Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Connor Levens

PMDG 747 cost indexes

Recommended Posts

A lot of people have been asking me for help on this topic, and before any posts pop up, I'm going to post this here - maybe it'll help ;-)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/184300.gif


Connor Levens

 

DISCLAIMER: All posts written via this account are from the perspective of one aviation enthusiast and his own flying experiences. Such posts are entirely his own opinion and in no way does he intend to hurt or insult any member of this forum.

Share this post


Link to post

interestingwhat are the units for the x y axis? (minutes? hours? tons?)also, after years of using the 747 I am still unsure as to what the max CI you can place in the PGDM FMC. different max numbers are located at different locations in the manualthanks for posting though

Share this post


Link to post

>interesting>>what are the units for the x y axis? (minutes? hours? tons?)>>>also, after years of using the 747 I am still unsure as to>what the max CI you can place in the PGDM FMC. different max>numbers are located at different locations in the manual>>thanks for posting thoughNo problem :-) I'm glad I finally found something like this lolThe X & Y axis are written in percent Block Time from LRC and Blcok Fuel from LRC.LRC = Long Range ClimbEnjoy!


Connor Levens

 

DISCLAIMER: All posts written via this account are from the perspective of one aviation enthusiast and his own flying experiences. Such posts are entirely his own opinion and in no way does he intend to hurt or insult any member of this forum.

Share this post


Link to post

This is very interesting stuff, thanks for posting!Just to make sure I get this one right... Entering a CI of 1500 for example would result in a 10,5% increased fuel burn and a 3% decrease in time compared to the standard .86 Mach ECON CRZCorrect? :-badteeth Gotta love graphs!CheersHolgerEdit: Just had a quick look at the cruise fuel planning table from the 737 manual... for a 4000nm flight my example above would mean using 8.000 kgs more fuel just to arrive some 20 minutes earlier... *scratches head* Talk about useless :-)

Share this post


Link to post

I think CI999 is the max cost index with 747 I've never gone above CI150Rob


Rob Prest

 

Share this post


Link to post

>This is very interesting stuff, thanks for posting!>>Just to make sure I get this one right... Entering a CI of>1500 for example would result in a 10,5% increased fuel burn>and a 3% decrease in time compared to the standard .86 Mach>ECON CRZ>>Correct? :-badteeth Gotta love graphs!>>Cheers>Holger>>>Edit: Just had a quick look at the cruise fuel planning table>from the 737 manual... for a 4000nm flight my example above>would mean using 8.000 kgs more fuel just to arrive some 20>minutes earlier... *scratches head* Talk about useless :-)Yes, that's correct, but as rjprest posted, I'm not sure if the PMDG can model such a cost index :-(


Connor Levens

 

DISCLAIMER: All posts written via this account are from the perspective of one aviation enthusiast and his own flying experiences. Such posts are entirely his own opinion and in no way does he intend to hurt or insult any member of this forum.

Share this post


Link to post

>>This is very interesting stuff, thanks for posting!>>>>Just to make sure I get this one right... Entering a CI of>>1500 for example would result in a 10,5% increased fuel burn>>and a 3% decrease in time compared to the standard .86 Mach>>ECON CRZ>>>>Correct? :-badteeth Gotta love graphs!>>>>Cheers>>Holger>>>>>>Edit: Just had a quick look at the cruise fuel planning>table>>from the 737 manual... for a 4000nm flight my example above>>would mean using 8.000 kgs more fuel just to arrive some 20>>minutes earlier... *scratches head* Talk about useless :-)>>Yes, that's correct, but as rjprest posted, I'm not sure if>the PMDG can model such a cost index :-(dont know if it s PMDG FMCs or more the flight simulator engine ... on a long haul if you re trying a CI30 or fixed .86 or even LRC (long range cruise) the results are the quickest you fly the less you re burning fuel ... of course this is not the way the companies are working but seems on the ground the results are like the real FMC(PMDG good works) but in the air the results are not similar (FS9 "bad" works) so seems there is a gremlin somewhere ...if your datas good for any combo engine airframe or for a specific one ???see youPhil

