inlovewithBoeing

PFPX Profiles By FlyPrecisely

Recommended Posts

hello,

the 747-400 are already well covered.

Phil

They are only in general there. Here is what I plan with them (the crossed out aircrafts are already done):

Boeing 747-400 PW4056

Boeing 747-400 CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400 RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400 RB211-524H

Boeing 747-400F PW4056

Boeing 747-400F CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400F RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400F RB211-524H

Boeing 747-400BCF PW4056

Boeing 747-400BCF CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400BCF RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400BCF RB211-524H

Boeing 747-400ER CF6-80C2B5F

Boeing 747-400ER PW4062

Boeing 747-400ERF CF6-80C2B5F

Boeing 747-400ERF PW4062

Boeing 747-400BDSF PW4056

Boeing 747-400BDSF CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400BDSF RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400BDSF RB211-524H

Boeing 747-400M PW4056

Boeing 747-400M CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400M RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400M RB211-524H

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are only in general there. Here is what I plan with them (the crossed out aircrafts are already done):

Boeing 747-400 PW4056

Boeing 747-400 CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400 RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400 RB211-524H

Boeing 747-400F PW4056

Boeing 747-400F CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400F RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400F RB211-524H

Boeing 747-400BCF PW4056

Boeing 747-400BCF CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400BCF RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400BCF RB211-524H

Boeing 747-400ER CF6-80C2B5F

Boeing 747-400ER PW4062

Boeing 747-400ERF CF6-80C2B5F

Boeing 747-400ERF PW4062

Boeing 747-400BDSF PW4056

Boeing 747-400BDSF CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400BDSF RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400BDSF RB211-524H

Boeing 747-400M PW4056

Boeing 747-400M CF6-80C2B1F

Boeing 747-400M RB211-524G

Boeing 747-400M RB211-524H

Really good job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Phil's point was that completely new additions to the database offer more potential than sub variants of already existing ones. Either way, thanks for your work. :) Much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Phil's point was that completely new additions to the database offer more potential than sub variants of already existing ones. Either way, thanks for your work. :) Much appreciated.

exactly my point especially in the case that not FFPM was used but more detailled data.

Phil

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, dear colleagues.

For over a year I have been making profiles for Professional Flight Planner X (PFPX).

I use precise performance fata from manuals. I am glad to help pilots in improving precision of flying in FS.

For now, there are several Boeing families available here.

Planned aircraft families:

- Boeing 747-400 Family;

- Boeing 757-200 Family;

- Boeing 777 Part 2 (remainder of the family);

- Embraer E-Jets.

This topic is for discussion. Feel free to write a feedback, a review, a request or a proposition.

You may also mail me via flyprecisely(at)hotmail.com

Pages on Facebook:

Info page: https://www.facebook.com/FlyPrecisely

Discussion page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1447959668806429/

Can't wait for the 747s. and hopefully the -8s. I've sone some tweaking on the 747-400Fs and BCFs on my own but it's not up to par like yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait for the 747s. and hopefully the -8s. I've sone some tweaking on the 747-400Fs and BCFs on my own but it's not up to par like yours.

Sorry, I don't have any data on 747-100/-200/-300 and 747-8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with using the FPPM is that a paper-created profile cant resolve accurately enough, especially in non-ISA conditions. I created a bunch of pfpx profiles using the same professional tools that airlines use (because at my former carrier I did that for a living - created and maintained performance profiles for the flight planning system).

I've done that with PFPX with flight profiles I have created using these professional tools, and then compared it against real world flight plans at work, and in some cases, over a very long (12 hours + in duration) flight, PFPX was only a thousand pounds off in terms of fuel required. The flight time was dead on accurate.

Maybe your plans are accurate enough for MSFS (since who knows how accurate the flight models in that are compared to the real world), but for PSX, I contend that they are too inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with using the FPPM is that a paper-created profile cant resolve accurately enough, especially in non-ISA conditions. I created a bunch of pfpx profiles using the same professional tools that airlines use (because at my former carrier I did that for a living - created and maintained performance profiles for the flight planning system).

Non-ISA conditions are included in my PFPX profiles for sure.

I've done that with PFPX with flight profiles I have created using these professional tools, and then compared it against real world flight plans at work, and in some cases, over a very long (12 hours + in duration) flight, PFPX was only a thousand pounds off in terms of fuel required. The flight time was dead on accurate.

Well, it's all the matter of examination. One colleague of mine compared my B767-300ER GE profile with the real flight briefing. He inserted everything as it was in a real brief, including weights, drag factor etc. The result was fantastic — the difference about 20 kgs for a 10 hr flight. Moreover, people who have already tried them emphasize their accuracy for flight planning.

And sir, what profiles do you have? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't have any data on 747-100/-200/-300 and 747-8.

Sorry I meant the 747-400s. -8 I will try and do when PMDG 747v2 comes out. I will pass the info or the base template to you! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I meant the 747-400s. -8 I will try and do when PMDG 747v2 comes out. I will pass the info or the base template to you! :)

The problem is that Boeing doesn't issue any paper FPPMs for the new aircrafts (B787, B747-8) anymore. All the performance data for them is in the electronic format only. It means that someone has to extract this data from real planning systems and help me to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with your data is that you'll show the exact same fuel flows for the various types, e.g, all of the B767-300ERs, regardless of power plant, will have the same fuel flows. It appears you only edit the file header information, but not the flows themselves. Granted, I've only checked a few variants, but thats what I found.

That's kinda not how it happens in the real world.

