Archived

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

ESzczesniak

MD-11 Fuel Planning Project

Recommended Posts

I know it's been discussed before that at this moment PMDG, because of some agreement with Boeing, is not releasing fuel burn data on the MD-11. Well, honestly we have the aircraft and can see how much fuel it burns from the fuel guages, so my thought is that if we pool our data, we could come up with some pretty accurate numbers ourselves to use for fuel planning.My thoughts are if we all group together, than a couple of flights with very controlled conditions could come up with how CI, aircraft weight, flight level and such affect fuel burn. When all is said and done, it could even be put together into a large formula and use an excel spreadsheet macro to come up with an accurate dispatch report. So a few questions:1. From PMDG's view, would we be okay to do this? I don't know if this would violate any intellectual property for you or Boeing? It seems to me that it wouldn't since this wouldn't be pulling numbers from your files or anything. Just recording weight, fuel burn and flight level and them coming up with a regression model to predict fuel burn. I'm just not sure if this would qualify as reverse engineering or not. If it does violate anything, my apologies for bringing this up and this is the last you'll hear about it from me.2. If this is ok, can we get a group of us together who can collect their data so we could get a larger pool and only have to fly a couple of controlled flights each for this? With just a little bit of work we should be able to come up with a good mathematical model that takes into account CI, weight, fuel burns to TOC and the like. If we get enough people involved, we could even get this done for flex takeoff's and such. Now, unless someone on here is really a math wiz (which I am not, but I can do the math for this stuff I talked about at least), it's not going to match the calculations going in to fuel planning for real MD-11's, but we should be able to get pretty accurate ourselves.Let me know what you guys think.Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi, Just thought I would let you know the FLEX data is being sorted by TOPCAT. Also there was real world fuel planning info (P&W) and FLEX data briefly available here a little while ago but was deleted for obvious reasons. I don't think PMDG really care how there customers get hold of this data as long as it's not posted on there site or forum. In all honesty I dont even think Boeing would care about a bunch of simmers but Lawyers can be very funny about stuff like this. Some people who have been around here long enough can probably remember what happened when American airlines lawyers got involved with the flight sim community.RobEDIT: Just in case I wasn't clear, the problem is posting real world data, your idea sounds very good if TOPCAT doesn't come up with the goods. I would be more then happy to help you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, Just thought I would let you know the FLEX data is being sorted by TOPCAT. Also there was real world fuel planning info (P&W) and FLEX data briefly available here a little while ago but was deleted for obvious reasons. I don't think PMDG really care how there customers get hold of this data as long as it's not posted on there site or forum. In all honesty I dont even think Boeing would care about a bunch of simmers but Lawyers can be very funny about stuff like this. Some people who have been around here long enough can probably remember what happened when American airlines lawyers got involved with the flight sim community.Rob
I'll be happy with an fsbuild profile.I wonder why Boeing is more open with their in house designs, but not he McD (McBoeing?) ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder why Boeing is more open with their in house designs, but not he McD (McBoeing?) ones.
Isn't excess fuel burn the main reason that the MD11 was not successful?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md11
In 1990, McDonnell Douglas with Pratt & Whitney and General Electric began a modification program known as the Performance Improvement Program (PIP) to improve the aircraft's weight, fuel capacity, engine performance, and aerodynamics. McDonnell Douglas worked with NASA's Langley Research Center to study aerodynamic improvements.[6] The PIP lasted to 1995 and recovered the range for the aircraft. However, the damage was already done.[3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have TOPCAT and I watching and hopinghe can get the MD-11 in, works wonders for the 744.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't excess fuel burn the main reason that the MD11 was not successful?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md11
The wing is too small and skimpy. Thats why the extra power was needed and therefore the extra fuel burn. I don't know why md-11 didn't just bite the bullet and design a bigger wing and turn it into a twin. They would still be here and maybe bigger than boeing by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McDonnell Douglas' problems ran much deeper than the MD-11. There wasn't enough money to develop a clean sheet design, hence the MD-11 started life as a (greatly) modernised DC-10. Don't forget Douglas nearly went under in the mid sixties when the DC-9 was selling like gangbusters and the DC-8 was doing pretty well. It was only McDonnell bailing Douglas out that got the DC-10 in the air in the first place.Cheers, Chris D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyers cant really stop enthusiasts working out the fuel loads.Jeez its like volkswagon having me arrested for working out how many mpg my car does.The md 11 is gutsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have TOPCAT and I watching and hopinghe can get the MD-11 in, works wonders for the 744.
