Jump to content

Archived

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

Richard McDonald Woods

Control Interval - an experiment

Recommended Posts

On a trip EGLL to WSSS, I decided to experiment with varying CI settings. The results are quite interesting.On a leg with constant heading and wind vector, 4400 nms to run, at FL310, and a gross weight of 345.4 tonnes, I got the following results:CI Fuel at Destn/tonnes Commanded speed/Mach Time at Destn00 1.3 .782 00:2210 3.2 .828 23:4920 3.2 .829 23:4830 3.3 .830 23:4640 3.3 .832 23:4550 3.3 .833 23:4460 3.3 .835 23:4370 3.3 .836 23:4280 3.3 .838 23:4190 3.3 .839 23:40100 3.3 .841 23:39150 3.3 .848 23:33200 3.2 .856 23:27It would seem that, in PMDG,- changing CI has relatively little effect on fuel consumption,- there is a big jump from CI 00 to 10 in both commanded speed and time at destination,- a difference of only 1 minute in each CI increase up to CI 100,- use of CI 150 and 200 made little difference to fuel at destination, but continued to decrease time at destinationYes, I know that my fuel forecast is way too low, but hoping for better winds later in trip.What comments do you have re these findings?Cheers, Richard


Cheers, Richard

Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz, 16 GB memory, 1 TB SSD, GTX 1080 Ti, 28" 4K display

Win10-64, P3Dv4.5, PMDG 748 & 777, ASP4 + ASCA, vPilot, Navigraph, PFPX, ChasePlane, Orbx 

Share this post


Link to post

Richard:Not to belabour the obvious, but did you allow sufficient time between each recalculation (assuming this was in pause)?The time relationship seems ok, the fuel burn differences are surprising. I learned a long time ago that the PMDG engine burn and RR RB211 data is not synchronous- but I am still surprised from time to time- such as now. Perhaps when separated engine thrust/burn models are implemented that will improve? As you know, there is only the GE engine model dataset across all 3 variants despite the differing instrumentation.I never use above CI90 so I do not have operational data to share with you. I would suggest however, that entering all cruise waypoint winds will give you insurance against that sort of FUEL REM preds. I love how accurate the FMC is (within the sim- not RW), and once flight planning methodology includes all cruise wp wind information (and of course DESC FORECAST winds later on, it becomes child's-play to arrive with 12-13T REM (here's where we all beg for ACARS winds ;) ). That indication holds for the entire flight- so then a significant drop in FUEL REM is a further alert for fuel/engine system issues.LOVE THAT BANNER!Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png| XP Pro SP3 with FS-GS System Unification | 2 x APC UPS | Coolermaster Stacker 830 SE | Asus P5E-Deluxe (X48) | e8500 @ 4gHz | Tuniq Tower 120 | EVGA 8800GT 512MB | Sony 40" Bravia XBR | 2 x 1 GB Corsair XMS2 | 500GB Seagate Barracuda 32MB SATA2 x2 (Acronis) | Corsair HX620W PS | CH Products Yoke-Pedals-Throttle Quadrant | Aerosoft 747MCP-EFIS-EICAS |


Best-

Carl Avari-Cooper

Share this post


Link to post
  • 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%
    $705.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...