Jump to content

Wrong climb profile for NGX?


Recommended Posts

I recently came back to using PFPX and the PMDG NGX (800WL) after a while of using neither. While I eventually sorted out most of PFPX's many issues with this model (wrong weights and optimum altitudes), I seem to be getting excessive climb fuel consumption because the profile the NGX uses is not available in PFPX. While the NGX climbs at 250/300/.78, only 250/280/78 and 250/300/80 are available in PFPX. It also seems that the climb bias option has been removed in an update to PFPX.

Can the climb profile be changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DLRK said:

I recently came back to using PFPX and the PMDG NGX (800WL) after a while of using neither. While I eventually sorted out most of PFPX's many issues with this model (wrong weights and optimum altitudes), I seem to be getting excessive climb fuel consumption because the profile the NGX uses is not available in PFPX. While the NGX climbs at 250/300/.78, only 250/280/78 and 250/300/80 are available in PFPX. It also seems that the climb bias option has been removed in an update to PFPX.

Can the climb profile be changed?

 

The speeds flown by the NGX vary with cost index. PFPX does not support climb profiles based on CI, therefore general schedules are available.
In my airline the speeds used by PFPX would even be a bit high as usually we climb at about 250/270/.77 resulting from the CI we use. Note however that climbs speeds resultant from the CI vary a LOT depending on the wind - this is not simulated by PMDG at all. In the PMDG the wind has no influence on the CI resultant speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@srcooke Thanks for the link, I'll try out those profiles!

@Emanuel Thanks for the info. So, would you recommend just picking the 250/300/.8 if it fits the fuel burn better?

Also, is there a way to adjust climb bias?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DLRK said:

@Emanuel Thanks for the info. So, would you recommend just picking the 250/300/.8 if it fits the fuel burn better?

 

I certainly would!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, srcooke said:

I have used the AirlinerPerformance profile for several years, generally using a CI35, planned with PFPX online weather and flown with ActiveSky and the fuel burn is VERY accurate. For the climb a minimum of CLB-1 been selected in the FMS.


Use ECON climb/des?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DLRK said:

@srcooke Thanks for the link, I'll try out those profiles!

@Emanuel Thanks for the info. So, would you recommend just picking the 250/300/.8 if it fits the fuel burn better?

Also, is there a way to adjust climb bias?

250/300/.78 will be more fuel efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, to clear up any confusion PFPX DOES support CI for Climb and Descent, provided the aircraft profile used includes the appropriate CI data.

 

If you are using a supported aircraft type enter your cruise CI and select ECON in the Climb and Descent windows and the sector will be planned at the defined CI for all three flight phases.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question about the AirlinerPerformance profile:

ECON climb works fine, but ECON descent results in an early descent and level off before the final descent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi DLRK. It shouldn't. Unfortunately with no details it's impossible to try and recreate any issue.Perhaps a copy of the OFP so we can take a look might help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use