Does TOPCAT do fuel planning? I have an old trial version that just does the 747-400 (something like 2.08). I know it does FLEX calculations very well, but I just haven't seen the fuel stuff. I've heard rumors that it comes up with decent fuel burn estimates, but haven't seen this. I plan to pick this up (full version) when they get the MD-11 in there, so just curious on this.EDIT: Just looking at the site again for any updates and saw that support for the 737-700 disappeared. What happened? It was there and now it's gone. Seeing as 99% of my flights are in the 767-300, 747-400, MD-11 or 737-700, this was going to be my jackpot once the MD-11 got in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does TOPCAT do fuel planning?
HiIt only takes a guess of your ramp fuel based on the distance to your destination, nothing else. No detailed planning like FSBuild.It does this to have something to work with as the fuel weight for TO calculations unless you fill in your own figure, and IMHO it does this fairly accurately.-kyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're looking for a fuel planner worth it's salt, I'd recommend Flight Operation Center (F.O.C.) by Danur.com.I am a real-world dispatcher, and I was looking for something that would allow me to do some proper flight planning. I took a look as FSBuild, but the website hadn't been updated in a long time, and the software didn't strike me as being anything particularly special, so I passed.Then I checked out F.O.C., and while the user interface is far more "clunky" than what I use at work, it performed most if not all of the real functions. So I picked it up last night, and gave it a whirl today.I planned a "short" MD-11 flight (using the included MD-11 database) from KATL to TJSJ. The computer gave a fully realistic Release that included everything included on a real release, minus the takeoff and landing performance. Thats what TOPCAT is for, I suppose.The short story is, the FOC flight plan indicated 2+43 enroute with a planned burn of 52,100lb. My actual flight time was 2+49, ad burn was 51,500lb.So within 6 minutes of ETE, and 600lb of burn. Thats as good as you could hope for in the real world.What I like:Very accurate.Uses actual Winds Aloft and TempsUses current AIRAC database, with NATS/PACOTS.Calculates ETOPS/EROPS Entry, Exit, and Equal Time Points.Calculates "Planned Re-Dispatch" points and fuel requirements.Calculates MTTA.Does almost everything real dispatch software does (with the exception of TO/LDG performance)What I don't like:Interface is complicated. (Took me about two hours to do my first release. After 1 day of practice, I can do it in about 5-7 minutes)The NavData subscription is EXPENSIVE. 100+ euros for a 1 year subscription. (I bought the current 0903 for 15 Euros)Documentation is sparse in some areas. Like they expect you to be familiar with international flight planning.Little things like spelling errors are frequent.Nonetheless, it's the closest thing I've seen to a real dispatch suite for FS, and in fact, is very similar to the NAVTECH software. If you want to plan the way we do it for real, I'd totally recommend getting it. The learning curve will be steep for a beginner, but it's worth it.Regards,Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The NavData subscription is EXPENSIVE. 100+ euros for a 1 year subscription. (I bought the current 0903 for 15 Euros)"This is exactly why I passed on it. This hobby is already expensive enough bewteen hardware and payware add-ons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll be happy with an fsbuild profile.
