Jump to content

inlovewithBoeing

members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

Everything posted by inlovewithBoeing

  1. If someone shares full Flight Planning and Performance Manual, it will be done. :)
  2. Essentially, they are all the same — just named for different variations. Use appropriately for your airline.
  3. @VHOJT, you can always browse the alternative profiles — there are plenty of them on the internet.
  4. I confirm the problem: these B787 profiles calculate 4 to 6% more fuel than required.
  5. Not yet. On the other hand, any viable B737 MAX model for FS out there?
  6. Hello everyone. The project is alive and moves on. Added cost index data to the MD-80 fleet. It ought to be helpful for new Leonardo X MD-8x model. Regards Mykyta
  7. You can always set your own company weights while adding a new airframe in PFPX.
  8. Finally, the pack of PFPX profiles on Airbus A330 family is complete! ALSO, re-uploaded Boeing 717 pack here due to the weights bug. http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/file/4371-pfpx-boeing-717-family-performance-profiles-pack/
  9. Version 1.0

    1684 downloads

    PFPX performance profiles for Airbus A330 with all available engines for real-world operators. Multiple engine out schedules and all engine schedules, Mach numbers and cost index data. For use with Aerosoft, Blackbox, JAR Design or Wilco/FeelThere A330 models. See Readme.txt for details. Mykyta Demydiuk | FlyPrecisely Made in Ukraine Discussion Thread: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/86055-pfpx-profiles-by-flyprecisely/ TO HELP THE PROJECT Cryptocurrencies (please see the spoiler below) PayPal Donation Paypal FlyPrecisely (opens in new window) SWIFT Bank Transfer (non-commercial/donation) See spoiler below PrivatBank Card in UAH (Ukraine only) 4149 4978 4310 3724
  10. I confirm my mistyping, disregard that above. I'll reupload it. Regards Mykyta
  11. 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. Mykyta
  12. PFPX Bombardier Dash 8-402Q Pack is out! Download on Aerosoft:
  13. Version 1.0

    1243 downloads

    PFPX performance profiles for Bombardier Dash 8-402Q with all available engines for real-world operators. Multiple engine out schedules and all engine schedules. For use with Majestic Software Dash 8-402Q model. See Readme.txt for details. Mykyta Demydiuk | FlyPrecisely Made in Ukraine Discussion Thread: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/86055-pfpx-profiles-by-flyprecisely/ TO HELP THE PROJECT Cryptocurrencies (please see the spoiler below) PayPal Donation Paypal FlyPrecisely (opens in new window) SWIFT Bank Transfer (non-commercial/donation) See spoiler below PrivatBank Card in UAH (Ukraine only) 4149 4978 4310 3724
  14. McDonnell Douglas MD80/90 Family Pack is out! Download on Aerosoft:
  15. Version 2.0

    1775 downloads

    PFPX performance profiles for McDonnell Douglas MD-8x and MD-90 family with all available engines for real-world operators. Multiple engine out schedules and all engine schedules, Mach numbers and cost index data (MD-8x fleet).. For use with Leonardo/Rotate MD-8x model and SGA or SGA/Leonardo Merge MD-90 model See Readme.txt for details. Mykyta Demydiuk | FlyPrecisely Made in Ukraine Discussion Thread: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/86055-pfpx-profiles-by-flyprecisely/ For Boeing 717 family see: PFPX Boeing 717 Performance Profiles Pack TO HELP THE PROJECT Cryptocurrencies (please see the spoiler below) PayPal Donation Paypal FlyPrecisely (opens in new window) SWIFT Bank Transfer (non-commercial/donation) See spoiler below PrivatBank Card in UAH (Ukraine only) 4149 4978 4310 3724
  16. 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. Cheers!
  17. 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. When you would like to change the cruise mode you ought to plan it so in PFPX. 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. That's an interesting subject for a research.
  18. 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.).
  19. 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...