Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Posts posted by FlyPrecisely

  1. Hello friends.


    Aside from the real-world stuff and other flightsim things, I have been busy with another major project of mine. This is Boeing 737NG and Boeing 777 accurate aircraft cockpit configs for PMDG and iFly models. I have been doing this since 2015 in personal purposes, and for the Ukrainian flightsim community since 2017.
    Now, with the experience, deep research and understanding, I decided to do all the airline operators of the world in order to increase the quality of flight simming.


    Many popular airlines like Ryanair, Emirates, Norwegian are already done with many more to come. Please note that the fleet list is valid as at the revision date. I'll try to keep it up-to-date as much as possible.
    Please read the installation and use the manual for more details.


    Of course, your help will be highly appreciated should you be interested in helping. Feel free to contact me via the email flyprecisely(at)hotmail.com or Telegram @Mykyta_D regarding the project.


    And I would like to say a big thank you to all the people who have already contributed this project with the information about the airlines and configs.

    Please share this information on your resources and with your friends and colleagues.


    Boeing 747, 757, 767, and 787 are also planned, but only after subject types are complete.


    Keep safe and FlyPrecisely

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


    Links to the Google Drive. Later, I'll upload all of them to Aerosoft Forum file library.
    B737NG: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jnj0qGGwKUH99EYq4jUz6-nD-g3xVD5D

    B777: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1aZGl-e03171NV_r_1J8FZ8pYFhWC5s7M

  2. On 10/3/2018 at 3:20 PM, Skyrock said:

    I'm struggling with the 787 profiles since I've already set the bias to -4.0 and I'm still using way less fuel than calculated. I assume it has something to do with the ISA deviation. In the .txt files, I got rid of any ISA deviations in order to achieve a more precise calculation, but the 787 profiles are all .per files, so I can't edit them.


    I confirm the problem: these B787 profiles calculate 4 to 6% more fuel than required.

  3. On 18.06.2017 at 4:31 PM, petkez said:

    Thanks for your many excellent profiles. The 717 profile has an error with the engines type BR700-715C1. The profile has a Max ZFW of only 10,500 lbs and a max take off 12,100 lbs so it is unusable.




    I confirm my mistyping, disregard that above.


    I'll reupload it.




  4. On 18.06.2017 at 4:31 PM, petkez said:

    Thanks for your many excellent profiles. The 717 profile has an error with the engines type BR700-715C1. The profile has a Max ZFW of only 10,500 lbs and a max take off 12,100 lbs so it is unusable.




    Hi, Pete.


    I've tested the profile in PFPX before release and it worked well.

    The weights were taken from a real-world FCOM directly. I'll check it once again.



  5. 2 hours ago, Emanuel Hagen said:

    During beta testing we tested our Airbus with real world OFPs brought along by our fellow real life A320 pilots.
    The results were within a +-300kg fuel remaining using real weather and flights up to 6 hours. We couldn't get any real life OFP with flight lenghs of more than 6 hours, so anything beyond that can not be confirmed by flight tests.


    We can not really assure that fuel usage will remain realistic at fuel loads exceeding the maximum of 20t which we programmed. Theoretically it should remain realistic, but we never confirmed this with flighttests as it was simply too far away from what we expect the typical user to do with our bus.

    Thank you for your response, Emanuel. :)

  6. 12 hours ago, CS-TMT said:

    Alright! All clarified now!
    Didn't know about that of the drag bias.

    Thanks a lot for your help and congrats for your wonderful job regarding these profiles!

    Start with +3% and record the flight data.

    And you may contact the developers and tell them about the problem.

    It would be also important to check this bug out on the rest of Aerosoft A32x Family aircrafts.



  7. 12 hours ago, CS-TMT said:

    Regarding 2. after descending from FL390 to FL380 I had an imbalance of ~300kg between left and right engine (Aerosoft Airbus' known bug of one engine consuming +50kg/h than the other), so I used X-Feed to get things a bit more balanced. X-Feed is also known to consume some extra fuel in this Airbus pack. However I had X-Feed activated for only a couple of minutes (1 or 2 max).

    Extra fuel consumption can be set in form of drag bias. It can compensate the extra fuel flow. It's pretty common in real life because engines have their own bugs in real life. :)


    12 hours ago, CS-TMT said:

    Now, after KOMUT, besides of descending from FL390 > 380 I should also maintain a constant speed of M.78 as I was entering oceanic airspace, as oposed to a speed calculated in accordance with CI35. So, in short, the only "event" after KOMUT was the use of X-Feed, as both the descent and speed adjustmen was included and calculated by PFPX.

