Ray Proudfoot

Starting to get fed up with PFPX and loving the Concorde

Recommended Posts

I’m trying to plan a flight from EBBR to EGCC in a PMDG738 and despite my best efforts the cruise flight level remains at 260. Sorry, but that is just daft.

 

There are route restrictions shown but if that’s the case why doesn’t PFPX try to find an alternative routing where there aren’t any? It seems to decide on one route and that’s it.

 

I did investigate if I could override the restrictions but couldn’t find a way. I planned it around an hour ago - 15:30Z if anyone wants to see if they have more success than me.

 

I appreciate it’s trying to emulate the real world but it is for a home simulator after all and you’d think there would be a way of overriding the chosen flight level, but there isn't.

 

I seem to be encountering this type of problem far more now than I ever did with the earlier version. 😞

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ray, I just programmed ebbr to egcc and my init alt is FL320. This is with the b738. As far as routing there is only one routing available that is the shortest. Other wise you would first need to go bergi waypoint and by pass the whole south of the UK. I removed the route restrictions by setting the altitude to FL220. It appears the altitude capping isn’t correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ray,

 

Tried the route with an A320 as flown by Brussels Airlines.

 

This returned FL280 when left at optimal, I then forced FL340.

 

FL280 was one minute quicker and used only 80kg of fuel more than at FL340.

 

The altitude capping is a known issue currently if this is been applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@phlpeo, where do you insert the altitude?

 

@srcooke, Stephen, please tell me where I can override the altitude. Are you saying there is a bug in the program and if so is a fix imminent?

 

Thank you both for replying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me too!!, what are the little crosses on the flight track that always start with GO ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When planning the route is there a greyed max alt entry ?

 

alt-rest.jpg.4fae44da79c871820f14d1213ee6da43.jpg

 

If not then set a MIN ALT.

 

Should a restriction exist then we need to identify that from the restrictions editor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sonny147 said:

me too!!, what are the little crosses on the flight track that always start with GO ?

When you pass that point and you need to divert you would go to that airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is getting to deep for me !!, I want to fly not spend hours trying to correct a plan , I don't have the time 😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh phlpeo its not a plan error or restriction , that's what I thought it was, I cannot trust v2 to just give a reliable route to put into the FSL bus, frustrating . first world problem though lol, thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, srcooke said:

When planning the route is there a greyed max alt entry ?

 

alt-rest.jpg.4fae44da79c871820f14d1213ee6da43.jpg

 

If not then set a MIN ALT.

 

Should a restriction exist then we need to identify that from the restrictions editor.

 

Thanks Stephen. Sometimes you can’t see the wood for the trees. I’ll try it again tomorrow and report back on the state of that box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen,

 

I was able to enter FLs into that box all the way up to 360 and PFPX was able to calculate a plan. 17803lbs for FL360. 17633lbs for FL320. Anything higher than 360 and it reverted to 260 but choosing that level resulted in a release amount of 17477lbs so perhaps that's why PFPX chose that FL. Strange that you can burn less fuel at a lower altitude.

 

Is it necessary to do this for every flight? It seems the user has to keep inputting a minimum FL to get the preferred one. Shouldn't PFPX do this itself? Is there an option where I can tell it to do this?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

 

not trying to explain the whole fuel figure otherwise you may be fed up with me too but if you look the trajectory for that flight it will be a very long climb for a very long descent and not that much left for the cruise so there is no need to climb higher.

 

do not know the cruise altitude issue in the a320 but it may interesting to see why you cannot go farther than that.

 

what is roughly the distance for those 2 airports? then i can dig in some charts ...

 

enjoy the day evening or whatever gmt time zone you are on ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

i ve got some results as i dig into airbus charts ... surprised by your results of +17000 lbs in fuel ....

 

for a flight above 300nm and landing weight between 50 and 55 t the optimum level is fl390. 

 

i took 400nm as i will have the indication in kgs and lbs ... the wind is taking in account.

 

so in lbs landing weight 120000lbs:

fl390 to fl350 1.03h  5.4 klbs fl330 1.03h 5.5klbs fl310 1.02h 5.6klbs fl290 1.03h 5.7klbs fl270 1.05h 5.8klbs fl250 1.06h 6 klbs fl200 1.10h 6.4klbs 10000 1.27h 7.5klbs

 

so in kgs landing weight 55t .78

 

fl290 2754 kgs1h05 fl310 2669kgs  1h05 fl330 2613 kgs 1h05 fl350 2571 kgs 1h06 fl370 2537kgs 1h06 fl390 2527kgs 1h06

 

you can add roughly 150 kgs for flight below fl290 and 5- 6 minutes.

