phil747fan

which distance the planner is ignoring for you? could you post the flightplan you generate?

Merry Christmas and thank you so much.

no federal certified dispatcher anymoe but our rules were related sometimes to the destination but in general it was one hour after the ETA but i ve seen for specific destinations or carriers up to 120 minutes. do not quote my words as it was few years ago ...

this is very easy: you just found the weights of the D and add 10% on fuel burn because of the lack of winglets.

thanks a lot.

Ray, late in the discussion but do you if for pmdg there is a different .air file for the -800 an the -800w?

hello Pierre, could you post the plan you used and also the airplane?

i ve been a long time defender of showing your real name but lately i thought that even on PMDG forum it did not stop idiots .... for those that have been part of the simming communauty for a very long time there is no secret about who is who for sure but Mathijs you have open a can of worm that may not be stopped ... maybe next step is to prove who has buy which products on the signature .... so i vote against but im not german .... so to be precise i voted yes.

it will be the amount of fuel given for the time given. so if you say 6000 lbs for 2 min for the system it will add this information. not any interpolation. for the go around in case of a missed approach that includes: a go around, climbing up to 1500ft and reaching 250kias as per Boeing no time will be given but an amount of fuel. for a 777-200lr the amount of fuel for that case will be 390 kgs.

it will remove the usage of the word random ....

for some aircraft there is additionnal time and fuel burn added for the take excluded from the climb profile off and some that needed some extra time and fuel as for the descent no allowance was given for the approach while some others give you a straight approach which is not very often the case in real life so you may need extra in time and fuel to avoide the shortage of fuel. hope this is helping you out.

seems eurocontrol is harder to control than before .... maybe the 1st April that will be a different story.

250/300/.78 will be more fuel efficient.

good points but Mathijs that was not the technology that killed the Concorde but politics. is there a global agreement to operate them this time?

the problem i see is that the technology used in the concorde was from the 60s and very often created for this need and secondly the politicians were involved and te two countries were part of the creation of Airbus. soon europe will never be the same will it for the manpower or the technology. i do not know if today we have the knowledge of the teams that created concorde and i doubt those guys and gals are young anymore ... the americans struggled with their lovely projects and killed concorce by ponya and delays to get the approvals ... seems they tried that with the c series and this time custom fees as we all know boeing is not receiving a dime of federal us budget ....