Slow climb

[Guest Alias]

Hi,after take off I had the situation where the climb speed was very low. Actually she was perfectly maintaining the FMS speed as per F-PLN page, but I wonder why it was at the limits...My cost index was 800 and TOGW 261000 Kg.Any idea?Thanks

[shortspecialbus 13]

Wow, that seems to be a heavy plane. I briefly tried but was unable to reproduce your load that gave you an optimum flight level of 280. I was also unable to reproduce that speed direction on the MCDU.What loading are you using?-stefan

[Guest Alias]

Here they are. Basically full pax and around 100.000 Kg fuel. Yes it is very heavy, but still below the max. (At least according to FS loader...).

[shortspecialbus 13]

There's your problem. Don't load the MD-11 with any of the default FSX tools. You need to use the PMDG MD-11 Load manager, which you will find in your Windows start menu. Refer to the manual for more on this, and also the tutorial flight.-stefan

[Guest Alias]

There's your problem. Don't load the MD-11 with any of the default FSX tools. You need to use the PMDG MD-11 Load manager, which you will find in your Windows start menu. Refer to the manual for more on this, and also the tutorial flight.-stefan

I know that Stefan :( The picture was taken only to show you how the weights were split.

[shortspecialbus 13]

I know that Stefan :( The picture was taken only to show you how the weights were split.

Oh. Can you show a screenshot of the load manager?-stefan

[Guest Alias]

It was something like this pax more pax less :( :

[downscc 1,327]

At that weight, 1300 fpm passing thru 20 for FL280... doesn't sound all that bad. She should maintain at least 1000 fpm to optimum. The econ climb speed of 156/0.85 looks odd, speed should be higher than max rate of climb speed. Almost looks like it forgot to accelerate above the restricted speed limitation at 10,000?

[KCA9304 0]

Hi,after take off I had the situation where the climb speed was very low. Actually she was perfectly maintaining the FMS speed as per F-PLN page, but I wonder why it was at the limits...My cost index was 800 and TOGW 261000 Kg.Any idea?Thanks

Lorenzo,It's the costindex being way too high.Couple of weeks ago, some costindex numbers(680 and 685) were mentioned here.Out of curiousity I thried these:Result was a much lower than normal climb speed after passing 10000 ft in climb. In your case CI 800 will even create more drag, resulting in less climb performance.Suggest to keep CI for MD-11 below a value of 300.Regards,Harry

[downscc 1,327]

Ah, that is it. Thanks Harry for bringing that up.To tell you the truth, all the real world CI's mentioned during testing were below 100. I use 100 when testing for uniformity, kinda like that must be unity. My flights are either 33 or 88, would have never seen those kind of econ numbers without your pointing it out.

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

Yep definatly the CI, I was using a CI of 80 for quite a while then decided to try 150, the A/C climb above 10k was much slower.

[Guest Alias]

Thanks everybody, that's fine then. Me too have always used CI = 90 but yesterday wanted to see how higher numbers effected the trip.Best regards.

[ahinterl 1]

Me too have always used CI = 90 but yesterday wanted to see how higher numbers effected the trip.

Out of curiosity: If you changed a paramenter deliberately to check for any performance changes and then indeed experience a difference in performance, why do you need to ask anymore? You yourself know the root cause well, so I'm somehow puzzled about this thread...Never mindAndreas

[Guest Alias]

Out of curiosity: If you changed a paramenter deliberately to check for any performance changes and then indeed experience a difference in performance, why do you need to ask anymore? You yourself know the root cause well, so I'm somehow puzzled about this thread...Never mindAndreas

Andreas,by increasing the CI is the airplane supposed to accelerate or to slow down the climb and cruise speeds?

[Guest]

Out of curiosity: If you changed a paramenter deliberately to check for any performance changes and then indeed experience a difference in performance, why do you need to ask anymore? You yourself know the root cause well, so I'm somehow puzzled about this thread...

Hehehe, I thought the same. :( Imagine I'd think 'Okay, lets see what happens if I land without flaps'... after which I bump HARD on the runway during landing. And then I would come over here to post a topic called 'Bumpy landing... why?!?' :(