 

hope it help a little.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more generally and not for you only Ray, but if you guys want to fly a very specific complex  plane like the fs labs 320 or pmdg 737 and learning in some hours how to operate it it should be the same with the flight planning tool you are using ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil747, I appreciate what you say and I really wished I had the time , but working away 2 weeks per month simply doesn't give me that, I've used pfpx for 7 years and love it , but this version should come with an easy / advanced option!, Just my opinion , cheers phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

Thanks for your replies and the info / advice. I appreciate a certain amount of time has to be spent learning how the program works but I feel I shouldn't have to be an expert on flight planning to get a usable plan out of which is a sophisticated piece of software.

 

Going back to my post yesterday I later remembered I had opted for Min Fuel rather than Min Cost. So given FL260 uses less fuel than higher FLs the program did what was asked of it.

 

Planning that flight this morning with Min Cost it gives me FL200 and no altitude restrictions. Odd given they were there yesterday. Lower FL I guess. Fuel is 9836lbs.

 

If I enter Min FL of 280 the fuel is 9835lbs. Exactly the same. Anyway, Stephen has given me a workaround if the planned FL is lower than I would like or seems unrealistic.

 

The real-world flight from Manchester to London Heathrow climbs to FL210 and stays at cruise for 5 mins before starting down. That must be the most economical FL given real money is being used.

 

And regarding the PMDG737 being a sophisticated aircraft I agree it is. But my other aircraft is Concorde which is a bit more sophisticated and has 13 fuel tanks. If you're ever up for a challenge that's the ultimate as far as I'm concerned. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no doubt that Concorde was more complicated and sophisticated. the reason no rookie was flying her and for Air France at least it was only experienced managers that was dispatching her ... you see a pattern here ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, phil747fan said:

no doubt that Concorde was more complicated and sophisticated. the reason no rookie was flying her and for Air France at least it was only experienced managers that was dispatching her ... you see a pattern here ...

An aircraft like no other and sadly missed. I have a dedicated program for her that calculates fuel loading for all 13 tanks. Then, as well as piloting her I also do the job of the Flight Engineer. All good fun.

 

Did you know Concorde could overtake a 747 at 750mph? 😁 one of my favourite stats. 😉 And I don’t have to pay for the fuel. All 90,000kg for EGLL-KJFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes Ray i was aware. look up for the return flight for air france concorde while the 747 did only one side of the crossing .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray you really like the Concorde don't you !. Just to throw I little " get you " into this , I worked on her a little when I was an apprentice at Heathrow , they bosses only let me change sound proofing in the cabin, but my mate who was clever got to work on the engines 👍, I still remember us sitting on high aircraft steps outside the hangar "C" I think it was called , eating our butties and watching her take off , and laughing as all the car alarms went off in the staff carpark , happy days 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phil747fan said:

yes Ray i was aware. look up for the return flight for air france concorde while the 747 did only one side of the crossing .... 

 

Was that the flight were the AF Concorde flew to JFK and back to LFPG quicker than the 747 took for one leg?

 

@sonny147, yes, I love the aircraft. You lucky man! You must have been clever to get to work on her.

 

In July 2000 I stood in the Airport Pub garden at Manchester airport 150 yards from her when she departed on 24 back to Heathrow. The first and only time I've felt my chest cavity vibrate. Awesome! 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

https://airwaysmag.com/uncategorized/unusual-concorde-facts/

 

found the references for it:

in 1974 Concorde 02 flew from Boston to Paris and back while racing an Air France 747. Concorde left Boston at the same time an Air France 747 left Paris. Concorde managed to fly to Paris, spend 68 minutes on the ground, then race back to Boston and beat the 747 by eleven minutes.

 

i had the chance to visit Air France maintenance in those days where they were doing the maintenance for the a300, a320 and 310 and Concorde it was called Airbus Concorde division and it was impressive to see her on the ground. as said the take offs where a different story but we differ from the beginning of the discussion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Philippe. They got one wrong....

London to New York in 2 hours, 59 minutes and 36 seconds in December 1979

was actually the other way taking advantage of the jetstream.

 

It was unique. Nothing like it will be built again. I'm lucky enough to live 3 miles from EGCC where G-BOAC is housed in a dedicated hangar. The tours are very popular. I also spent 30 mins on the Concorde simulator at Brooklands, Surrey a couple of years ago. Flew her through Tower Bridge! It fits - just - but don't try it in a 777!

 

I agree we've deviated from the topic so happy to close things now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://boomsupersonic.com/ and a few others believe there is a future for supersonic flight and I think they are right. The sound problems can largely be handled now, propulsion is still complex but we got 4 decades more experience and there are MORE than enough rich folks around as customers. Far more than in the 1980s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs, I had a look at their site and nothing happened when I clicked on Learn More. The routes shown are all over vast oceans. Nothing about JFK to SFO in half the time it takes currently. Forgive my scepticism but I just don't see how they can reduce the sonic boom to a level that would mean supersonic flight over populated areas was possible.

 

That aircraft takes half of Concorde's 100 but it's still a pretty large aircraft. If military jets cannot exceed Mach 1 without causing a boom how can this one? The site's name amused me. BOOM! 😁 I would have thought NOBOOM would be preferable! 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now