inlovewithBoeing

PFPX Profiles By FlyPrecisely

Recommended Posts

In terms of PMDG B747 v3 release today, I'd like to remind all the subscribers that my Boeing 747-400 family PFPX profiles are still available on Aerosoft file library. :)

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/file/3514-pfpx-boeing-747-400-performance-profiles-pack/

 

On 12.01.2017 at 0:11 PM, Davicho61 said:

Any news for the  B787 compiled into PFPX profile? Thanks:)

Still no performance enough to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mykyta,

 

I have been using you profiles for a while now and love them! I have ran into a problem recently, though.

 

After installing the latest hotfix for PFPX, I noticed that the program is not correctly calculating passenger weights. Since I live and fly in the US, I use pounds to calculate my weights. When I prepare a OFP with you profile and export the payload figures to TOPCAT, I noticed that the payload totals were off by a few hundred pounds. It seems as if PFPX is not using the values I've entered in the settings for my default passenger and baggage weights. I've attached a jpg to illustrate what I mean.

 

The default weights are as follows:

Adult: 195 lbs.

Child: 87 lbs.

Baggage: 30 lbs.

 

Have you, or anyone else, seen this before?

Clipboard01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregard my previous post Mykyta. Looks like this is an issue with PFPX and not your profiles.

 

Again, excellent work with these profiles!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04.02.2017 at 6:22 AM, rahatc said:

Hi Mykyta,

 

I have been using you profiles for a while now and love them! I have ran into a problem recently, though.

 

After installing the latest hotfix for PFPX, I noticed that the program is not correctly calculating passenger weights. Since I live and fly in the US, I use pounds to calculate my weights. When I prepare a OFP with you profile and export the payload figures to TOPCAT, I noticed that the payload totals were off by a few hundred pounds. It seems as if PFPX is not using the values I've entered in the settings for my default passenger and baggage weights. I've attached a jpg to illustrate what I mean.

 

The default weights are as follows:

Adult: 195 lbs.

Child: 87 lbs.

Baggage: 30 lbs.

 

Have you, or anyone else, seen this before?

 

 

You can go to General Options and set weights whatever you like them to be. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0000098963_small.jpeg

(photo by Bogdan Skotnikov / Spotters.net.ua)

 

Finally, after almost 250 total net working hours within three months, the Airbus A320 Family performance profiles are done.

 

Download links on Aerosoft File Library:
PFPX Airbus A320 Family Performance Profiles Pack
- PFPX Airbus A320 Sharklets Family Performance Profiles Pack

 

Any "Airbus" airline you fly for in your flight simulator is covered — Lufthansa and British Airways, Easyjet and Wizzair, American Airlines and JetBlue, China Eastern and AirAsia, and many, many more. :)

 

This pack includes all A32x versions available today. You can search your airline options and aircraft modifications here on Planespotters.net database (free registration is recommended):
    - by airline: https://www.planespotters.net/airlines
    - or MSN number: https://www.planespotters.net/production-list/Airbus/A320ceo

 

AREA OF OPERATIONS
Area of operations for determening ETOPS-60 distance from suitable airports is provided in images.

 

-----------
IMPORTANT NOTE for users that operate Airbus in imperial measurement (LBS).
If your airline uses cost index number provided in pounds per minute (lb/min), you still shall use a standard Airbus cost index number in kilograms per minute (kg/min) in PFPX (0-100 range), as the performance data is initially provided and inserted in kilograms (KG).

Convert cost index in lb/min to kg/min with use of the ordinary weight conversion rates from pounds (LB) to kilograms (KG).
 


TO HELP THE PROJECT

See spoiler below.

 

Spoiler

PayPal Donation
Paypal FlyPrecisely (opens in new window)


SWIFT Bank Transfer (non-commercial/donation)

See spoiler below

Spoiler


BENEFICIARY: DEMYDIUK MYKYTA, Kyiv, Dehtiarivska Str., 49a
IBAN: UA063052990005168757312400056
ACCOUNT: 5168757312400056
BANK OF BENEFICIARY: PRIVATBANK, 50 NABEREZHNAYA POBEDY ST., DNEPROPETROVSK, 49094
SWIFT CODE: PBANUA2X

INTERMEDIARY BANK: JP MORGAN CHASE BANK 
SWIFT CODE: CHASUS33
CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNT: 0011000080

 

 

PrivatBank Card in UAH (Ukraine only)


4149 4978 4310 3724

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

n933at-delta-air-lines-boeing-717-231_Pl

(Photo by Marco Dotti / Planespotters.net)

 

As many people requested, here is PFPX Boeing 717 performance pack.

