Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

56 Excellent


About BW901

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

4595 profile views
  1. Well we've proved this forum isn't dead, so there's a positive. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and a few people seem to be quite vocal in expressing theirs. I've expressed mine above, and to me this subject is akin to that favourite question of flightsim forums - "when's the release date?". Again I'm taking the positive view that PFPX works very well. What I paid for works and the developer hasn't failed to get the servers back up when they've had an outage. I got what I paid for. The developers don't owe me anything else. That's my reality.
  2. Have you read the topic title Ray? No misquote, that excerpt from your post is a good answer to the question posed by that title. From here on I'll just be feeding the trolls.
  3. If PFPX was "dead" then why would the servers be online? It continues to be one of the best bits of software I've spent my hard earned dollars on.
  4. The main obvious difference of the 747-400D is that they were not fitted with winglets. On most Boeings which had winglet option as retrofit the fuel burn saving is around 3-4%, so the burn on the 400D will be higher. On the very short domestic sectors those aircraft flew the additional burn wasn't huge and was offset by weight saving without the winglets and maintenance benefits. I believe that the D also had lower fuel capacity and different weights, but someone more knowledgeable than me may know better. Of course this all assumes that PMDG have a specific flight model reflecting the differ
  5. My apologies if it's an inconvenience that the site is down. Unfortunately at the moment I'm having to spend time lifting floors and working on a house rather than looking at a screen. I think my PC's are getting withdrawal symptoms. In the meantime for anyone who has airlinerperformance files please keep using and enjoying them, but I would ask that you do not (re-)distribute them. Cheers Jon
  6. If memory serves the 550 is a recofigured 700. Revising (reducing) 700 weights and seat capacity etc should work.
  7. Thanks Gentlemen. It's over so quickly! Phil are you back in the freezing north? B767-200 engine variants for the Flightfactor uploaded now. Although said to be -200ER by FF, the weights in the EFB are representative of a standard aircraft, so I've gone with lower numbers to match the EFB. As with all these you can edit payload options, weights and fuel figures to match your own flight model or airline preferences within PFPX in any case.
  8. Merry Christmas folks. A couple of presents up at airlinerperformance.net ahead of the big day. Profiles for the newly-released A321 are uploaded and the first variant for the Flightfactor 767, the -300ER with RR engines is also up. These have CI data for climb, cruise and descent - interestingly looking at Twitch streamers no one ever seems to use CI on climb or descent. More 767s to follow. Also with the Milviz 350 out this week I've written a file for that (temporarily) linked here KA350i. I've fudged the perf at low weights so would be interested if anyone with that
  9. File uploaded at www.airlinerperformance.net
  10. Well you found me Loic 😉 No promise on how long, but if I can find a few hours this weekend, I'll run up a profile. Cheers Jon
  11. Folks, profiles are built, but I've had a computer issue which will cause some delay. That's just about resolved, so hopefully files will be uploaded to airlinerperformance in the next few days once I've done a bit of testing. Thanks @AirbusCG for the polite and considered post there, and @donkey for the website check!
  12. Matching Takeoff Weight is the bit that matters. The total weight of the aircraft is what drives the performance and fuel burn, irrespective of how that total weight is made up. You add bias through the Aircraft Editor. Select the relevant aircraft in the Aircraft Database and then select Edit. Type the bias into the relevant data entry box, make sure you save when you have changed the appropriate value. APM has nothing to do with what we're proposing here, simply type in the suggested values. If you are finding that the TOW in your sim and in PFPX aren't matching then my suggestio
  13. Ray, I've never used drag bias - that may then also affect speeds. It is very hard to understand what's happening without seeing the whole picture. Fuel burn is only one element in the whole equation. The ideal would be if we had the OFP used as it is in the real world, as a How-gozit. With actual time and fuel, and some IAS/TAS/wind checks annotated onto a printed OFP it would be much easier to see exactly what's going on. However I appreciate that's something that only a few simmers would ever do. Sorry if I'm repeating what Stephen has already asked and for doing the
  14. Ray, If you remove that bias, PFPX's calculated fuel is going to reduce - by 5.6% or typically somewhere around 100kg for the climb segment. That is only going to increase the differential between PFPX's burn and your sim burn. At the moment given the way your sim is behaving you'd be wanting to increase the climb bias to somewhere around 10%. Something is not right, because your sim burn is high in all three flight phases, even in the descent you're burning 200 (units on the bar chart?) more than PFPX's calculation. I no longer have P3D installed, I now only use X-Plan
  15. At higher weights a 738 is going to consume somewhere between 1700 and 2000kg getting up to typical altitudes (and I've just been looking at a bunch of realworld OFPs to verify that). That matches the numbers in the performance file. You appear to have already added 5.6% fuel bias on the climb. If you are saying that you're burning a few hundred lbs more than that in the sim.... I'd say CI 45 or 35 is high for normal planning purposes, but I'm open to correction. Every OFP I've been looking at is between 10 and 20. Having said that Climb at CI40 vs CI10 only adds about 3% to climb
  • Create New...