B789 ETOPS question in PFPX

[raptor84 2]

Hello,

 

I wanted to know if anybody has aircraft.txt file for B787-900 that has the ETOPS information they are willing to share so that I can compare with it mine. While I understand that PFPX is no longer in use, (I prefer to use over SimBrief), in PFPX, when I go to the EDTO section and select the ETOPS rule I am going to fly, I get what you see in below screenshot. I know its suppose to be green and I see that when flying other aircraft. The B789 Max Div Dist is correct for ETOPS 180 for example based on data from airline I work for. I provided the text file of the aircraft and I'm not sure if any of the data in ETOPS section is incorrect. Feedback would be great. Thanks.

 

Please login to display this image.

N38950.txt

[srcooke 439]

On 8/18/2024 at 9:21 PM, raptor84 said:

While I understand that PFPX is no longer in use

 

Oh I have to diagree with that, in use nearly every day, still yet to find as powerful a planning tool within the sim community, if only it were developed onward.

 

Whilst really requiring specialist response my only query would be the M0.85 speed used at FL100 for the 1EO 180 and 207 entries, maybe correct.

 

Would the APU be run with an engine out on 787, I know CAC's are used for cabin pressure which are electrically driven, just a thought.

[raptor84 2]

10 hours ago, srcooke said:

 

Oh I have to diagree with that, in use nearly every day,

 

What I meant was, PFPX is not updated anymore. I forgot the reason why PFPX development was stopped. Of course, there are many people, including me, who still uses PFPX. However, it would be nice if PFPX continued to be developed more.

 

I found and downloaded the QW 787 PFPX Aircraft Templates 2 days ago. I made no changes to the file (making fake aircraft registration). When creating flight plan and using the ETOPS 180 mins rule available in the QW 787 Aircraft Template, I still got the same response as seen in the screenshot in my first post. I even added 3 enroute airports (i.e. EINN, BIKF, CYYR) and still got the same response.

[srcooke 439]

Can you post the ofp if possible, failing that a snapshot of the planning screen showing route and weights.

 

[raptor84 2]

I think I got it to work now. I was able to create flight plan now.

[Stefanranki2903 0]

Am 23.8.2024 um 19:47 schrieb raptor84:

 

What I meant was, PFPX is not updated anymore. I forgot the reason why PFPX development was stopped. Of course, there are many people, including me, who still uses PFPX. However, it would be nice if PFPX continued to be developed more.

 

I found and downloaded the QW 787 PFPX Aircraft Templates 2 days ago. I made no changes to the file (making fake aircraft registration). When creating flight plan and using the ETOPS 180 mins rule available in the QW 787 Aircraft Template, I still got the same response as seen in the screenshot in my first post. I even added 3 enroute airports (i.e. EINN, BIKF, CYYR) and still got the same response.

 

The developer wants to focus on its successor called FSS:

https://www.flightplanning.aero/index.php/en/solutions/features-benefits

 

[raptor84 2]

5 hours ago, Stefanranki2903 said:

 

The developer wants to focus on its successor called FSS:

https://www.flightplanning.aero/index.php/en/solutions/features-benefits

 

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. Do you use it?? Also, if you do, is it one flight plan template or can I use other ones including custom made templates??

[Fatman 10]

I believe that FSS is not for flight sim community, but rather real world flight planning.