• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral


  • Rank
    Flight Student - Airwork

Recent Profile Visitors

1856 profile views
  1. Jet2 OFP

    I would be interested in such a thing as well.
  2. I have just uploaded a new version (1.1) that fixes a couple of errors.
  3. Hi all, Just in case you chaps are like me and never really check the downloads section, I have uploaded some procedures and charts (created myself) for depressurisation procedures in western Iran and eastern Turkey. These might come in handy if you do a lot of flying from Dubai to western Europe. Any comments, let me know. Cheers, Rudy
  4. Iran Depressurisation Procedures

    Version 1.2


    Introduction Hello all, Contained here are some depressurisation escape procedures for use on the following airways in western Iran and south-eastern Turkey, commonly used by airliners flying between Dubai and western Europe: Northbound: UP574 KASOL - SYZ UT430 SYZ - VUVAG UL333 VUGAG - DASIS UR660 DASIS - ERZ Southbound: UT36 ULKME - ALRAM L208 ALRAM - UMH G781 UMH - ROVON M317 ROVON - RADID L319 RADID - DASDO UL223 DASDO - LAM I have created these procedures myself with some background information, enroute charts and PFPX. Although they will not reflect real-world escape routes exactly, they will provide safe escape routes to various airports, avoiding mountainous terrain. The procedures ensure no more than 20 minutes above FL140, and then the rest of the diversion at FL140 or below. (Some airlines have oxygen supplies that can supply oxygen for about 20 minutes above FL140, and then at FL140 as needed for a considerable duration. I have modelled these procedures on such an airline). If you have any suggestions, improvements or comments, please let me know. I can be reached by private message on the forum here (VHOJT), or by email at [removed - see Readme]. Cheers, Rudy Fidao
  5. Thanks to 'Sharky'

