PMDG uses 175lbs or 79.4kg

Been using PFPX with the 777 and it's working brilliantly.

I found that I also had to adjust the dry weight in PFPX's PMDG 800WL template from 94,700 to 91,300. Also, don't foget to add the PFPX baggage weight to the cargo to get the non-pax payload to match. Once I did these changes along with adjusting the PFPX pax wieght, I could consitantly get ZFW and other parameters to match.

Been using PFPX with the 777 and it's working brilliantly.

 

Too bad topcat doesn't yet have a profile.  It would be a complete package.  

I have just tried the PFPX for the 747X yesterday, and it's quite a learning curve, but I think that the PMDG 747X fuel estimates are a bit OFF. I don't think that the fuel burn in the out-dated 747X is accurate.

 

The time estimate was OK, but I landed over 1600KGs less than planned,  probably taking off with a bit less than release fuel contributed, but the fuel burn is my suspect, and the headwind was a bit stronger than planned. Yes my ZFW (232.7 tonnes) was identical to the PFPX ZFW.

 

So far the only usable difference between PFPX and the free Simbrief is the Cost Index being taken into account.

1600 kg for a 747 on a long route is really neglectible :huh:

That's 400KG per engine .... If you're a little bit off your profile or a tad more headwind then preflight you can easily reach that number.

1600 kg for a 747 on a long route is really neglectible :huh:

That's 400KG per engine .... If you're a little bit off your profile or a tad more headwind then preflight you can easily reach that number.

Will try it on the EDDF-KLAX route soon which is 11:30 air time. Will monitor my release fuel and see how it goes.

I found that I also had to adjust the dry weight in PFPX's PMDG 800WL template from 94,700 to 91,300. Also, don't foget to add the PFPX baggage weight to the cargo to get the non-pax payload to match. Once I did these changes along with adjusting the PFPX pax wieght, I could consitantly get ZFW and other parameters to match.

 

As a real world 737NG Load Controller, I am determined to get accurate and seemless data transfer between PFPX and the NGX, expecially with OEW weights.

 

When I flightplan in PFPX and get a passenger count/baggage weight, Im am off by a few hundred pounds in the ZFW/TOW So I suspect that the OEW is differs between PFPX and the actual NGX as you have determined yourself.  

 

Where and how did you determine the -800 OEW's was 94700 for NGX?. I would be curious to find out what the OEW is for the NGX -600, and -700 as well. For now my work around to compensate for the missing weight is to bump up the belly weight to get a matching TOW. Again as a real world load controller, this bugs me and makes me feel like I am doing something not fully accurate.

 

However with this all said, and some may find this interesting. PFPX is just a IFR dispatch generator. In the real world, weights and such are just a estimation by a dispatcher made somewhere between 2-3 hours before departure time. With people still checking in baggage and cargo still being accepted. 

 

The actual weights of the aircraft at departure time almost always differs from the release, sometimes by a few thousand pounds. Depending on the airlines setup/operation either the ramp lead will provide belly load figures to the crew, or like at my company a centralized load control area, where the true weight, balance, and performance is calculated and sent to the flight crew via ACARS and populates the ACARS takeoff page. Which for most carriers is a more indepth multi page version of the TAKEOFF REF page that we see in the NGX. (You can see one of these pages in my avatar)  

 

In Canada as long as the actual true TOW does not excede the planned release weight by more then 2000lbs, the release is still valid for use.  Under weight is ok provided you can determine why (missing baggage, lots of children, overplanning by the dispatcher), if you are over 2000lbs, a new dispatch release legally needs to be generated.

 

 

Where and how did you determine the -800 OEW's was 94700 for NGX?. I would be curious to find out what the OEW is for the NGX -600, and -700 as well. For now my work around to compensate for the missing weight is to bump up the belly weight to get a matching TOW. Again as a real world load controller, this bugs me and makes me feel like I am doing something not fully accurate.

 

Shane,

The 94700 for the 738 was most likely derived from PFPX, although, mine shows 94779, as the stock value for the -800. The 91300 is the actual EW weight in the aircraft.cfg for the NGX800. 

 

I also modified my a/c templates for the B737 & B738 in PFPX, to use the EW from the NGX cfg. I also changed the MGW (max ramp weight) to what the NGX cfg states, and that value for the -800 is 174700. I learned this from Chris at AOA, he does some training stuff in the 737 NGX training course and changes the defaults in PFPX to match the NGX cfg. 

 

The -700 a/c cfg shows EW of 83000 and MGW of 153500, again different numbers than what PFPX has. 

 

I am going try to do some tests today, using the same route/pax/cargo/weather and do two flights, one w/ PFPX out of the box numbers and one flight using the a/c cfg numbers and see what I get.

Shane,

 

Jeff is right about the PFPX template OEW being 94,779 not 94,700.  I determined the OEW by simply entering 0 for fuel, passengers and cargo into the Fuel and Payload CDU pages. This resulted in a ZFW of 91,300 lbs which under these conditions should be the OEW.

Shane,

The 94700 for the 738 was most likely derived from PFPX, although, mine shows 94779, as the stock value for the -800. The 91300 is the actual EW weight in the aircraft.cfg for the NGX800. 

 

I also modified my a/c templates for the B737 & B738 in PFPX, to use the EW from the NGX cfg. I also changed the MGW (max ramp weight) to what the NGX cfg states, and that value for the -800 is 174700. I learned this from Chris at AOA, he does some training stuff in the 737 NGX training course and changes the defaults in PFPX to match the NGX cfg. 

 

The -700 a/c cfg shows EW of 83000 and MGW of 153500, again different numbers than what PFPX has. 

 

I am going try to do some tests today, using the same route/pax/cargo/weather and do two flights, one w/ PFPX out of the box numbers and one flight using the a/c cfg numbers and see what I get.

 

If you dont mind, can you post the results of such here. I wont be simming for a few days due to work. Im not sure why I didnt think to check the .cfg (been flightsimming for over a decade). But that would be the obvious way. Im with you in the assumtion that using the .cfg weights in PFPX would infact correct the difference.

Charlie,

 

You and Jeff have arrived at the same OEW using different methods. Either digging in the .cfg or using your FMC method would have been my next step. Although I cant sim for a few days due to work, so you guys certainaly saved me some messing around time in the future.

 

As per his post Jeff is going to test and see if PFPX and the NGX both arrive at the same ZFW/TOW weights now that the OEW is corrected in PFPX. If you have done so already, please let us know!

 

Should we perhaps inform PFPX that the OEW of their NGX profiles are not correct? Does it matter to most? I havent been in their forum at all.

 

 

Absolutely, I will post my numbers from both flights...And yes, I was going to ask the devs why the numbers they have are different. I am thinking they have a specific reason, related to their software, but that can only be answered by them.

check this image for the flight I made yesterday

 

 

 

In Canada

 

Shane maybe we can get together on TS and go through the 800 variant of the NGX and figure this out.  It's puzzling me too.  What I've been doing is just setting the NGX ZFW as whatever value PFPX gives me.  The passenger numbers are off and the cargo values differ, but at least I still have the proper ZFW, and the fuel prediction values are DEAD on by like 200kgs.  

 

I wish there was a way to set it up so that the PFPX passenger count matches in the NGX.  Following me?  I'm confused sorry haha.