Bryan made a fsbuild profile by himself. He can mail it to you if you him a PM. Check his post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're looking for a fuel planner worth it's salt, I'd recommend Flight Operation Center (F.O.C.) by Danur.com.I am a real-world dispatcher, and I was looking for something that would allow me to do some proper flight planning. I took a look as FSBuild, but the website hadn't been updated in a long time, and the software didn't strike me as being anything particularly special, so I passed.Then I checked out F.O.C., and while the user interface is far more "clunky" than what I use at work, it performed most if not all of the real functions. So I picked it up last night, and gave it a whirl today.I planned a "short" MD-11 flight (using the included MD-11 database) from KATL to TJSJ. The computer gave a fully realistic Release that included everything included on a real release, minus the takeoff and landing performance. Thats what TOPCAT is for, I suppose.The short story is, the FOC flight plan indicated 2+43 enroute with a planned burn of 52,100lb. My actual flight time was 2+49, ad burn was 51,500lb.So within 6 minutes of ETE, and 600lb of burn. Thats as good as you could hope for in the real world.What I like:Very accurate.Uses actual Winds Aloft and TempsUses current AIRAC database, with NATS/PACOTS.Calculates ETOPS/EROPS Entry, Exit, and Equal Time Points.Calculates "Planned Re-Dispatch" points and fuel requirements.Calculates MTTA.Does almost everything real dispatch software does (with the exception of TO/LDG performance)What I don't like:Interface is complicated. (Took me about two hours to do my first release. After 1 day of practice, I can do it in about 5-7 minutes)The NavData subscription is EXPENSIVE. 100+ euros for a 1 year subscription. (I bought the current 0903 for 15 Euros)Documentation is sparse in some areas. Like they expect you to be familiar with international flight planning.Little things like spelling errors are frequent.Nonetheless, it's the closest thing I've seen to a real dispatch suite for FS, and in fact, is very similar to the NAVTECH software. If you want to plan the way we do it for real, I'd totally recommend getting it. The learning curve will be steep for a beginner, but it's worth it.Regards,Nick
Nick,did you try both version GE and PW ?as a real dispatch too and creators of some profiles into FOC i m very happy to read feedback from users ...see youPhil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick,did you try both version GE and PW ?as a real dispatch too and creators of some profiles into FOC i m very happy to read feedback from users ...see youPhil
Hi Phil,The flight plan I referred to in my original post was done with the stock MD-11 that shipped with FOC. I had to do all of the planning in kilos, then set the output to pounds, which was annoying. Also, the BOW, MTOW and MLW don't match the PMDG freighter. I avoided the more serious BOW discrepancy by adding additional cargo to cover the difference, and then I just made sure to abide by the profile's conservative MTOW and MLW values. Despite having to toy around with the weights in FOC and the PMDG load manager in order to get a matching TOGW, the end result was very accurate.I haven't had a lot of time for flying the past few weeks, but I did do one trans-atlantic flight (KATL-EBBR) using an add-on profile...I think it was one of yours. The profile was for a GE pax airplane (pounds), but I was flying a PW powered freighter. I couldn't find a profile for the PW freighter in pounds, so I used the next best thing.If memory serves me correctly, I was within 1 minute of my ETE's all the way out to 40W. The Winds Aloft over the NAT that day was supposed to give me a relatively constant 40kt tailwind, but at 35W, FSX decided that the winds should be calm, so I lost my planned tailwind until coast-in over Shannon.Because of that, I burned about 6,000lb extra upon landing in Brussels. I'm confident that if the FSX hadn't botched the winds, I would have been within about 500-1,000lb of my planned burn. Being able to do the planning in pounds is really important to me, so your profile made it much easier to work with. It was also very accurate in terms of ETE, burn, and TOC. It was a bit off on the step climbs, but the flightplan was on the conservative side, so thats okay with me.To be perfectly honest, the FOC/FSX/PMDG combo are far more accurate than in real life. I've never dispatched the MD-11, but I did dispatch the DC-10-30F for a while, and the discrepancy between planned and actual burn on a flight from MIA-BOG would sometimes be as high 4,000 to 5,000lb. Similarly, we weren't RVSM certified at the time, so we had to fly random routes below the NATS over to ELLX. It was always tight, so we paid for the "Planned Re-Delease" OPSPEC, and used it often. I'd say that 70% of the time I planned a "re-release", we had to divert for a tech stop.This was using the NAVTECH planning software, which I maintain is a piece of crap. And with the company pressuring everyone to plan every single flight using the MTTA "release-and-forget" button, a lot of mediocre dispatchers released flights through Convective SIGMETs, along routes with MIT restrictions, through hot MOAs, and through TFR's.The bulk of my experience is with the Sabre (Bornemann) software for planning regional flights on the CRJ and J-41 (with a little A319 action too). It is a much nicer tool, and given the shorter nature of the flights I planned with it (and the smaller fuel burns), it was usually accurate to within 200 to 300lb on a 1.5hr CRJ flight.Anyway, I'm rambling...Do you plan do make a profile for the PW MD-11F in pounds? Regards,Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nick,Fully agree with you the combination FOC / TOPCAT is the closest you can get to real life dispatching. In my opinion a must if you fly sophisticated add-ons like PMDG and LevelD.

