iforrage

Members
  • Content count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About iforrage

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  • Birthday 10/01/75

Recent Profile Visitors

764 profile views
  1. Hello, For me, this update caused the program to ignore my manual payload input, and calculated the ZFW as the EW. Only when I used # of pax, and baggage and cargo entries, did it calculate the correct ZFW. I did not have an issue prior to this hotfix. I have reverted back to original v1.28 with no hotfixes and all is well. Thought someone should know this.
  2. So, a bit of a new development. I flew a flight in the A320 with CFM engines the other day, and I only changed one thing. I did NOT use the fuel crossfeed, and my fuel calculations and consumption were spot on. Now, this was a check ride for a VA, so there was no weather, but I wanted to mention it so it could be looked at. I will try to do another flight soon under normal conditions, so I can keep a log, and see if this is still the case.
  3. Same here. Usually print to Primo PDF, but it also shows up when I print to my printers.
  4. Well, I can now confirm that this is only an issue with the CFM engines. I reproduced the above flight with the IAE model A321, and the results were pretty much spot on. If there is a difference in fuel consumption between the IAE and CFM, I think the AS fuel planner should be programmed to handle both separately. Although, using PFPX with the proper profiles should have gotten me pretty close, so I still assume the real problem to be with the CFM model itself. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the biggest discrepancy is on the climb out, whereas the CFM model ate through about 3500kg, the IAE only used about 1500kg. I still kept losing through the cruise with the CFM, but not as aggressively. I actually used less than planned for cruise with the IAE. Don't know what the issue could be, but I sure hope someone figures it out! Thanks for listening. Anyways, I added extra fuel to PFPX to make sure I didn't go dry in flight, so I landed with a pretty good amount, but the OFP still shows the numbers to be just about right on. Also the AS Fuel planner seems to be spot on with the calculations for the IAE model, as well, although, again, I added to make sure I didn't run out. AA1772 AAL1772 KMCO-KCLT (20 May 2016) #1_COMPLETE.pdf
  5. That's great news, Frank! Thanks for all your help thus far. Any chance, in the meantime, I can be directed to a copy of the installer for 1.30? Like I said, this wasn't an issue pre v1.31, and I have PIREPs to prove it! TIA.
  6. I guess you're right. Although I've had this issue with all of them, changing this to the correct values didn't work. Haha on the disappearing. I just find it unenjoyable to keep flying this thing with this issue. Just tried another one now and same results. Should have landed with ~3800 kg, instead I had 600kg remaining. Seems to me the issue is the climb, that's where I'm losing most of it. Of course, I didn't have this issue with V1.30 and of course, I deleted that installer when I downloaded 1.31.... ugh. MCO_CLT011.pdf
  7. Thanks for linking your topic to mine, maybe we can get some answers together. The only thing I can add for now, is that I noticed in the [turbineenginedata] section of the cfg, the values for rated_N2_rpm are way high, almost double the real world values for each engine type. I've been going through and changing them, but I don't know if this has any effect on fuel flow. I'll report back after I do another flight with the adjusted settings.
  8. And, yes, it happens with the A319 now, too. Any way to go back to the version before the last update? (if I didn't save those installation files?)
  9. Well, I discovered this problem with the A320, as well. I've only used the CFM models to this point, but I will give the IAE model a shot today and see what happens. I also have not tried flying the A318/A319's yet. I'm pretty sure i didn't have these issues before the last update, though.
  10. Well, that's what we're trying to figure out here, so thanks for adding nothing to the subject matter of this post. -Jesse