Share this post


Link to post

>A lot of people have been asking me for help on this topic,>and before any posts pop up, I'm going to post this here ->maybe it'll help ;-)>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/184300.gifhey,again me.was wondering for your chart ....KLM and Qantas charts for GE engine pax :CI 150 3000 nm LDW 250T tripfuel 60t flightime 06:20CI5003000 nm LDW 250T tripfuel 61.7t flightime 06:11 your chart for CI500 : -3% time 11 min +10% fuel means +6t ...???!!!in the same time Boeing is giving in QRH LRC reference fuel and time :GE pax engine.LRC 3000nm tripfuel 58.14t flightime 06:22so dont know where your datas came ??? and of course is it for GE engine for Pax version or ?tell mePhil

Share this post


Link to post

>>>This is very interesting stuff, thanks for posting!>>>>>>Just to make sure I get this one right... Entering a CI of>>>1500 for example would result in a 10,5% increased fuel>burn>>>and a 3% decrease in time compared to the standard .86 Mach>>>ECON CRZ>>>>>>Correct? :-badteeth Gotta love graphs!>>>>>>Cheers>>>Holger>>>>>>>>>Edit: Just had a quick look at the cruise fuel planning>>table>>>from the 737 manual... for a 4000nm flight my example above>>>would mean using 8.000 kgs more fuel just to arrive some 20>>>minutes earlier... *scratches head* Talk about useless :-)>>>>Yes, that's correct, but as rjprest posted, I'm not sure if>>the PMDG can model such a cost index :-(>>dont know if it s PMDG FMCs or more the flight simulator>engine ... on a long haul if you re trying a CI30 or fixed .86>or even LRC (long range cruise) the results are the quickest>you fly the less you re burning fuel ... of course this is not>the way the companies are working but seems on the ground the>results are like the real FMC(PMDG good works) but in the air>the results are not similar (FS9 "bad" works) so seems there>is a gremlin somewhere ...>>if your datas good for any combo engine airframe or for a>specific one ???>>see you>>Phil>That's a godo question, Phil. I dug up this information from a few old 747-400 books that a friend of mine gave me a while back. According to the booklet cover, the chart seems to be good for Virgin Atlantic, and, as we all know, Virgin Atlantic operates their 747-400 in GE engines, so I'm guessing this chart is good for GE.Connor Levens


Connor Levens

 

DISCLAIMER: All posts written via this account are from the perspective of one aviation enthusiast and his own flying experiences. Such posts are entirely his own opinion and in no way does he intend to hurt or insult any member of this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest glenlee

Not an expert in 747 but seeing as the chart is in percentages and it will surely be based on the design speed of the airframe (which obviously doesn't change with different engine types except maybe the engine cowling) as a rough guide it's handy information.There's very little cost benefit in entering any figure higher than 300, especially as the biggest unpredictable factor in any fuel use/distance/cost flight planning is the wind and pressure, and as FS deals so poorly with weather variables you may as well pick a figure that works for you and stick with it...In the real world this figure is set by the airline and flight planners and has more to do with budget constraints than passenger satisfaction!!!May I suggest 150?Glen Lee

Share this post


Link to post

>>A lot of people have been asking me for help on this topic,>>and before any posts pop up, I'm going to post this here ->>maybe it'll help ;-)>>>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/184300.gif>>hey,>>again me.>>was wondering for your chart ....>>>KLM and Qantas charts for GE engine pax :>>CI 150 >3000 nm LDW 250T tripfuel 60t flightime 06:20>>CI500>3000 nm LDW 250T tripfuel 61.7t flightime 06:11 >>>>your chart for CI500 : -3% time 11 min +10% fuel means +6t>...???!!!>>>>>in the same time Boeing is giving in QRH LRC reference fuel>and time :>GE pax engine.>LRC 3000nm tripfuel 58.14t flightime 06:22>>>so dont know where your datas came ??? and of course is it for>GE engine for Pax version or ?>>tell me>>PhilThanks for the reply, Phil. I'm not sure if the engine data that I posted in my last post was incredibally accurate. Like I said, all I know is that I found it in an old Virgin Atlantic 747-400 manual, so, I guess the engine's not GE.Sorry I couldn't help :-(Connor Levens


Connor Levens

 

DISCLAIMER: All posts written via this account are from the perspective of one aviation enthusiast and his own flying experiences. Such posts are entirely his own opinion and in no way does he intend to hurt or insult any member of this forum.

Share this post


Link to post

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
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    2%
    $715.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...