If memory serves me correctly, I was within 1 minute of my ETE's all the way out to 40W. The Winds Aloft over the NAT that day was supposed to give me a relatively constant 40kt tailwind, but at 35W, FSX decided that the winds should be calm, so I lost my planned tailwind until coast-in over Shannon.
Unfortunately ASA is doing the same at a certain point over waters it just stops feeding weather datas. There are currently no accurate weather programs for transoceanic flights. This is very unfortunate.
This was using the NAVTECH planning software, which I maintain is a piece of crap. And with the company pressuring everyone to plan every single flight using the MTTA "release-and-forget" button, a lot of mediocre dispatchers released flights through Convective SIGMETs, along routes with MIT restrictions, through hot MOAs, and through TFR's.
I just subscribed to a trial of the NAVTECH planning software today via one of their re-sellers called Universal Weather and Aviation. Anything in particular you dislike with the NAVTECH software apart of the MTTA thing?Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just subscribed to a trial of the NAVTECH planning software today via one of their re-sellers called Universal Weather ans Aviation. Anything in particular you dislike with the NAVTECH software apart of the MTTA thing?
Hi Michael,My biggest beef with NAVTECH is that the program is composed of multiple non-resizable windows. Bringing up the weather screens, the routing screen, or calculating a FP results in a bunch of overlapping windows. It's disorganized and messy. It really drags your SA down because there's no way to just look at your list of flights and tell which ones have been calculated, which ones have been released, and which ones are still pending.Often flights will send an ACARS that they're holding over XYZ VORTAC with 7000lb of fuel and an EFC twenty-five minutes from now, and want to know their BINGO fuel. Trying to recalculate a release from the holding point using the current FOB means jusmping through all kinds of hoops to get the computer to cooperate, and even then, about 50% of the time it wouldn't work. I'd have to tell the crew to use the FMS to calculate their own BINGO, and to let me know if/when they decide to divert. That's not cool.Routing was also a pain. Entering DP's or STARS was an excercise in finger gymnastics, and I can't tell you how many times I wanted to put my keyboard through one of my monitors. The formatting was very specific, and if it wasn't perfect, it would reject the entire route...even if you typed it in exactly as ATC gave it to you. Sometimes it would take normal syntax like NUGGT4.RAFTN..FLM.KEKEE3, but you'd do the same thing with another city pair, and it would make you use spaces instead of dots. Or it would refuse to recognize a specific Transition to a STAR, so I'd actually have to file a non ATC-preferred route just to get the flight plan to calculate. Then I'd have to call the Miami Center Flight Data or TMU to get them to amend the route in their system and issue a Full Route Clearance to the crew instead of a normal abbreviated one.My other (trivial) complaint is that it just feels ancient. It has a distinct "Windows 3.1" feel to it.And while I can't really poo-poo on the MTTA function itself (it works pretty well, actually), I do think that a lot of people use it as a crutch. Don't feel like looking at a US High chart? Tired of deciphering NOTAMS? Is the ATCSCC OIS website too hard to navigate? No problem! Just click MTTA to "release it, and FORGET IT!" Where's Billy Mays or Vince from "Sham-wow" to sell that feature? LOL...At various times in my career I've used versions of NAVTECH, Jeppessen, Lido, and Sabre (DrB) software. Of those, NAVTECH and Jepp were similar in feel and operation. Needless to say, I did not like them. The Lido software takes my MTTA gripe to the next level. It reads the NOTAMs, decodes them, and then displays only the ones it thinks are applicable to your flight. It supposedly automatically checks for TFR's, OTS navaids, looks at the radar, plans a route, and a bunch of other "gee-whiz" stuff, then spits out a release with "one-click". There's only about a million bad things that can happen as a result of letting the software do the dispatcher's job, while he mindlessly clicks the RELEASE button every few minutes. But I digress.Sabre (DrB) is by far the easiest to use. It's all on a single screen, and everything is color coded so you know what releases are due and when. You can see the status of any release you've done or have yet to complete. Amending releases for added MEL's, or diversions are extremely simple. Calculating Bingo fuel for