 

Download link on Aerosoft File Library: PFPX Boeing 717 Family Performance Profiles Pack

 


TO HELP THE PROJECT

See spoiler below.

 

Spoiler

PayPal Donation
Paypal FlyPrecisely (opens in new window)


SWIFT Bank Transfer (non-commercial/donation)

See spoiler below

Spoiler


BENEFICIARY: DEMYDIUK MYKYTA, Kyiv, Dehtiarivska Str., 49a
IBAN: UA063052990005168757312400056
ACCOUNT: 5168757312400056
BANK OF BENEFICIARY: PRIVATBANK, 50 NABEREZHNAYA POBEDY ST., DNEPROPETROVSK, 49094
SWIFT CODE: PBANUA2X

INTERMEDIARY BANK: JP MORGAN CHASE BANK 
SWIFT CODE: CHASUS33
CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNT: 0011000080

 

PrivatBank Card in UAH (Ukraine only)


4149 4978 4310 3724

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Emanuel Hagen said:

Very nice, did you get CI performance data somewhere?
When I did mine that I posted in the TFDi forums I could not get any data for the CIs.

No, I was unlucky with that this time. But I have all Mach No - from M0.60 to MMO of 0.82. Pretty large range for most of the operations. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New revision of PFPX Boeing 737NG profiles is out!

 

Version 1.2 - Boeing 737-900 Winglets performance data completely revised; Area of Operations and go around reference data added

 

Download on Aerosoft Library: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/file/2815-pfpx-boeing-737ng-performance-profiles-pack/

 

 


TO HELP THE PROJECT

See spoiler below.

 

  Hide contents

PayPal Donation
Paypal FlyPrecisely (opens in new window)


SWIFT Bank Transfer (non-commercial/donation)

See spoiler below

Spoiler


BENEFICIARY: DEMYDIUK MYKYTA, Kyiv, Dehtiarivska Str., 49a
IBAN: UA063052990005168757312400056
ACCOUNT: 5168757312400056
BANK OF BENEFICIARY: PRIVATBANK, 50 NABEREZHNAYA POBEDY ST., DNEPROPETROVSK, 49094
SWIFT CODE: PBANUA2X

INTERMEDIARY BANK: JP MORGAN CHASE BANK 
SWIFT CODE: CHASUS33
CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNT: 0011000080

 

PrivatBank Card in UAH (Ukraine only)


4149 4978 4310 3724

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work inlovewithBoeing! 

 

Perhaps you might consider signing your post with a less cryptic name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found an bug with the Cost Index. With all Airbus it makes no diffrence what Cost Index I set, for example CI 10 or CI 20. The speed is always the same. Its not only with Airbus. Same with 777 profiles and so on.

I think its an problem with PFPX 1.28.8

 

regards

Sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.03.2017 at 8:07 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

Good work inlovewithBoeing! 

 

Perhaps you might consider signing your post with a less cryptic name?

No problem, will do with starting the next one. :)

 

On 20.03.2017 at 9:18 PM, Sascha17 said:

I have found an bug with the Cost Index. With all Airbus it makes no diffrence what Cost Index I set, for example CI 10 or CI 20. The speed is always the same. Its not only with Airbus. Same with 777 profiles and so on.

I think its an problem with PFPX 1.28.8

 

regards

Sascha

The actual difference between low Cost Indeces on Airbus is relatively small, so it's hard to say whether it's a bug or not. Try to use wider range to test this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20.03.2017 at 9:18 PM, Sascha17 said:

I have found an bug with the Cost Index. With all Airbus it makes no diffrence what Cost Index I set, for example CI 10 or CI 20. The speed is always the same. Its not only with Airbus. Same with 777 profiles and so on.

I think its an problem with PFPX 1.28.8

 

regards

Sascha

Sascha, I've tested A320 profile with set ISA deviation, constant wind component, DOW, payload and routing.

 

CI0, 50 and 100.

 

Speeds on OFP vary accordingly to the CI.

 

Please see the screenshot below.

pfpx test.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same on B777-300ER (const ISA+3, const wind component, payload, DOW and routing)

 

Please see the screenshot below.

 

Could you please tell me more details about the case?

pfpx_test_777.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update. Well after a complete re installation the problem still exist with version 1.28.8. What I found as well is with the standard templates from PFPX there is no CLIMB CRUISE Descent Schedule

available. Its grey and not clickable.

 

pfpx.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sascha17 said:

Thanks for the update. Well after a complete re installation the problem still exist with version 1.28.8. What I found as well is with the standard templates from PFPX there is no CLIMB CRUISE Descent Schedule

available. Its grey and not clickable.

 

It looks like you use a stock B777-200LRF profile. I've never checked them deeply before, so I'll have a look.

 

5 hours ago, Sascha17 said:

Model A320-214 CFM56-5B4/P

 

On a very short flight for A320 like this it never climbs higher than FL290 whereas cost index itself, as a function on Airbus A32x family, starts from FL290. Lower than that, the aircraft flies in LRC mode which is standard for any cost index meaning.

 

You can also test the CI function on longer flights, starting from 400 nmi onwards.

 

Regards

Mykyta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 12 Minuten, inlovewithBoeing sagte:

It looks like you use a stock B777-200LRF profile. I've never checked them deeply before, so I'll have a look.

 

On a very short flight for A320 like this it never climbs higher than FL290 whereas cost index itself, as a function on Airbus A32x family, starts from FL290. Lower than that, the aircraft flies in LRC mode which is standard for any cost index meaning.

 

You can also test the CI function on longer flights, starting from 400 nmi onwards.

 

Regards

Mykyta

 

If I select M.60 or M.70 instead of Cost Index like 20, will PFPX calculate with LRC as well below FL290?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sascha17 said:

 

If I select M.60 or M.70 instead of Cost Index like 20, will PFPX calculate with LRC as well below FL290?

It depends on the altitude.

 

I am far away from my working computer, but I have a paper with the list of various flight modes on my A320-214 profiles with 5B4/P engines (please see the photo below under the spoiler).

Here you can see the full list of cruise modes at Mach numbers. The numbers you can see in the brackets mean the minimum altitude for the corresponding mode. Lower of any of these altitudes we have LRC. :)

 

Spoiler

F0gi8C9.jpg

 

UPD. The FCOM on A320 that I have around tells us that in the ideal world the optimum altitude for 186 nmi flight should be FL280-FL320 (depending on landing weight) assuming that the aircraft flies in LRC mode for at least 5 minutes. What altitude has PFPX computed for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 20 Stunden , inlovewithBoeing sagte:

It depends on the altitude.

 

I am far away from my working computer, but I have a paper with the list of various flight modes on my A320-214 profiles with 5B4/P engines (please see the photo below under the spoiler).

Here you can see the full list of cruise modes at Mach numbers. The numbers you can see in the brackets mean the minimum altitude for the corresponding mode. Lower of any of these altitudes we have LRC. :)

 

  Reveal hidden contents

F0gi8C9.jpg

 

UPD. The FCOM on A320 that I have around tells us that in the ideal world the optimum altitude for 186 nmi flight should be FL280-FL320 (depending on landing weight) assuming that the aircraft flies in LRC mode for at least 5 minutes. What altitude has PFPX computed for you?

 

Okay I understand. So PFPX calculate the A320 below FL290 with LRC. 

 

But can I select an higher speed manual in PFPX to fly more then LRC below FL290?

 

For example Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Munich will fly on FL230 with an speed of N0414FL230. This is more then LRC.

Is this possible with PFPX or they calculate only with LRC below fl290 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sascha17 said:

 

Okay I understand. So PFPX calculate the A320 below FL290 with LRC. 

 

But can I select an higher speed manual in PFPX to fly more then LRC below FL290?

 

For example Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Munich will fly on FL230 with an speed of N0414FL230. This is more then LRC.

Is this possible with PFPX or they calculate only with LRC below fl290 ?

Well, I think so. 414 KTAS under ISA conditions at FL230 equals M0.682. So far, my profiles on A320-214 have can fly at FL230 at M0.60-M0.71.

 

However, you have to remember that higher cruising speeds on short segments of flight might result in lower time en-route, resulting thus in lower optimum altitudes OR almost no actual cruise portion at all. Because of that, there is a special field in PFPX software - percentage of cruise part on short trips. The default value is 20% that is pretty reasonable for such flights. However, one can always modify this entry considering the factors above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vor 1 Stunde, inlovewithBoeing sagte:

Well, I think so. 414 KTAS under ISA conditions at FL230 equals M0.682. So far, my profiles on A320-214 have can fly at FL230 at M0.60-M0.71.

 

However, you have to remember that higher cruising speeds on short segments of flight might result in lower time en-route, resulting thus in lower optimum altitudes OR almost no actual cruise portion at all. Because of that, there is a special field in PFPX software - percentage of cruise part on short trips. The default value is 20% that is pretty reasonable for such flights. However, one can always modify this entry considering the factors above.

 

Well I have to check this setting.

But maybe you can check it to calculate a   short flight for example on FL190 if you have the same problem that PFPX only use LRC speed. 

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