Granted, would the average simmer know the difference? Probably not. However, for those of us who do know the differences between the various variants, your data will never be in our PFPX installations...

I have the data for the B748s and the various flavors of the B787 compiled into PFPX profiles, but I only release it to those whom I know...since its obvious it came from only professional performance tools. The list of profiles I have created is here - http://www.flightsimsoft.com/downloads/PFPX_Aircraft_AddOn_List.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Mr. Snow. I understand your idea. Let me explain my position.

First of all, I have not only documentation (though loads of it too), but some data more that allows me to do the job. It's the credit to people who think the same way as I do and are interested in improvement of the atmosphere in FS.

Second. You are right. Some types are absolutely identical, but in real life some of them are as well. Renaming the headers gives users an opportunity to add the required aircraft types and specifications separately (pax and cargo), different thrust ratings on 737CL and NG families etc. But the performance data is very precise, I daresay even for real life.

Third. I don't need an insertion of my profiles into the programme. I do these profiles as a voluntary job and I am up to help all people who are interested in the improvement.

As I said earlier, I am open for any help and cooperation. That's why I share my profiles as widely as I can, so people can examine them very closely and give fair feedback.

I am certain about my work and its results. Just because I do it so carefully as I usually do it for myself.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Mr. Snow. I understand your idea. Let me explain my position.

First of all, I have not only documentation (still, loads of it too though), but some data more that allows me to do the job. It's the credit to people who think the same way as I do and are interested in improvement of the atmosphere in FS.

Second. You are right. Some types are absolutely identical, but in real life some of them are as well. Renaming the headers gives users an opportunity to add the required aircraft types and specifications separately (pax and cargo), different thrust ratings on 737CL and NG families etc. But the performance data is very precise, I daresay even for real life.

Third. I don't need an insertion of my profiles into the programme. I do these profiles as a voluntary job and I am up to help all people who are interested in the improvement.

As I said earlier, I am open for any help and cooperation. That's why I share my profiles as widely as I can, so people can examine them very closely.

I am certain about my work and its results. Just because I do it so carefully as I usually do it for myself.

+1! Really appreciate your big work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

Here is a brief overview of the practical application of the FlyPrecisely PFPX profiles based on my summer FS flying.

All calculations and actual flights were accomplished under ISA conditions and zero wind.

Hi-res OFP scans.

1. Boeing 737-800W 24k.

http://i.imgur.com/rcCPp9C.jpg

rcCPp9C.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kmm7in5.jpg

kmm7in5.jpg

2. Boeing 737-400 23.5k.

img=

http://i.imgur.com/mqfESMb.jpg

mqfESMb.jpg

img=http://i.imgur.com/8COeDiM.jpg

8COeDiM.jpg

3. Boeing 737-300 22k.

http://i.imgur.com/MovisWc.jpgMovisWc.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/b8GqxiS.jpg

b8GqxiS.jpg

4. Boeing 737-800W 24k.

http://i.imgur.com/FzyRRY9.jpg

FzyRRY9.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/FX0jBJN.jpg

FX0jBJN.jpg

5. Boeing 737-800W 24k.

http://i.imgur.com/roYBNo3.jpg

roYBNo3.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/tzhLXe8.jpg

tzhLXe8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I was delighted to see "757" in your primary post, but clicking the link it seems that it should read "767". Any chance for some 757-profiles in the future?

Regards

Bjorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I was delighted to see "757" in your primary post, but clicking the link it seems that it should read "767". Any chance for some 757-profiles in the future?

Regards

Bjorn

I have some of them already done, however I had to make a break due to some reasons IRL. I'll consider your request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mykyta,

Many thanks for the very detailed additional aircraft profiles for PFPX, especially the latest ones for the 747-400. However, I have a question: do your profiles adjust for non-ISA conditions?

I just planned a flight from KSFO-EDDF using your 747-400 PW4056 profile with a M.84 cruise, but I noticed in the OFP printout that the TAS at FL390 remained constant at 482 knots although the temperature deviations at this cruise altitude ranged from ISA+15 to ISA-1 so there should have been some variation in TAS (typically 1k change per 1 degree deviation from ISA).

Thanks again,

Michael.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mykyta,

Many thanks for the very detailed additional aircraft profiles for PFPX, especially the latest ones for the 747-400. However, I have a question: do your profiles adjust for non-ISA conditions?

I just planned a flight from KSFO-EDDF using your 747-400 PW4056 profile with a M.84 cruise, but I noticed in the OFP printout that the TAS at FL390 remained constant at 482 knots although the temperature deviations at this cruise altitude ranged from ISA+15 to ISA-1 so there should have been some variation in TAS (typically 1k change per 1 degree deviation from ISA).

Thanks again,

Michael.

Hi, Michael.

I use separate ISA conditions when the OPT/MAX altitudes differ from the ISA ones. When they don't I use an adjustment ±x% to the fuel flow per ±1̂0C. The stock PFPX profiles have the same situation.

Some people noticed the same thing here. http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/95939-isa-deviation-in-evaluate-option/

Looks like a PFPX bug. However, there is no idea whether it affects the calculations too much. I could recommend to use a manual fuel adjustment (extra fuel or so) according to the average ISA deviation. On Boeing 747-400 and 767-300ER it is generally ±3% per ±10C deviation. Just apply this percent to your cruise section fuel.

The list of my profiles that have ordinary adjustments:

– Boeing 737CL Family

– Boeing 767-300ER Family

– Boeing 767-300ERW Family

– Boeing 777-200LR/-300ER

The remainder of the packages have various ISA deviations.

Regards,

Mykyta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now