airplanes that are holding on arrival is very easy. The routing function is simple and intuitive. It's great.The only complaint I have is that the computer can't pick a good altitude worth sh**. If you don't specifically tell the computer what altitude to use (or if you forget to put one in) it LOVES to put 45 minute CRJ flights at FL390. Every once in a while, I'd forget to override the altitude and actually file one that way. After the crew got their PDC, I'd get an ACARS saying "#####?" in not so many words...Anyway, all the different software does basically the same thing. They all get the same Nav data, the same temp/wind data, and the same airplane performance database. So at the end of the day, they all do what they claim to do. Some just do it better than others.I hope you enjoy your subscription. You'll get a lot of use out of it. I've worked with more than a few people who simply love NAVTECH. Of course, none of them had ever used Sabre, so I guess they didn't know what they were missing.Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick,Thanks for the details. I'll have a go to the NAVTECH services keeping in mind your observations.Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick,Thanks for the details. I'll have a go to the NAVTECH services keeping in mind your observations.Cheers
Christian,Navtech or UVW is not bad but i dont think they ll release you the Java Pop up we have in Cies when we use navtech.for a simming usage FOC will fulfill your fantasies and without the price of any suppliers. of the all systems i used too Lido is ten times the others but in the same it s more expensive and dont think small companies can afford it ...i prefer the Navtech over Jepplan but only because i have a support with navtech that i cant dream to have with others suppliers. have a good day.
Hi Phil,The flight plan I referred to in my original post was done with the stock MD-11 that shipped with FOC. I had to do all of the planning in kilos, then set the output to pounds, which was annoying. Also, the BOW, MTOW and MLW don't match the PMDG freighter. I avoided the more serious BOW discrepancy by adding additional cargo to cover the difference, and then I just made sure to abide by the profile's conservative MTOW and MLW values. Despite having to toy around with the weights in FOC and the PMDG load manager in order to get a matching TOGW, the end result was very accurate.I haven't had a lot of time for flying the past few weeks, but I did do one trans-atlantic flight (KATL-EBBR) using an add-on profile...I think it was one of yours. The profile was for a GE pax airplane (pounds), but I was flying a PW powered freighter. I couldn't find a profile for the PW freighter in pounds, so I used the next best thing.If memory serves me correctly, I was within 1 minute of my ETE's all the way out to 40W. The Winds Aloft over the NAT that day was supposed to give me a relatively constant 40kt tailwind, but at 35W, FSX decided that the winds should be calm, so I lost my planned tailwind until coast-in over Shannon.Because of that, I burned about 6,000lb extra upon landing in Brussels. I'm confident that if the FSX hadn't botched the winds, I would have been within about 500-1,000lb of my planned burn. Being able to do the planning in pounds is really important to me, so your profile made it much easier to work with. It was also very accurate in terms of ETE, burn, and TOC. It was a bit off on the step climbs, but the flightplan was on the conservative side, so thats okay with me.To be perfectly honest, the FOC/FSX/PMDG combo are far more accurate than in real life. I've never dispatched the MD-11, but I did dispatch the DC-10-30F for a while, and the discrepancy between planned and actual burn on a flight from MIA-BOG would sometimes be as high 4,000 to 5,000lb. Similarly, we weren't RVSM certified at the time, so we had to fly random routes below the NATS over to ELLX. It was always tight, so we paid for the "Planned Re-Delease" OPSPEC, and used it often. I'd say that 70% of the time I planned a "re-release", we had to divert for a tech stop.This was using the NAVTECH planning software, which I maintain is a piece of crap. And with the company pressuring everyone to plan every single flight using the MTTA "release-and-forget" button, a lot of mediocre dispatchers released flights through Convective SIGMETs, along routes with MIT restrictions, through hot MOAs, and through TFR's.The bulk of my experience is with the Sabre (Bornemann) software for planning regional flights on the CRJ and J-41 (with a little A319 action too). It is a much nicer tool, and given the shorter nature of the flights I planned with it (and the smaller fuel burns), it was usually accurate to within 200 to 300lb on a 1.5hr CRJ flight.Anyway, I'm rambling...Do you plan do make a profile for the PW MD-11F in pounds? Regards,Nick
