Here is a screenshot. What's wrong with this flight plan?
  4. Thank you Emanuel. Indeed these CJ modifications are out of your business and intentions so it's perfectly natural that you didn't test it out of the "standard" and it's possible that the "theoretically" just remains theory. I'll try some flights "inside the flight envelope" and see if the issue remains, though for me it's kind of strange that on a flight of <3h (LPAR-LPHR mentioned above) the fuel used was 1100+ than planned while the route, speeds, FL/altitudes were just as planned, so as the weather, but nonetheless it was a modified airplane. I'll check it with a "standard" (unmodified) airplane. Once again, thank you all for your answers and help!
  5. You have some examples on the A330 as well. Qatar's A7-ACH, has now GE engines but when meant to be delivered to defunct portuguese Air Luxor (now Hi Fly) she had PW engines. Flew with them in pre-delivery flights with Air Luxor livery, but wasn't delivered. Search for MSN 441 in Airliners.net or Jetphotos. Another good example is TAP Portugal's CS-TOH MSN181 which happened to be the A330-200 prototype and thus when she was Airbus' property she was tested with all three engine types (RR, GE and finally PW) before going do Austrian Airlines with PW engines. These are two examples that come to mind. There are possibly others.
  6. Alright! All clarified now! Didn't know about that of the drag bias. Thanks a lot for your help and congrats for your wonderful job regarding these profiles!
  7. Hello again! Sorry for the late reply and once again thanks for your help. inlovewithBoeing That was my mistake and I didn't notice that. When I said that I usually have a discrepancy of around 2000kg, I wrote one more 0 than I should. Normally I land with about 150-300kg below or above the planned fuel at destination, which I consider it within acceptable values and as you said, it's always within contingency fuel limits. Regarding 2. after descending from FL390 to FL380 I had an imbalance of ~300kg between left and right engine (Aerosoft Airbus' known bug of one engine consuming +50kg/h than the other), so I used X-Feed to get things a bit more balanced. X-Feed is also known to consume some extra fuel in this Airbus pack. However I had X-Feed activated for only a couple of minutes (1 or 2 max). Now, after KOMUT, besides of descending from FL390 > 380 I should also maintain a constant speed of M.78 as I was entering oceanic airspace, as oposed to a speed calculated in accordance with CI35. So, in short, the only "event" after KOMUT was the use of X-Feed, as both the descent and speed adjustmen was included and calculated by PFPX. Regarding the highlited part, I don't know where to get that from I started the descent at the TOD calculated by the MCDU. Started descending only four miles before the MCDU's calculated TOD. To be honest, I didn't check the TOD calculated by PFPX and haven't noticed that discrepancy myself. I'll try that when I have some time and I'll let you know the results --------------------------------------------------------- Mklemme That was when I used X-Feed for 1-2min to balance fuel in the wings and it was also when I changed from a calculated CI35 to a constant M.78 to comply with the flight plan. Now, some things I noticed in the meantime: Yesterday I planned a flight between LPHR and SLLP, with a planned release fuel of 27347kg which should give me 12h43 of fuel as calculated by PFPX. (trip fuel was at 22598 with an endurance of 10h03). This time, PFPX calculated a 4,5t of fuel at SLLP. With those 27347kg, MCDU calculated an EFOB at SLLP of 5+t (I don't recall the exact value, but it was well over 5t). Nothing strange here IMO, as Aerosoft Airbus' MCDU doesn't take into account the wind conditions and, having some strong (50+KT) headwind for most of the flight, especially during ocean crossing, of course the actual EFOB would be different from the one calculated by the MCDU. Now, when reaching the calculated cruise altitude and mach speed I pulled the knob to maintain the constant M.78 calculated by PFPX during the oceanic part of the flight. As soon as I went from the "managed" speed to the "constant", the EFOB @ SLLP in the MCDU "jumped" from those 5+ tons to only 2.5t. I noticed that pushing the FCU button again to go into the calculated CI35 speed, the EFOB at SLLP jumped back again to 5+ tons. Well, the flight progressed at M.78 during the oceanic airspace, always decreasing the EFOB every once in a while. When exiting the oceanic airspace back into radar controlled airspace in South America I pushed back the airspeed button on the FCU to get back to the CI35 calculated mach speed. Once again, the EFOB @ SLLP jumped back up to a higher value. This time to only 4,5t as opposed by the initial 5+t. The flight continued on CI35 and the EFOB kept decreasing by 0,1t every once in a while. I ended up landing with about only 1,5t as opposed to the PFPX calculated 4,5t. One thing I noted during the whole flight: the fuel page on the lower ECAM showed a consumption of 39-43kg/min. Shouldn't this be 35kg/min according to a CI35? A 5kg/min discrepancy would give 5*60=300kg/h, which, on a 10h flight would give the 3000kg of difference between the PFPX calculated 4,5t and the actual 1,5t landing fuel. Side note: Before discovering your exhaustively detailed profiles for the A320-family, I used another profile which I downloaded here in the downloads page if I remember it well. However I had these discrepancies with it as well, so I believe this is not an issue with your profiles. I just came here trying to find a sollution to this. Haven't tried other models (A318, A320, A321) nor have I tried other engine types (IAE) so I don't know whether this is an issue particularly associated with the A319CFM or not.
