BW901

Members
  • Content count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About BW901

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

2902 profile views
  1. ATR 600 series

    It ships with PFPX. Look for ATR72-212A, which is the official type designator for a 72-500 and also 72-600. -500 and -600 are marketing names.
  2. OK, thanks. Never thought anyone would be that high. I guess it helps when you're sitting above an ocean of oil!
  3. ATR 600 series

    The enroute performance of the 600 is the same as the 500, just increase the weights to match the 600. The 127M engines on the 600 offer a boost function in the event of an engine failure to allow the aircraft to operate at higher weights than the 500. At same weight, temp, altitude combinations performance is the same. I have done a PFPX file for the 600 but as there isn't a high fidelity sim model available it's not been/won't yet be released.
  4. Hi Stephen, thanks for plugging my files, as ever. Just a reminder that Cost Index climb and descent is available on that aircraft (and most of my Boeing and Airbus files). Just select ECON and PFPX will calculate using the same CI as you've entered for cruise. The OP's CI400 is very high, that's a "fine on fuel, let's make up lost time enroute" CI number. Cheers Jon
  5. Hi Saved a Buck, What you've written repeats what seems to be a common misconception. I had a similar discussion a month ago at Flightsimcon 2017 with a couple of PFPX users who are dispatchers for US majors. We were all united (no pun intended) in our view. First up PFPX is not "complicated". The beauty of PFPX is that you can make the flight planning process as simple or as "complex" as you the user wish. Once you've used PFPX a few times running a plan can be very quick, it takes a matter of seconds to input the required parameters. You can configure PFPX to mirror various real world regulatory regimes or company policies if you so wish, you can tweak routes, you can play with performance parameters, or .... you can keep it simple. There are loads of Youtube videos available showing how to quickly generate plans. A common simmer misconception is that real world flight planning systems are infallible and will always immediately give you the perfect route automatically. If that were the case why would airlines waste money buying a hugely expensive flight planning system and then also employ dispatchers, nav and route planning specialists and an entire ops department? Your other point about only generating flight plan info for addons seems to be a third common simmerism. I wonder how many, or more precisely how few, people actually use the generated OFP as it's used in the real world as a "howgozit"? It adds another dimension to monitor your time and fuel progress against plan, particularly if you're in an ETOPs environment, and especially for anyone flying with online ATC. But that's the flexibility of PFPX, you decide how simple or complex (not "complicated") it should be. Quite simply PFPX provides far more capability and usability than any other sim-related planner out there. Cheers Jon
  6. Hi,

    in 2013 you´ve write

     

    "I've updated the CRJ profile file in the Downloads section. Now includes 700 and 900.

    Jon"

     

    I cann´t find this file, you have remove it?

     

    Frank

  7. Something slightly off the main track, but I've been trying to find ways of analysing flight plan routings in Europe (other than having access to CFMU or whetever it's called these days). Airway overlay is available with subscription to Flightradar24.com but I found it a pain in the neck to try and use with replay. So I looked at taking .csv data for historic flights from FR24 (requires a subscription) and displaying that as a "route" overlay on Skyvector.com. That way I can pick a route, select an actual historic flight from the last 6 months and view the aircraft track to then quickly and easily build a route in PFPX. I wrote a macro enabled Excel file which converts from one format to the other - process is: 1. Save the .csv file from Flightradar24.com 2. Open the .csv file, highlight and copy the Position column 3. Paste into Cell A1 of the ROUTE FINDER tab in the Routefinder.xlsm file 4. Press the COMPILE button (this will also copy the position data output) 6. Open Skyvector.com, select Flight Plan (top left corner) and input Departure and Destination airports. 6. Paste the Excel output into the (big white) route box in skyvector.com. If the flight path doesn't show immediately you may need to scroll to the last line, click after the last latlon entry and hit return. Note - where there's no FR24 coverage, you'll just see a direct track. There's nothing I can do about that. I'm no programmer, and I'm hoping that someone with more intelligence than me comes up with a better way of doing this, or offers a simpler solution! I'm aware there are a couple of flightsim-related websites which offer route information but this seemed the best way of using up-to-date real-world derived data. Cheers ROUTEFINDER.xlsm
  8. Profiles up at www.airlinerperformance.net
  9. A320

    Sorry that's my bad , the way Optimum FL is calculated by PFPX from the performance data was updated, and that does already allow cost optimisation if you throw fuel and hourly costs into the system. On the Cost Index enter the required value into the Cruise box, and (for an aircraft which has the appropriate data) you can then either select a fixed speed schedule Climb or Descent, or ECON to calculate them at the same CI value.
  10. Wow that FSLabs A320 is generating a lot of traffic! FSLabs have produced their own PFPX files, and choice is a great thing, but if anyone wants dynamic Cost Index in all flight phases the A320 files at www.airlinerperformance.net have recently been updated to latest PFPX file format spec. For CI in climb and descent select ECON for each or either and PFPX will calculate using either your selected cruise CI (just type the CI value into the cruise box) or for the Optimum CI, if you've given the system fuel and hourly costs to work with. Next up a B736 file for PMDG users (we spread the love ) to correct the errors in the default PFPX file.
  11. Hi Stephen, yes you've tracked it down nicely to the fixed speeds. The speed referenced below minimum altitude for each Mach # doesn't exist and MinCruiseAlt for AE250 was too high. Correcting so that Mach speeds drop to AE310 (Cruise.2) below crossover and then down to AE250 below 10000ft does the trick, I'm a bit OCD with formatting so I've also changed all Mach names to 0.XX, but I doubt that's relevant. However single engine profile also have errors with no maximum altitude so that needs correcting before ETOPs calc will be possible. This seems to be a rogue profile that evaded testing! Dan, I've sent you a completely new/different B736 profile file by email. If that all looks good I'll make a new file publicly available. Jon
  12. Dan, There are errors in the [EROPS] section of that file. The Engine Out cruise speed reference is incorrectly pointing to All Engines Mach.79 cruise and there's no Descent.4 Engine Out High Speed (MMO/VMO) data present. If you rem out the EROPS section ( add a ; at start of each line) or just delete it altogether I couldn't see anything obvious which would prevent a non-ETOPs sector being calculated. The engine out cruise speeds have no maximum altitude data but that shouldn't affect normal 2 engine calculations. Drop me a PM and I'll look to getting you a working file. Jon
  13. Airbus Updates

    A320-232 Sharklets now updated at www.airlinerperformance.net. Improved maximum altitude calculation and Cost Index for climb, cruise and descent. A320-214 already updated and I'll also revise the basic -232 which will cover the versions modelled by FSLabs.
  14. Airbus Updates

    Hi TCASclimb, First up thanks, and don't worry about newer versions, I'm not about to undo what I've done before in aiming to produce accurate profiles. There are some format changes to current PFPX spec which improve optimum and maximum altitudes. Also you'll find improvements to CI calculation, and that's now extended to climb and descent. If you copy your existing .per file you'll have it for future if you ever want to revert (I hope you dont ;-) ), but please follow the installation instructions on the site so you're sure the current version is removed from PFPX's database before installing the new one, That avoids any problems from PFPX not fully "seeing" the new file. Cheers
  15. Time for a facelift of Airbus profiles. The A320-214 is first up, now updated at www.airlinerperformance.net and the other variants will follow shortly. Also online are pax and freighter versions of Boeing's original "pocket rocket", the 727-100 as Flyjsim has released v2 of the 727 for X-plane.