Nick,for the md11 PW F in pounds i have the datas in kilos (the original FOC profile) i can add a F- version but only with KGS my version done of GE pounds is taken from a F- version ... but i dont own the PMDG MD11 so i dont have the weights ... about step climb or climb profiles given by FOC against the FMC predictions i m not sure PMDG used GE datas ...see youPhil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian,Navtech or UVW is not bad but i dont think they ll release you the Java Pop up we have in Cies when we use navtech.for a simming usage FOC will fulfill your fantasies and without the price of any suppliers. of the all systems i used too Lido is ten times the others but in the same it s more expensive and dont think small companies can afford it ...i prefer the Navtech over Jepplan but only because i have a support with navtech that i cant dream to have with others suppliers. have a good day.Nick,Can you fly the GE version? There is a FOX file in pounds for the GE model.Bob..Nick,for the md11 PW F in pounds i have the datas in kilos (the original FOC profile) i can add a F- version but only with KGS my version done of GE pounds is taken from a F- version ... but i dont own the PMDG MD11 so i dont have the weights ... about step climb or climb profiles given by FOC against the FMC predictions i m not sure PMDG used GE datas ...see youPhil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bob,Yeah, I think thats the one I'm currently using...the GE (pounds) files. It was still extrememly accurate, even when flying the PW powered airplanes.I'd really like to see a FOX file that uses the PMDG Freighter weights. GE or PW doesn't matter to me, since there doesn't seem to be much of a difference. Using the pax version means I need to add a bunch of extra cargo to make up for the mismatch in BOW weights. It's not a big deal, just an extra step in order to get all the numbers to match properly between the FOC, the PMDG load manager, and the FMS.The current profile also uses the pax version weights for MTOW and MLW, which means you're limited to lower weights for those values.Again, not a huge deal, but it would be nice to get the numbers updated. I'd do it myself, but all of the profiles are locked for editing, and I don't have time to try and make one from scratch.Regards,Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Bob,Yeah, I think thats the one I'm currently using...the GE (pounds) files. It was still extrememly accurate, even when flying the PW powered airplanes.I'd really like to see a FOX file that uses the PMDG Freighter weights. GE or PW doesn't matter to me, since there doesn't seem to be much of a difference. Using the pax version means I need to add a bunch of extra cargo to make up for the mismatch in BOW weights. It's not a big deal, just an extra step in order to get all the numbers to match properly between the FOC, the PMDG load manager, and the FMS.The current profile also uses the pax version weights for MTOW and MLW, which means you're limited to lower weights for those values.Again, not a huge deal, but it would be nice to get the numbers updated. I'd do it myself, but all of the profiles are locked for editing, and I don't have time to try and make one from scratch.Regards,Nick
hello Nick,just post the datas and ill try to figure out a new fox.see youPhil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hello Nick,just post the datas and ill try to figure out a new fox.see youPhil
Hey Phil,A quick check of the PMDG MD-11F Load Manager & FCOM shows:BOW: 251,000lbMZFW: 461,300lbMax Ramp: 633,000lbMTOW: 630,500lbMLW: 491,500lbThanks!Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Phil,A quick check of the PMDG MD-11F Load Manager & FCOM shows:BOW: 251,000lbMZFW: 461,300lbMax Ramp: 633,000lbMTOW: 630,500lbMLW: 491,500lbThanks!Nick
Nick,may i have the same for pax version ?thanks again.Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phil,Regarding the data for the pax version... It seems that the PMDG FCOM doesn't match the PMDG Load Manager.The Load manager indicates:BOW: 273,373lbMZFW: 430,000lbMTOW: 630,500lbThe FCOM shows several different combinations of Weight Limits:MZFW: 451,300lb OR 410,000LB (neither matches the LM)Max Ramp: 633,000lb OR 621,000lbMTOW: 630,500lb OR 618,000lbMLW: 481,500lb OR 440,000LBI assume that FSX uses the LM values. So it's probably best to use those, and only use the FCOM data to fill in the blanks (for Max Ramp and MLW).Regards,Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites