Check this out - Introducing the all new TOMAFLEX !!

[Guest acva076]

Greetings,I have released the all new TOMAFLEX v1.2 Beta Trial Version. I had worked on this relentlessly and now it's almost mature and ready for use (still in beta testing!!). Also, it is now an independent software that is executable.You may download it at:http://ca.geocities.com/jkankesan@rogers.com/Kindly notify me of errors and faults in the program because you are my beta testers.Features on v1.2 BETA:- more user-friendly, picturisque layout with message board.- only for PSS A320. More aircrafts soon to be added. Stay tuned!- real-time update of takeoff performance parameters with input.- takeoff performance calculation refined to be more accurate,. - supports takeoff altered by barometric pressure changes.- offers independent preferences for units.Below are some screenshots of TOMAFLEX showing properly loaded aircrafts, as well as ones over-loaded dangerously.http://ca.geocities.com/jkankesan@rogers.c...MAFLEX-1.2c.jpghttp://ca.geocities.com/jkankesan@rogers.c...MAFLEX-1.2a.jpghttp://ca.geocities.com/jkankesan@rogers.c...MAFLEX-1.2b.jpgEnjoy !!Jana Kankesan

[Guest speight]

Hey, Jana, I like the comments when you overload!Nice job. Looking forward the finished version.You may also may be aware of the Pss load edit runtime problem? Well, do you think it might be possibe to produce a load editor something like the one Aerosoft do for their busses? Because that one works really well and many of us are fed up of not being able to change the pax and load without rendering the loadeditor useless?Anyhow, thanx again for a really good job.

[Jannier 14]

Hi JanaVery nice work so far, the interface is excellent.1 more request/observation You give OEW,Payload,Fuel in the calculator.Can you add a box so we can add the weight of the PAX seperetaly.SO: OEW+PAX+PAYLOAD= ZFW ZFW+FUEL = TOWHope this makes sense! :-)RegardsJannier

[Guest acva076]

Hey guys,1. Thank you for your concern. I am aware of the loadedit problem with PSS. However, it is not my priority right now. I am really focussed at the present to add all the buses in Tomaflex before engaging in added work.2. Pax count and load can certainly be added. Give me some time.Jana Kankesan

[Guest vrandar]

I really like the look and feel of this version and it's a product I wish I culd have written. I assume you've taken the original Excel spreadsheet and turned it into an application with Visual Basic or some program like it. I'm still trying to work out the maths in the spreadsheet: I have worked out the formulas you have used but haven't yet worked out the logic or some of the meanings of the text on the right, for example RLCORR.If there's onew comment it's that the vSpeeds seem to me to be too high. On the attached image of a Gatwick EGKK takeoff from runway 08R this afternoon tomaflex gives vSpeeds of 147/153/154. PSS of course gives its usual 129/134/137 but this is closer to the unadjusted (for wind, elevation, temp etc) of 128/133/136 from my United Airways A320 Flight Manual. So could you confirm the basis of your calculations for the vspeeds.

[Guest acva076]

Hi Rob,I am glad you have made progress through self-effort to unravel the equations. They are quite simple actually.Regarding the v-speeds: Like I said, the v-speeds are based on actual takeoff test runs I carried out in FS2004. Therefore, it really doesn't matter what the PSS MCDU will show you. The v-speeds Tomaflex gives you is accurate. You can certainly go ahead and test it for yourself. I understand the v-speeds provided by Tomaflex are high. But, it won't take long for you to find out that it is only at those speeds your PSS will rotate. We all know, the PSS A320 does not imitate the real aircraft that well in terms of takeoff speeds. Regards,Jana

[Guest vrandar]

Hmm, I have to disagree. I have flown nothing but PSS Airbuses and iFDG/PSS Airbuses since August 2002 so I'm not the novice that your comments would imply. I rotate at the given vR speed every time, so your statement that it is "only at [the tomaflex] speeds that the PSS will rotate" is not at all true in my experience. If there is a bit over overrun it is certainly not as much as 18 knots as is the difference in the example I gave. I will watch this closely on future flights and log the results, but I still maintain that the tomaflex speeds are slightly high.

[Guest acva076]

Hi Rob,Your comments are well taken. I guess what I mean by "rotation" is not the speed to "pitch up", but rather, the speed where the main landing gears "lift off". In fact, for the tests, I rotate the buses to pitch and maintain 10 degrees UP at about 80-100 knots. Then, I record the speed and runway distance when the main gears lift off. It is the latter that I have been wrongly refering to as "rotate".I hope this clears up the discrepancy of 15-20 knot Vr difference between Tomaflex and PSS. Simply put, I think we can rotate at PSS speeds, but will only lift off at Tomaflex speeds.Regards,Jana

[Guest vrandar]

Ah, I think I know what is happening: your tests are correct as far as flight testing under JAR 25.107 Subpart B is concerned which is used for calculating minimum unstick speed Vmu. Basically the test comes very close to simulating a tailstrike! But the figure you are ending up with and using within tomaflex as Vr is actually Vlof or lift-off speed, where lift is greater than weight and which is "the calibated airspeed where the aeroplane first becomes airborne". Your last post actually confirms this. The crucial point in these calculations is that Vlof comes later along the runway than Vr but is not the same speed as Vr. The atatched chart shows the relationship between these as far as distance along the runway is concerned.I will look into this a bit more and get back to you with my recommendation for a revision to your vspeed calculations.

[Guest guzzimo]

Hi Jana,great Job. Can you make this tool also for the PMDG? That wood be great.Regards from GermanyKevin

[Guest acva076]

Hey,I have set up my website to offer free download of TOMAFLEX Ver 1.3 Trial Version with only PSS A320 support. The full version is available for purchase. It currently supports PSS A319/320/321. It will soon incorporate all PSS A3XXs. The reason for why I made the program available prematurely is to accommodate those who have been waiting for A319/A321 support.Thank you.Jana

[Guest acva076]

It is my list of priorities, but after PSS A330/340. Once those are completed, I will start on the PMDG series.Regards,Jana.

[Guest vrandar]

To clarify the last part of my previous post, using the Vmu testing method under JAR rules which you are doing doesn't give you the correct Vr speed. What it gives you is the speed at which the aircraft actually gets airborne i.e. Vlof. Vlof is faster than Vr and is of course further down the runway than Vr and what it indicates is that the aircraft has continued to increase in speed as it rotates until it actually leaves the ground. I definitely think that because of the testing method you are using this Vlof figure is being used for the Vr figure in tomaflex rather than the actual Vr. Bear in mind you are not rotating at the correct vspeed under these test conditions but somewhere between 80 and 100 kts. You are then recording the speed that the aircraft actually leaves the ground rather than the speed at which it rotates. This means that the tomaflex Vr figure is too high. As I said in my previous post I will calculate the adjustments that need to be made to the Vlof figure you have calculated to give a more accurate Vr. I will do this as quickly as possible. There is no particular problem taking off with the vspeeds tomaflex is giving, but the pedant in me just doesn't believe they are right for the reasons given above :)

[Guest acva076]

Hi Rob,In my last email, I did admit my mistake and understand that Vr computed by Tomaflex is not Vr, but rather, what you refer to as Vlof. Your comments again are completely valid. I obviously overlooked the difference between Vr and Vlof. I have already started to rectify the problem. If there is a proper way to correct it, kindly let me know, and I will apply it. Otherwise, I will have to again resort to self-study and determine a proper method to do it.Regards,Jana.

[tony32 0]

looks like a great tool but i cannot download the trial version,i get a file not found message.i would like to try before i buy.thanks.