  8. Who would be the kind person to paint an A319 in AIr Luxor paint scheme for this wonderful aircraft? Reg: CS-TQC https://www.planespotters.net/photo/189677/cs-tqc-air-luxor-airbus-a319-112
  9. inlovewithBoeing thanks for your kind and complete reply. Just to make things clear, I didn't intend to criticise your exhausting work on making such precise profiles, I posted this so that my doubts could be answered and "misteries" solved. Now, back in subject: That's exactly what [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56#CFM56-5B_series]this Wikipedia article[/url] says, but Aerosoft Airbus pack uses the 5B4 variant on the A319 (or at least it's what the MCDU says). Power is the same on the two variants, though 5B4 and 5B7 differ slightly on the pressure ratio. And the pack doesn't bring a CJ version, so any CJ flying with this Aerosoft pack is an "adapted" version of the standard passenger version if I'm not mistaken (which anyway doesn't use the 5B4 variant as per the Wikipedia article mentioned above). The source used in PFPX was its internal server yearly subscription, P3D weather was from ActiveSky Next with live (real time) weather. I know the two may differ slightly (usually on long 10+ flights with the PMDG 777 for example I ger a discrepancy of around 2000kg, wich I believe its perfecly natural) but 600kg on a < 3h flight... In the image of the route, the planned route is traced with a continuous green line and the actual route flown is traced with a red dotted line. As you can see, no deviations (only a small one after take-off enroute to BUSEN and the biggest difference that isn't clearly seen in the image is that I took off via LPAR04 instead of LPAR22 which translated into a slightly greater route (950nm planned, 954nm flown). One of the images shows the flight plan log with the fuel remaining at each waypoint as logged by FS Flight Keeper. I red the profile file and noted the "static_thrust" line which was already at 27000. In my aircraft on PFPX I only made some personal modifications (max fuel capacity 32800kg as I've seen in a document I have here downloaded from Airbus page a few years ago instead of the little lower capacity on your file, as well as altered the Aircraft.cfg with a little bigger empty weight to match some "personal furniture" (instead of the basic 39-so tons, it has an empty weight of 42-something tons of empty weight, which I also took into account when creating my personal aircraft on PFPX (instead of the ~39t, the empty weight on my PFPX aircraft database also says that the empty weight is ~42t). Could it be the case that PFPX isn't taking into account that extra 3t of the empty weight and so calculating the fuel consumption assuming that the aircraft has an empry weight lower than the actual one? As a final note, I also edited the Aerosoft's fuel planner to match my needs (fuel capacity, passenger capacity and such) and when creating the loadsheet to see the needed take-off trim for the given CG, the CG is always within the limits (33% for this case), so I doubt it is a weight and balance issue. Hope you have enough elements now to evaluate what could be wrong. Before using your profileI used another one (don't remember if a downloaded one or some standard PFPX one) and on two different occasions I ended up a 10 and 11h flight with less 3-4t of fuel than expected, though still within calculated reserve minimums.
  10. Hello sir! I installed your profile for the A319CJ with CFM56-5B7 sharklet version for use with Aerosoft Airbus which by the way uses 5B4 that your pack only has the A320 using that variant. Used your profile to plan a flight from LPPT to LPHR with a CI of 35. PFPX gave me an initial FL390 then when leaving LPPC to the oceanic part it gave me a descent to FL380 maintaining a constant M.78. Nothing wrong so far. PFPX planned a fuel at destination of 2,9t which was the value shown also in the MCDU (Airbus X doesn't take into account the wind though). After a fuel imbalance of ~300kg (known issue with Aerosoft Airbus CFM planes, nothing to do with your pack) I decided to use the X-feed to balance things again. the predicted fuel at destination reduced to about 2,5t, which also is a known issue with the aircraft addon, once again nothing to do with your PFPX profiles. Now, the fuel prediction just kept decreasing during the flight as well as the difference of fuel predicted by PFPX at each waypoint as well as the actual fuel (not only the predicted one) when crossing each point. In the end, I landed with only 1,9t of fuel remaining when PFPX predicted it to be 2,9t as said before, using your profiles. The true airspeed calculated by your profile was quite near to the actual one in fact, with only a 2-3kt max deviation from the predicted one and so was the predicted flight time, which only deviated 2 minutes from the calculated one (actual flight time 02h40 with 02h38 calculated by PFPX which is quite wonderful). So why did I land with 1t less than I should (I repeat, I used the X-Feed valve to correct an imbalance, for about 1min or so, which consumes some extra fuel, but from the 2,5t of predicted fuel at the end of using X-Feed the the final fuel left of 1,9t, what went wrong? In summary: 1 - Why there's not a profile for the A319 with CFM56-5B4, and 2 - Why did I land with ~600kg less fuel than predicted on a flight of only less than 3h? Thanks for any help or enlightening! Best regards from Portugal!
  11. Here is some more detail with the colours' pantonnes if someone needs it!
  12. TAP Portugal retro livery as finally the airline is getting a retro paint scheme, scheduled to arrive on April 8th.
  13. Thanks! Understood! I got comfused because some time ago I flew from SAWH to FHSH (Ushuaia to St. Helena) and PFPX calculated a route successfully despite being in the middle of the ocean and not having any airways in most of the route. Now I understand why there was that difference between the two routes/airport pairs.
  14. I'm having the same issue when trying to plan a flight from DATG (Algeria) to FHSH (Saint Helena). No matter what filters or options I select in the Advanced Route Finder, it doesn't find a route. I have to manually plan it. Using PFPX 1.28.8 with Airac 1613.
  15. Had this checked in all my aircraft (not many thankfully, so I didn't take much time to correct it )