Jump to content

BW901

Members
  • Posts

    138
  • Joined

Everything posted by BW901

  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. 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.
  13. 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
  14. MRW* Up to 174,900 LB MTOW* Up to 174,200 LB MZFW* Up to 138,300 LB MLW* Up to 146,300 LB BEW 86,300 LB Estimated, which will of course vary depending on the individual aircraft, and hopefully may be lower once the conversion design is finalised. * These'll be based upon the airframe limitations as a passenger aircraft prior to conversion, or as varied on request to Boeing Typical Max Payload Up to 52,000 LB. Generally you'll volume-out before weighing-out so typical payloads will be significantly less than max, unless you have a plane load of banknotes or gold bullion.
  15. First 738 freighter conversions should be flying in real world by 2018. Just change the OEW and you'd be good to go. I have some marketing preliminary weights somewhere when I'm back home.
  16. 300 and a more detailed 100 than that bundled with PFPX at www.airlinerperformance.net
  17. Hi Enis, Profiles for IAE variants of the 32x are bundled with PFPX and if you check a recent post from me you'll find another option, but I won't hijack ILWB's thread further with a direct link. Jon
  18. GE-powered A310-300 now available at www.airlinerperformance.net PW version to follow.
  19. DC-10-30 and Citation XLS+ added to www.airlinerperformance.net
  20. I've set up a Dropbox site for performance files for FSX/P3D and X-plane which may be of interest, I have amixed bag of types complete and in the pipeline, so hopefully something for everyone before too long. Will post as the list is updated, now that CLS has updated the DC-10s and 747 Classics must try and finish those. Files accessible via www.airlinerperformance.net
  21. Version v2.00

    1066 downloads

    PFPX profile for the Boeing 707-320C, based on British Caledonian Cruise Control Manual data. Some equipment data for the ICAO flightplan required, and would be nice to add some airline specific weight and configuration data, happy to hear from anyone who can assist. Cheers Jon
×
×
  • Create New...