Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BAW242

  • Rank
    Ramp Agent
  1. Thanks Dave I will look up your ‘discord’ (as an aside, things have changed a fair bit since I left simming/vatsim 10 years ago, I now find myself accidentally featuring on ‘twitch’ videos from other online pilots!). re. The IAE vs CFM I knew they would be different but I am still amazed that the roll would be 2700’ and 17 seconds longer for same airframe / config / weights / speeds. I will see if I can do more digging (may take the lazy option and contact a couple of old buddies I know who were flight performance and powerplant engineers for an IAE operator and RR!). dave
  2. OK, interesting tests, I don't normally use the CFM versions at all, and noticed better accel performance from that one vs IAE, more like what I was used to on previous models, off the ground in much shorter distance (2,700' less), but didn't seem to want to unstick at V2 (took +9 kts). The IAE continued to feel a bit sluggish and took longer to get airborne, but did so at lower (correct computed) speed and climbed slower. I started both from LFPG 08L full length. I will Google perf data to check what it should be roughly (and dust off my 1990s aeronautical engineering degree lecture notes to try and remember the maths!) David CFM ZFW/ZFWCG 56.1/35.1 Vs 139/146/147 Take off roll to unstick took 40 seconds, unstick seemed to be at 156kts (took these times from Flight Analysis chart in P3D and may not be 100% accurate as I was just scrolling the analysis chart looking for time and speed that altitude started to rise). Unstick seemed to be just around W4 (4787' from THR) rapid exit maybe 1/3 between that and W5 (6903') so maybe total roll 5300' if we take 200' off as I started on the piano keys? IAE Same weights/CG/speeds ZFW/ZFWCG 56.1/35.1 Vs 139/146/147 Roll took 57 seconds and unstick speed 148kts Unstick seemed to be about 2/3 way between W5 (6903') and W6 (8743') intersections so let's say 8200' or 8000' if we take off 200' for piano keys?)
  3. Thanks Dave I will do that and take a couple of videos. I do use Simbrief (a bespoke AS A320 series set of profiles would be awesome), and also have been putting numbers into this >> A320 Take-Off Performance Calculator website to cross check, and the v-speeds are broadly in line between the website and AS A320. It seems to be more about acceleration/thrust to get to the speeds. I forgot to add in my original post that initial climb performance also seems poorer than I remember in all previous A320 models, often very slow to get away from the ground, then under 1000 fpm intially, usually leveling out for a while after AA to accelerate whereas I remember previous models used to continue to climb through the accel (maybe this is just a better model now and my technique is poor!). There is no problem after intial climb, or any other phase of flight, just take-off/initial climb.
  4. I have been having some pretty major issues with take-off performance ever since I switched from FSX Aerosoft A320 to P3D v4.5 Aerosoft A320 Pro (about 3 months now). The problem in a nutshell seems to be the thrust performance during take-off roll and initial climb. The problems seem to have subsided a bit now ever since I moved from using the onboard load planner to the A3XX Fuel Planner app, but this is not the whole story I think. When first moving to P3D and A320 Pro I followed all steps and used onboard planner. Frequently I would get A-prot and even stall on departure. Sometimes this would involve noticeable decel/accel during the roll. Even moving to TOGA would not save the take-off. Now I only use the Fuel Planner app and I don't have the A-prot or stall problem but the take-off roll is much much longer than I ever had in previous A320s, or the rolls I see on Youtube videos of the FSLabs A320, or real life, or A320 proper sims that I have flown a few times many years ago. I use almost all the runway at EGLL and LFPG for example (derated to 67 degrees but still I don't think the roll should be so long). Can I ask for some help on what data/tests/logging I should collect to share with this group to help me work out the problem? Could it be something to do with having the FSX version and not properly uninstalling it, maybe some old data files affecting the thrust performance or making the aircraft think it is heavier? Thanks in advance.
  • Create New...