Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent


  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

3091 profile views
  1. Yes - I told them about that! Looking forward to testing it out.
  2. Yep - I mean it is a flight planning program. It is excellent at that. It doesn't really need new features regularly to stay relevant. I would like a couple of bugs fixed - such as the altitude bug which has been around various forms since 1.29, and is starting to get a little annoying!
  3. I do quite a few when I'm sorting out an aircraft's bias. Several per flight if a long-haul: you'd be surprised by how much bias can cary depending on gross weight (even when controlling for ISA deviation). Don't know if it's a profile issue or some of the aeroplane's flight models.
  4. Why would you ask if they are dead? Silliness. You can see Judith replied to a post just the other day, and the programs work.
  5. https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/profile/90043-flightsimsoftcom/content/ The developers have posted here 5 times this month - so they're about
  6. In past experience, Judith does tend to reply to that.
  7. I sincerely hope not - nothing matches this program anywhere else. It is fantastic and I don't know what I'd do without. I wonder if it puts potential customers off when they read this forum though and see not many responses from developers?
  8. Yes, v 2.03 has some strange altitude bugs that result in bizarre flight levels sometimes. I hope this will be addressed one day.
  9. Looks like, for the NGXu, this has been resolved in the latest update: - 0008251: [General - Engines] ISA Deviation effect on fuel flow model (emvaos) - resolved.
  10. Hello all, I have conducted some statistical analysis on all PMDG aircraft - none of them increase fuel burn 3% per 10 degree ISA increase, and none of them have decreased fuel burn for the reverse. PMDG have been notified and are looking into the problem. In the meantime, I hope this might help a couple of people who might be frustrated by not being able to find a good "bias" number. If you can edit the aircraft file, remove any reference to the increase/decreased burn in varying ISA conditions. Or adjust by average on a per flight basis. Here are some figures for bias to start with that I have obtained by flying the aircraft at different weights in different ISA conditions, and measuring fuel burn (if you're interested in the method, I'll detail that later). All reference the default profiles, which are good profiles: Boeing 737-800 Tested at CI20 NGX: ISA bias -2.47% Drag: +0.74% NGXu: ISA bias: -2.03% Drag: +0.19% Boeing 747-400 RR Tested at CI50 ISA bias: -2.93% Drag: +0.3% Boeing 777-200LR Tested at CI100 ISA bias: +2.73% Drag: 0% Boeing 777-300ER Tested at CI100 ISA bias: +1.28% Drag: +0.13% Now, if you can edit the aircraft files - I would suggest removing any reference to added/decreased fuel burn for ISA deviation. You can post if you need help with this in this post. Or - you can look at the average ISA deviation for the flight, and change the bias accordingly, i.e. if the average ISA deviation is +6, you would get 6/10 = 0.6. Multiply by 3: 0.6*3=1.8. Because the ISA deviation was positive, you will burn more fuel. Add the 1.8 to the ISA 0 bias figure. This method is a little cruder, but it has served me well for a long time with some aircraft. Hope this helps anyone who feels they can't get the right bias for the PMDG aircraft. Any questions let me know. Cheers, Rudy
  • Create New...