Jump to content

BW901

Members
  • Posts

    138
  • Joined

2 Followers

About BW901

Recent Profile Visitors

5203 profile views

BW901's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • One Year In
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

57

Reputation

  1. Not aware of what? Given what you are aware of now might a revision to the title be appropriate, the questions posed after the OP could suggest that more is/was being read into the title than perhaps intended?
  2. Perhaps the title of this thread follows current journalistic fashion in being a little OTT or sensationalist? From the developer's subsequent post this is hardly "end of life", but merely a cessation by Aerosoft of their sales and support to PFPX? I certainly echo the sentiments of others in hoping PFPX continues to be available for a long time to come, there's nothing else out there to touch its capabilities.
  3. Hi Francesco, I hope the guide is a help. There are a few format issues with the file, but on initial sight the biggest question is that you only include climb data up to 29000ft. If you have that then it should be quick and easy to get the rest of the file sorted out, though this won't be suitable for short sectors as you only have Mach cruise data from FL250 and above. Cheers Jon
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 differences of the D. If not then it'll fly like a standard -400 in the sim anyway.
  8. Apologies folks. As I was running numbers for the DC-10-10 I saw the DC-10-30 hold fuel flows were incorrect (the 10 has only 3 engines, not 4 . Correct file v1.10 now uploaded.
  9. Hehe! New DC-10-30 and updated 747-400ER now uploaded. If anybody with the Aerosoft DC8 can please post the appropriate weights for the aircraft I'll finish off that profile.
  10. Hi Phil, I've done 90% of the work on a DC8-50 profile, and if I can have all the weights for the Aerosoft model I can finish it. And I have completed a new DC10-30 profile, just haven't published it yet. Cheers Jon
  11. Hi Pablo, When I did the files on airlinerperformance they were based upon the flight models from the various developers, which are normally specific to one engine type, rather than the visual models which probably do cover all the engine manufacturers. To my mind there is no point in making a file for Roller engines if the flightmodel is based upon Pratts - I'd just wind up with a load of complaints about how my file differed from the sim (maybe there's a poll to be had there - how many simmers actually compare time and fuel used versus plan, and how many simmers actually use an OFP as it is used in the real world?). Which 777 are you flying and I'll take a look again? From my very limited experience RR engines burn about 3% more than their PW equivalents and are heavier, but again if it's a PW-based flight model.....In such a case changing the aircraft details is a suitable way of covering different variants in the sim. To answer some other earlier posts: On the DC-10 I'll upload my old files, but I was also most ways through a new version with many more cruise speed schedules - will see about finishing that sometime. There is a Twin Otter file up on www.airlinerperformance.net Cheers Jon
  12. Hi,

    in 2013 you´ve write

     

    "I've updated the CRJ profile file in the Downloads section. Now includes 700 and 900.

    Jon"

     

    I cann´t find this file, you have remove it?

     

    Frank

  13. Hello,

    did you ever publish updated profiles for the bae146/avro family of QW?

    thx for answering.

    Paul

  14. A file for the Phenom is at http://www.airlinerperformance.net. I don't have data for the 850XP, but I think someone had done a profile, remember seeing a forum discussion somewhere, Google may be your friend.
  15. Piper9t3, I don't have Carenado's 406, but I do have performance data for the 406. Climb and descent is in graphical format which is a right PITA, and I don't unfortunately have the time to extract it. If you or someone else is willing to extract the data so I can have the equivalent text data I can compile it. Drop me a PM if you're interested. Same goes for the KA200, it's all graphical data. Jon
×
×
  • Create New...