• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About BW901

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Airwork

Recent Profile Visitors

2718 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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?



  3. 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
  4. Profiles up at
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. A320-232 Sharklets now updated at 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.
  10. 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
  11. Time for a facelift of Airbus profiles. The A320-214 is first up, now updated at 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.
  12. Hi Will, Well instead of packing for vacation i bought the DC-6 to see what Olympic 260's comment was about. So yes there is a PFPX file included with the PMDG package. At first glance there are significant differences between that PMDG data and the flight-planning data from a current real-world operator which I used for my profile. Cruise data looks OK, except I've included detailed ISA deviation figures in my file, which PMDG hasn't. Their standard cruise profile setting is different, their weights are quite different, and PMDG's PFPX file fuel capacity is also showing significantly lower than this operator's lowest capacity 8-tank system, though whether that's down to options/modifications over time, I don't know. Doing side-by-side comparisons PMDG's calculated burn is lower than mine, that may be largely down to my inclusion of approach allowances and I have a 20000ft max operating altitude, which is probably an operator limitation given the age of these old birds, but I was struggling to get fuel load figures up to the real world levels. I had to go open the manuals again just to be sure given the wide variations in some figures. Incidentally .per files are heavily compressed at encryption, the original file has about double the data of PMDG's. I'll go fly and have some fun for a bit, but will have to wait till after hols to look in depth. Choice is never a bad thing though, and PMDG's file is probably more tuned to their X-Plane flight model? I guess I'd better update my guide to file format so it's up to latest PFPX standard. Right, head down back under the parapet and open to correction, ridicule, etc........ Jon
  13. Sounds interesting, but I always prefer building my own PFPX profiles - I know what I'm getting then!
  14. So great news that PMDG has announced the release of the DC-6 next week. I'd never even looked at X-Plane until a few weeks ago. I bought it specially for the IXEG 737-300, as the 73 Classics are dear to my heart. Since then I haven't been tempted to start-up P3D, and if the DC-6 is half as good as the hype I think X-Plane's going to be my sim of choice from here on in. If you haven't yet considered X-Plane, maybe give it a go, with this year's aircraft addons you may be pleasantly surprised! Unfortunately I'm off on vacation a couple of days after it comes out, and my laptop won't run X-plane so I'll wait until I'm back mid June before buying the 6. In the meantime though I've uploaded a profile for the DC-6B to Some qualifying notes at this point: 1. The data is derived from a combination of a modern DC-6 operator's manuals and original Douglas hardcopy manuals from the dark ages. 2. I don't have PMDG's aircraft (yet), so I don't know how their model compares to this data. 3. Data is not available for weights below 75000lbs. I have capped the minimum weight above OEW. You'll need some fuel onboard or a reasonable load to get the weight up; if that's a real pain for people I may just stick another artificial low weight value into the tables. 4. We may find that there's biasing needed to get the calculated burns up to actual (PMDG) levels. The real-world operators were applying 15% contingencies to tabulated sector fuel, which suggests that theory and reality may be aways apart on these veteran aircraft. 5. Some of you youngsters may not realise that back in the day we didn't have computers in our offices. We typed letters on a good old-fashioned typewriter (or messages on the Telex machine) or manually calculated flight planning paperwork. As a result the data used and provided by the manufacturers was very basic compared to what's available today. In particular data often was not published for descent. I never worked with the DC-6, but on many other types basically you planned the entire flight at a set cruise speed, and then added an overall adjustment for climb and descent. If you were lucky you had climb data and then used cruise the rest of the way with a time and fuel allowance for an instrument approach. So I have no descent data for the DC-6, which is a no-go for PFPX. What I've done is taken a 205 KIAS constant speed and 7 nautical mile per 1000ft descent as the ops manual suggests, to derive time and distance. For now I've assumed 1600lb/hr fuel burn. So a request for help please while I'm away from any PFPX users who buy the DC6. If someone (or more than one person!) is able to run some tests I'd be very grateful. Set the aircraft up at somewhere around max landing weight, at 22 or 24000ft running in- or outbound on a fixed radial to a VOR/DME, so you've got a distance reference, set ISA temperature and zero wind, fly the descent as per whatever PMDG's manual's going to suggest and passing a few set altitudes on the way note the time elapsed, IAS, descent rate (fpm), fuel flow and DME. That'll help me better define the descent data and we can then review overall how the profile performs. Let's see what PMDG unveil! Cheers Jon