Jump to content

InterCityExpress4

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by InterCityExpress4

  1. Yes, it technically wouldn't affect fuel burn. But then again, neither would the DOW - at the end of the day it's the ZFW that counts. 

     

    Just wondering, since we are able to enter a basic weight and configurations for an airframe :)

     

    The layout I'm recreating has a weight & balance section in which the data for BW, crew, catering, payload are listed which make up the ZFW.

  2. G'day all,

     

    just wondering, if the following variables are availble for call-up in PFPX, as they don't appear in the layout template manual(s):

     

    -Empty weight (the basic weight as entered in the airframe details, with no config adding pantry codes or crew) as opposed to Dry Operating Weight

     

    -configuration weight (difference between DOW and BW)

     

    The aircraft.txt files have the BW entered as <DOW> which is, technically, incorrect...it is a BW that becomes a DOW with the addition of crew, crew baggage, catering, potable water, etc.

  3. And, in addition to what you have correctly figured out, the ISA deviation can greatly affect the optimum flight level, or even the maximum reachable flight level.

     

    Last summer, ISA deviation on the way home from the Canary Islands to mainland Europe was rather high. And with fully laden and fully fueled narrowbody aircraft, even FL360 was unreachable, not to mention sensible in terms of fuel burn, so it was indeed smart to start out on a lower level as it would even save gas compared to aiming for FL360 or 380 right away.

    • Like 1
  4. The fuel policy does not depend on the country you happen to be flying in... An operator will always have to comply with the fuel policy of the country it is registered in. If Delta was to start domestic flights in Spain, it would still need to comply with FAA fuel requirements, just like Qantas wouldn't stop using their Aussie fuel policy when operating from Singapore to Heathrow.

    • Upvote 1
  5. Hi all,

     

    I'm putting together a new OFP layout and try to keep it as close to the real deal as possible. While I was able to get a lot of things right, there's a few issues that still puzzle me and that I wonder are even possible to recreate.

    The airline uses LIDO irl so it should look familiar to most.

     

    1) This is what the upper right corner of the first page should look like:

    header1.JPG.d4636c5c50b64820a3389d538c6beea6.JPG

     

    Now, for the cost index: If I just put:

    Zitieren

    <&#:51>COST INDEX<&#:65><&IsCostIndex_Begin><&InitCruiseSpeed[1]:3/R><&IsCostIndex_End>

     

    it displays perfectly fine. However, if I want it to show a fixed Mach or Speed (not all aircraft are always flown with a cost index, after all), and use this:

     

    Zitieren

    <&IsCostIndex_Begin>COST INDEX <&InitCruiseSpeed[1]><&IsCostIndex_End><&IsMach_Begin>MACH <&InitCruiseSpeed[1]><&IsMach_End><&IsFixedSpeed_Begin>CRUISE <&InitCruiseSpeed[1]<&IsFixedSpeed_End>

     

    it swallows an entire line of text and looks like this:

    Now that line is taken from the default PFPX layout where it shows perfectly fine, so I'm curious as to why that is?

     

     

    2) The line 'SPEED       ECON' should say 'VRBL' instead of ECON when a fixed speed or Mach portion is planned within a flight, for example over Oceanic airspace. I've tried several ways of forcing PFPX to replace "ECON" with "VRBL" for example by starting <&Oceanic_something_Begin> but that never worked. Any chance to incorporate that into one single template.txt file or would I have to publish two, one for oceanic flights and one without fixed Mach segments?

     

     

    3) Does PFPX do protected/unprotected contingency fuel calculations?

     

     

    4) Can I display the 'WX from ... to ...' text for the alternate in the same manner as for the enroute alternate? I solved it with the +/- 1 hour remark around the <&Altn1ETA> for now, in the real layout it's formatted in the same way for both enroute and destination alternate.

    fuelladder1.thumb.JPG.ebab20b9c4c08ab7f0f4fba5735d043c.JPG

     

    Also, when planning without an enroute alternate, PFPX doesn't leave a blank line between the line for contingency fuel, and for alternate fuel which looks odd. This is the code I came up with:
     

    Zitieren

     

    TRIP<&#:10><&TripFuel:6><&#:18><&TripTime[2]:5>

    CONT DES<&#:10><&ContingencyFuel:6><&#:18><&ContingencyTime[2]:5><&#:25><&EnrouteAlternate_Begin><&EnrouteAltn> WXFM <&EnrouteAltnEarliest[1]> WXTO <&EnrouteAltnLatest[1]><&EnrouteAlternate_End>

    ALTN<&#:10><&AlternateFuel:6><&#:18><&AlternateTime[2]:5><&#:25><&Altn1:4> WX <&Altn1ETA[1]> +/- 1H

    FINAL RES<&#:10><&FinalReserveFuel:6><&#:18><&FinalReserveTime[2]:5>
    <&EROPSSection_Begin>
    EROPS<&#:10><&EROPSFuel:6><&EROPSSection_End>

    PLNTOF<&#:10><&TakeOffFuel:6><&#:18><&TakeOffTime[2]:5><&#:50><&TakeOffFuel[5]:16>      

    DIFF<&#:10>......<&#:18>.....

    PLNTOF<&#:11>.....<&#:18>.....<&#:25>(CORRECTED)
    <&EROPSSection_Begin>
    N.I.C.<&#:11>-<&#:15>0<&#:18>.....<&EROPSSection_End>

    EXTRA<&#:10>......<&#:18>.....<&#:25>POSS<&#:30><&MaxExtraFuel:6/R><&MaxExtraFuelLimit:1>

    TOF<&#:10>......<&#:18>.....

    TAXI<&#:12>....<&#:24><&TaxiOutFuel:6>/<&TaxiOutTime[2]:5>

    BLOCK<&#:10>......        <&#:25>TCAP<&#:30><&FuelCapacity:6><&#:38>.....
    --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------
    <&ContingencyFuelCaption:10><&#:10><&ContingencyFuel:6><&#:18><&ContingencyTime:5> AT DEP
    (30 KG INCLUDED IN TRIP)

     

     

     

     

    These, I think, are the main issues I ran into...gladly appreciate any input!

     

    Best regards

×
×
  • Create New...