    Indeed, thanks very much for all the effort, David!! Cheers, Rudy
  6. Hi all, I am trying to change the climb bias of one of my aircraft. How do I go about this? Have tried inputting <ClimbBias> in the aircraft file, with no luck. Have also tried putting FuelBias=0.90 in the AircraftType file under the climb heading - no luck. I have read in various places about having to uninstall and reinstall aircraft to make the change effective - can someone please shed light on whether this is necessary and EXACTLY what this means. Thanks for any help you guys can offer! Cheers, Rudy
  7. Weird. Which version of PFPX is this?
  8. Hi Michael, Okay! Are you ready? Basically, I have had a lot of issues trying to get PFPX bias good for PMDG aircraft. Through a lot of trial and error, I think I have found a solution. I suspect the PMDG aircraft don't quite burn at the correct rate, or some other simulator issue, rather than it being a problem with PFPX's inbuilt profiles - although please my note in the conclusion. First things first The 747 and 777 profiles that come with PFPX were created by a real-world dispatcher with access to very detailed data far in excess of any FPPM or FCOM data provided as manuals with the plane. I have found these profiles to work extremely well. I suggest using them when you can. I have found PMDG 747 and 777 both need negative bias, they seem to burn less fuel than PFPX predicts. I think it is fine to take measurements with weather, provided you have noted all the temperatures and winds - in fact, for me, this turned out to be quite important in finding a solution. It can be useful to take a few readings with zero weather in ISA conditions. Any measurements are only applicable to the speed/cost index at which you are using at the time. My experience is primarily with 747-400 with RR RB211-524GH2 engines. I have, however, found this method to be equally applicable to other aircraft, more recently the 777-300ER. My method for finding fuel burn This method takes a little practise, but I have found it to be the most accurate way to measure fuel burn over short periods. The engine instruments do not give a precise enough reading. Have the plane nicely established in cruise. Open one of the FMCs to the FS ACTIONS - FUEL page (the page where you would usually load fuel). Prepare yourself, and start a stopwatch on your phone. Note down the amount of fuel as you pressed start on the stopwatch. Go and note down data on the other FMC/displays, in this order: GW, SAT, ALT, TAS, GS. As your stopwatch approaches a minute, be ready looking back at the fuel page on the FMC. As a minute ticks by, note the amount of fuel on the fuel page. Subtract the second reading of fuel from the first, and then multiply the answer by 60 to get your fuel flow in lb or kg per hour. I suggest doing 2-3 of these in quick succession. Input the data into PFPX for each trial, and note the bias,drag figures and ISA deviation (ISA deviation is important!) Average the PFPX bias and drag figures by adding up the results of each of your trials, and divide by the number of trials. Use this as your bias/drag figure for this set of trials. Obviously, the longer the trial, the less error-prone your trials will be. Your results should only vary by 0-5 kilograms per minute. The less difference, the better. Remember, as you multiply the result by 60 to get per hour fuel burn, any error will multiply too. The results, and the problem After a few flights (all with weather) of measuring bias when heavy, medium and light, I plotted the results in a table in Excel. I noticed a number of fairly varying figures depending on gross weight and temperature. I then plotted a graph of PFPX's suggested fuel bias vs ISA temperature deviation and noticed a trend that PFPX would suggest less fuel (i.e. larger negative bias) at higher ISA deviation temperatures. Again, I am not sure why this is the case - as I said I suspect the PMDG aircraft or the simulator itself. I also averaged all the suggested fuel burn biases, drag biases and ISA deviation biases from my trials. This left me with one average fuel burn bias, drag bias and ISA deviation from all the trials. Back to my table and graph, I found that roughly: For each 10 degrees of ISA deviation, there was a ~3% change in suggested bias. In the case of the aircraft I have used, it is -3% fuel bias per each +10 ISA deviation. The solution From all your trials, calculate an average fuel burn bias, drag bias and ISA deviation. Input the former two into your PFPX aircraft profile. When flight planning, check what the average ISA deviation is (temporarily display the plan in an OFP format that shows ISA deviation it if your OFP doesn't). Note the flight's ISA deviation. I will give an example below to explain what to do next: Your average ISA deviation: +6.2 Your flight's ISA deviation: +10 The difference (always do it in this order): Average - Current = 6.2 - 10 = -3.8 As a percentage of 10: -3.8 / 10 = -0.38 Multiplied by three: -0.38 * 3 = -1.14 These two steps are done because, for each 10 degrees ISA deviation, there is a 3% change in fuel bias. You want to find how much correction to apply. For example, if your average ISA deviation was +5, and this flight's ISA deviation was +15, you would subtract 3% from your average fuel bias to get the figure for this flight. However, you won't always have nice clean numbers, so this method calculates it for you. Clear as mud? Add it to your average bias figure: Average + Correction = -4.8 + -1.14 = -5.94 = -5.9 (rounded to one decimal place). Finally, input this figure into your PFPX aircraft profile, apply it, check your flight plan, and recalculate your flight. Notes I have found +3% per -10 ISA deviation from your average, and -3% per +10 ISA deviation from your average, to work very well for the 747-400. I consistently now get fuel burning accurately along the whole flight, and land with an error of only a few hundred kilograms usually. I have also found this rule equally applicable to other PMDG aircraft. I was lazy with the 777 and cheated a bit. I got an average bias in zero weather for a few different flight levels and weights, and applied the same -3% to fuel bias for each +10 ISA deviation on the flight. I have had very good results with that (but have only done a couple of flights) - with burn being within 300kg for the flight, and landing with a 300kg discrepancy. I haven't bothered for the 737 because I usually use it for short flights and fuel burn is pretty much bang on. The same for the FSL A320 profiles - they don't need any adjustment as far as I can tell, as they custom-made them for their aircraft, whereas the Boeings are PFPX real-world data vs PMDG simulated burn. My figures if you want to cheat (for these aircraft): 747-400 RB211-524GH2 Cost Index: 100 Average ISA dev: +6.2 degrees C Average fuel bias: -4.8% Average drag bias: +1.2% 777-300ER Cost Index: 100 Average ISA dev: 0 degrees C Average fuel bias: -2.0% Average drag bias: 0.6% 737-800 Cost Index: 20 Average ISA dev: 0 Avreage fuel bias: +1.0% Average drag bias: +0.2% Note that I have not done a lot of testing with the 737. Conclusion I hope this helps a bit, and hasn't confused you too much. I did note from forum posts a while back, that PFPX had issues with ISA deviation and fuel burn. I think this has been rectified since. However, those posts said to uninstall, and reinstall all the aircraft into PFPX, whatever that means. I haven't done this, and hence, I have a slight bit of confusion as to whether I am still suffering this problem. I am hoping another forum member might be able to chime in to clear this bit of confusion up. Also, if anybody else has suggestions, or a better way to work around it, please - let us know! Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Rudy
  9. TOPCAT update for A320 IAE

    To be honest, the CFM data would be more than fine for the FS purposes.
  10. And my apologies too. When I said to rephrase your questions, the link you had never showed up at all!
  11. I'm not sure anyone, myself included, knows what you're asking? Can you rephrase your question/give more detail please? Rudy
  12. Hi all, I have uploaded new versions of my QFA, JST & BAW OFPs in case anyone here is using them: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/file/4345-qantas-ofps/ http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/file/4346-jetstar-ofp/ http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/file/3919-british-airways-cirrus-ofp/ Hope you enjoy. Cheers, Rudy
  13. I have noticed this too - maps is indeed pretty small text-wise.
  14. Good to know I'm not the only one. I'll send them a ticket letting them know it's not quite fixed! Cheers, Rudy
  15. Hi there - is anyone else having this problem still with 1.28.9i? I seem to be having this problem still with the 747-400 RB211-524GH2... YMML1050 -N0496F320 NEVIS6 NEVIS H345 BORTO DCT KAMBI DCT ISLAV DCT SEEMO/N0495F340 DCT WHEBB DCT SCRUB DCT WONSA DCT VERIS DCT 14S102E 10S098E DCT PIPOV DCT ELATI N640 EGODU/N0494F360 N640 KAT P570 TEGOR/N0491F380 P570 ITURA M762 BUBIN BUBI9C -OMDB1339 Max takeoff weight in a 744 - the initial CRZ alt sure isn't FL320.