MD-11 Fuel Planning Project

[ESzczesniak 128]

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

[FLEX1978 373]

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.

[Guest tcable]

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.

[MatthewS 761]

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]

[Guest Mower]

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

[stevenp 1]

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.

[sluggy 3]

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

[ripthejacker99 6]

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

[ESzczesniak 128]

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.

[JET 1 0]

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

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

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

[Guest Mower]

"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.

[CapP 0]

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.

[phil747fan 14]

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

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

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