• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About BW901

Recent Profile Visitors

3312 profile views
  1. Hi Pablo, When I did the files on airlinerperformance they were based upon the flight models from the various developers, which are normally specific to one engine type, rather than the visual models which probably do cover all the engine manufacturers. To my mind there is no point in making a file for Roller engines if the flightmodel is based upon Pratts - I'd just wind up with a load of complaints about how my file differed from the sim (maybe there's a poll to be had there - how many simmers actually compare time and fuel used versus plan, and how many simmers actually use an OFP as it is used in the real world?). Which 777 are you flying and I'll take a look again? From my very limited experience RR engines burn about 3% more than their PW equivalents and are heavier, but again if it's a PW-based flight model.....In such a case changing the aircraft details is a suitable way of covering different variants in the sim. To answer some other earlier posts: On the DC-10 I'll upload my old files, but I was also most ways through a new version with many more cruise speed schedules - will see about finishing that sometime. There is a Twin Otter file up on Cheers Jon

    Hi Airbusitalia. I for one have not down voted you. Your posts say you are unhappy because PFPX is not doing things correctly, and In the absence of any other info I presume you meant correctly as compared to the real world. PFPX IS actually more true to life than most simmers would imagine. Stephen has been very helpful to many forum users. I guess it's his own time he's freely giving to answering queries. I've enjoyed reading his posts over the last few years and I'm sorry that you seem to have taken things the wrong way. PFPX allows manual direct entry and manual modification of a route. If you're not happy with the automated first output, then you can quickly and easily manually edit it. That's what I do when using PFPX and its what we do for real, relevant or not ;-). I'll end by simply saying that PFPX will give results which are spot on with what our real Boeings are achieving, which is pretty astonishing for a home entertainment software. Cheers Jon

    Stephen, I understand the frustrations some folks may feel, but your first sentence is very relevant. It's one of those "simmerisms" where flight simmers believe that flight planning systems always produce 100% "accurate and correct" plans at the touch of a button. If only that were the case. Our real-world systems costing tens of thousands of dollars in licensing every year need ops/navigation guys and gals to check, revise and tweak the databases, routes and the input and output. Entering a from and to and then pressing a button simply doesn't happen, unless the system is already loaded with pre-approved routes (which still have to be regularly updated) - sometimes with several routing options which are then compared against performance, weather and operational restrictions to establish the optimum solution on the day. PFPX is a Euro 40ish product and exceptionally good at what it does for the price, like I said above you can pay many multiples of that price and people still complain.
  4. Tom, I understand what you are saying (I was planning flights for real before new fangled computer things were invented), but it’s fun to see where a real world flight has flown and recreate it in a virtual world. I guess we’ll just have to disagree how we use PFPX ;-).
  5. Tom, I made the original post to which Agovico21 was referring. My reason for making that post in November 2016 was I believe the same as his question now - I was trying to find a way to analyse real world routes to use in PFPX so I could best recreate real world flights. If you live or fly in the US simple - Flightaware gives you the ATC route. If you're in Europe and have access to Eurocontrol applications no problem. Otherwise how can you find the filed ATC flightplan route flown in the realworld to use that in PFPX to generate flightplans? The only way I found to "fudge" it, again as Agovico21 quite correctly pointed out, was to download a csv file from FR24, convert it so the position reports can be viewed in Skyvector with an overlay Airways chart and then manually input an appropriate route into PFPX. I guess no one's come up with a more elegant solution. If you catch a flight whilst it's still in the air yes you can see the track with an airway overlay on FR24. If it's a historic flight and your only recourse is playback, no you can't. My question of a year ago is still I believe valid, and so's Agovico's, you certainly weren't wasting anyone's time with your post. Cheers Jon
  6. Maybe just take a look at
  7. 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.
  8. OK, thanks. Never thought anyone would be that high. I guess it helps when you're sitting above an ocean of oil!
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Hi,

    in 2013 you´ve write


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



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



  13. 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 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 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 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, select Flight Plan (top left corner) and input Departure and Destination airports. 6. Paste the Excel output into the (big white) route box in 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
  14. Profiles up at
  15. 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.