  11. Hello again. Sorry it's been so long, but I haven't had much time for flying since last post. 170 people lost their lives today, as the Airbus Industrie A321 they were flying in crashed in a field just east of Dover (Delaware) Air Force Base. Preliminary reports indicate the aircraft fell from 15000 feet after running out of fuel. It appears the Captain declared an emergency, and was trying to land the now paperweight at Dover, when the crash occured. American Airlines Flight 2053 was en route to Philadelphia from Tampa. So, here it is. I did the flight log thing that was suggested. I also have screenshots of some other interesting behavior. For the purpose of this "test" flight, I converted PFPX and AS Fuel Planner to use the Bus' default of KG instead of LBS, for consistency. As you can see, the PFPX log is still below what I get from ASFP, but not much, and I added to the fuel figures to make it match what ASFP was giving me for the flight. I know nothing's going to match perfect, but at least the fuel planner that came with the aircraft should be correct, and that is the issue. I still suspect fuel flow as the major contributing factor, though. I did take note of the fuel flow at one point, and it is notated on the OFP. At that point I had a tailwind of around 110, although it was more at a 45 from the left, but still a tail wind. It seems kind of high to me, 2700 Kg/HR, but even if that is correct, this was only 2 hrs flight time, and I should have only burned 5400, then. I did notice, it's a hog on climb, though. From takeoff to TOC, it ate through 3500 Kg. I also included at the end of the OFP, the fuel summary, with notation of what I got (and used) from the AS Planner. The PFPX aircraft profile was the A321 NEO available in the AS downloads section. Although, I'm thinking the sharklets are just visual eye candy, and that the flight model does not realize the actual flight dynamics. (Or does it?) Oh, I also noticed the left engine FF is about 60Kg more than the right engine. Is that right? As for the screens of the planner. Note the "Item Result" Column for Final Reserve when switched between Kgs and Lbs. For some reason it's adding to what you enter when in Lbs mode. Thanks again for your time! LoadSheetA321.txt TPA_PHL.pdf
  12. Makes sense. Thanks!
  13. Wow. 15 years of simming, and I've actually never heard of this. Could you please elaborate, and let me know exactly what I should be recording? Thanks!
  14. First, I must apologize about what I said my total load was, I was looking at the A320 settings in AS Fuel Planner while I was typing. Luckily I had not made any other A321 flights, so that data was still there, load was 33461, with a ZFW of 136461. Even though my ZFW was higher than stated above, I was still well within limits, and still had right around the same amount of release and "supposed" reserve fuel. I don't believe it's a mix up with conversion from LBS to KG, as I checked in sim for the total load after I had loaded the loadsheet, just to verify I wasn't too heavy. That is the number I plugged in to PFPX. Luckily, I also recorded the flight with AS flight recorder! I had added the aircraft to PFPX using the performance files for the Airbus X found in the AS downloads section. Here is the release from that flight, as well as the as recorder file, and loadsheet: AAL254 PHOG-KLAX (28 Nov 2015) #1.pdf 85677290-5673-4b8b-bf81-5b1c845a2dab.fdr LoadSheetA321.txt
  15. Well, first, yes, I've searched through the forum for answers, but all I found was arguments about why something wasn't modelled this way or that way. I'm not here to argue why anything was done the way it was done. I love this product, and that's saying a lot because I enjoy Boeings more than the Busses, but if I have to fly one, then this has to be it. My problem is that, I had enough range, and still almost didn't make it. There surely has to be something wrong somewhere. On a flight from Kahului, HI (PHOG) to LAX, I used BOTH PFPX and AS Fuel Planner, checking and cross checking to make sure everything was good. According to both, it was. The load was 149 PAX, 5900 lbs cargo (baggage) - ZFW 124433 to be exact. The flight plan was 2192 NM. 95 NM to the alternate. Using Class II operations for fuel planning in PFPX, I was given right around 40000 lbs of fuel for release. FAR reserve of 3950, Hold fuel of 4000 (45 mins each). Plugged all these numbers along with my average tail wind (28) into AS fuel planner, and it came within 200 lbs of what PFPX gave me. Of course, I loaded the top number. According to the fuel summary, we'd land in Los Angeles with a hearty 10500 lbs of fuel remaining. Now for the problem. With tailwinds exceeding my assumptions (so, faster travel time, less consumption, yes?), and 2 step climbs to maintain Optimum Cruise altitude - at M .78, I ended up landing at LAX with ONLY 1500 LBS of fuel remaining!! If I've made a mistake, then please tell me where to look, but to me, it seems there may be a problem with a fuel flow scalar somewhere. Thanks for your time, -Jesse