Jump to content

BW901

Members
  • Posts

    138
  • Joined

Posts posted by BW901

  1. 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.

    • Like 1
  2. 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

  3. 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.

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 3
  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 differences of the D. If not then it'll fly like a standard -400 in the sim anyway.

    • Thanks 1
  5. 13 hours ago, Pvazquez said:

    Is it possible to make an American Airlines 777-200ER (N768AA) with RR Trent 800 engines? The one in the Airline Performance page is with the PW4090 engines. I'm looking for the one with the RR Trent 800.

     

    Thank you,

    Pablo Vazquez

     

    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

     

     

     

     

  6. On 08/11/2015, 13:17:18, Piper9t3 said:

    Any chance on a PFPX aircraft profile for Carenado's F406 Caravan II  ??

    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

  7. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...