• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About BW901

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

3047 profile views
  1. 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 ;-).
  2. 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
  3. Maybe just take a look at
  4. 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.
  5. OK, thanks. Never thought anyone would be that high. I guess it helps when you're sitting above an ocean of oil!
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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?



  10. 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
  11. Profiles up at
  12. 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.
  13. 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 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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