Jov

member
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jov

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Recent Profile Visitors

486 profile views
  1. Thank you for taking me seriously. I am not a real world pilot of course and always wondered about what real figures for checked baggage were like. I was just annoyed that I was told, cargo does not include checked baggage, while it does in the real world and in your model, as one can see if one does the math. And I did not like the condescending attitude. Thanks for the answer!
  2. Thank you, it was a bit difficult to find the updater, since it's hidden somwhere else than in the post of Mathijs. However this window is still not working.
  3. one thing I found out meanwhile: the max landing weight for the A320 according to specs published on the internet is at least 64,5 t or even 66 t, whereas your fuelplanner sets it to only 63 t. So here is a problem. But obviously noone of the staff is reacting to this anymore (since it's been answered already by friendly Mopperle).
  4. In the model here, an average PAX has a weigth of 84 kgs including carry on and checks 25 kgs of baggage on average, at least that's what the formula produces. Given the weight of 84 kgs, an average PAX could only bring less the 12 kgs of checked baggage so the plane would come up with a legal landing weight. Or to put it differently, the plane upon landing could never have more than 3.792 kgs of fuel left in the tanks. Otherwise the model comes up with an illegal landing weight. That is startling and I wonder if that can be correct. It would mean the margin for checked baggage is very small and additional cargo, even some lightweight mail would be out of the question to have on board.
  5. I posted this topic in the wrong category, and I apologize for that. So here I go again. I tried my first flight with the A320. When I tried to plan the fuel, with a full flight I get an illegal landing weight if I just use the slider for PAX to come up with a cargo weight. In the model here, an average PAX has a weigth of 84 kgs including carry on and checks 25 kgs of baggage on average, at least that's what the formula produces. Given the weight of 84 kgs, an average PAX could only bring less the 12 kgs of checked baggage so the plane would come up with a legal landing weight. Or to put it differently, the plane upon landing could never have more than 3.792 kgs of fuel left in the tanks. Otherwise the model comes up with an illegal landing weight. That is startling and I wonder if that can be correct. It would mean the margin for checked baggage is very small and additional cargo, even some lightweight mail would be out of the question to have on board. That is startling and I wonder if that can be correct. Since I had never any problems like that in the previous (FSX) version of the A320
  6. downloaded the installation file just now from the website, it is still V 1000
  7. Ok, so why does the fuel planner increase the cargo linear with the PAX? Plus: the weight per PAX, here in this model, is calculated as 84 kgs in the equasion which is the value used by the airlines to have an average of PAX body weight plus carry on baggage. (Similar btw to the value used for cable cars in the mountains to allow for body mass plus ski equipment on average, they use 85 kgs). So here is no allowance for checked baggage in the cargo hold. So my hypothesis is, with all due respect: The "Cargo" constitutes passenger baggage. But I am well aware of the difficult job of the dispatchers and the highly sophisticated programs they use. So I don't think you need to be condescending here, look at the math in the model of the aerosoft fuel planner. Also I would like to point out, this was never an issue in the previous version of the A320 from Aerosoft.
  8. I downloaded on Friday will check for update.
  9. With my installation the zoom in and out for several views is not working. I can move the view up and down, left and right but not in and out, which is annoying since the labels of the switches are illegible. I have produced the views where one cannot move in. It all works with the 318/319 btw.
  10. I tried my first flight with the A320. When I tried to plan the fuel, with a full flight I get an illegal landing weight if I just use the slider for PAX to come up with a cargo weight. To make this legal, I need to load only 2.159 Kgs of cargo to get to a legal landing weight. That would equal less than 12 kgs of baggage per PAX. And this is true for all distances I tried to input. I think this is a strange result. In reality a full flight should give the airline enough weight to carry baggage for PAX. Or am I wrong?
  11. And the plane does it with no other checklist...
  12. Ok, that is a change vs the "old" A320 Thanks
  13. I am using V 1.10. After reaching cruise level, The descent prep checklist entry immediatley turns orange although I am still far away from destination. Other entries only turn orange shortly b4 they have to be called. Is this intended?
  14. Jov

    pitch trim

    Well I did not do that. I used the loadsheet and have attached the stepts that I took. As you see, the values from the fuelplanner were correctly passed on to the loadsheet in the 2nd MCDU and subsequently into the TO Perf page. I got no call "set" @ pitch trim up 0,3. So I played with the wheel, tried up 0,8 (default), got no call. turned down to 0,3, no call. Then, at up 0,2 I suddenly got a call.
  15. sorry for the repost of first half