    When you would like to change the cruise mode you ought to plan it so in PFPX.


    12 hours ago, CS-TMT said:

    The flight continued on CI35 and the EFOB kept decreasing by 0,1t every once in a while. I ended up landing with about only 1,5t as opposed to the PFPX calculated 4,5t.
    One thing I noted during the whole flight: the fuel page on the lower ECAM showed a consumption of 39-43kg/min. Shouldn't this be 35kg/min according to a CI35? A 5kg/min discrepancy would give 5*60=300kg/h, which, on a 10h flight would give the 3000kg of difference between the PFPX calculated 4,5t and the actual 1,5t landing fuel.

    It's alright.

    In headwind condtions actual Cost Index increases (approx. +0.18 indeces per 1 kt of headwind component on A319 CFM). So, the formula is:


    Corrected CI = MCDU CI + (Wind Comp. * CI Adjust)


    Taking into account your conditions (50 kt headwind comp) the actual CI is going to be somewhere of 40-45 kg/min.


    12 hours ago, CS-TMT said:

    Side note: Before discovering your exhaustively detailed profiles for the A320-family, I used another profile which I downloaded here in the downloads page if I remember it well. However I had these discrepancies with it as well, so I believe this is not an issue with your profiles. I just came here trying to find a sollution to this. Haven't tried other models (A318, A320, A321) nor have I tried other engine types (IAE) so I don't know whether this is an issue particularly associated with the A319CFM or not.

    That's an interesting subject for a research.

  8. 10 minutes ago, Mklemme said:

    I noticed in the PFPX OFP that the mach speed is .78 at TABAX and KOMUT, but then it starts to decrease to .74 by TIMTO. If the actual flight was flown at constant .78 this could explain the increased fuel burn after KOMUT. It's could also be a conversion issue with how Cost Index 35 translates to TAS/M# in the Aerosoft FMC logic v. what's in the PFPX profile.

    By the way, thank you for this notice, I haven't paid much attention to that because the flight time was almost the same. I'll check it out right away.


    The function of cost index also determines lower speeds at lower weights when the cost index is within typical flight ops range (0-40).


    Anyway, it is a planning issue because MNPS area requires Mach Number Technique (flying with a determined constant Mach No.).

  9. I've had a look at it.


    The facts:

    - the total overconsumption of fuel from takeoff to landing is almost 1100 kg;

    - ZFW is OK according to the OFP;

    - Block Fuel was loaded enough according to the OFP;

    - fuel quantity on takeoff was enough according to the OFP;

    - ISA deviations throughout the route are OK.


    What was discovered:

    1. At the first waypoint of the cruise flight (as I have no info about TOC/TOD points location and fuel remaining) the discrepancy has already reached -0.2 t. This discrepancy is acceptable. It is covered by contingency fuel and might be compensated during the flight.

    2. The discrepancy begins to increase rapidly after descent to FL380 and entry into the oceanic airspace. It is:

    -0.5 t at 3820N

    -0.7 t at BEKUN

    -0.8 t at VMG


    Was there anything special during this part?


    3. The actual winds in flightsim enroute were approximately the same as in OFP in velocity, however their heading appears to be more westerly than calculated resulting in slightly higher headwind component. The cost index function on modern aircrafts is designed that way to increase or decrease economic speed depending on the components to keep the flight time closer to the computed CI.


    The winds themselves can play some role, but for more precision in order to compare the directions I'll need the magnetic declinations, as long as all enroute wind data is always provided in true headings.


    4. A very early descent into LPHR. 

    OFP reads that the TOD point should have been after TIMTO intsc, however you've started your descent somewhere after VMG. You've also burnt almost thrice more fuel on descent than required (approx 0.7 - 0.8 t instead of calculated 0.3 - 0,4 t).


    In conclusion I can say that there could be two contributing factors to our case:

    1. Early descent into destination field. There are plenty of circumstances in flight that may require it (ATC commands, traffic density etc.), but they are all going to the factor of airmanship and not the aircraft model.

    2. Wind directions and velocities, especially at middle and low altitudes during descent. At the cruise segment it looks rather well, but anyway, it doesn't tell us why there is a increasing discrepancy.


    I have also to add that I haven't tested the performance of Aerosoft Airbus A32x models so far. You can always make an experiment to check it. You may calculate the flight in ISA and zero wind (option in PFPX weather settings) and complete a flight in ISA and zero wind. When we exclude the weather, we get the model and airmaship factors.

  • Create New...