PFPX vs Maddog Planner

[MarkW 1,490]

I tried to use PFPX, correctly (I think) setting up the aircraft as an MD-82.  I got some really odd fuel results with PFPX showing requirement of 33,000 lbs but the Maddog planner was more like 14,000 lbs.

Anyone else using PFPX and have you been able to get the numbers to be similar to the planner and if so how have you done it ?

Is there a typical load that you can share for say a full aircraft (number of pax plus cargo). and 75% full ?  I seem to be loading with very few pax when I am sure they are filling these planes with 125 pax on a regular basis.

 

thanks,

[MarkW 1,490]

Yeah, something very wrong with the PFPX planner.

I checked the aircraft.....correct engines, weights and limits.

Same ZFW for a flight, same cargo, same weather, same everything as the MaddogX planner and it gives fuel to load of 24,860 lbs.  The Maddog planner gives 15220 and keeps the aircraft from being overweight.  Anyone have the proper fuel bias or whatever adjustment is needed so these match up?

[MauB 74]

Hi Mark, I'm not seeing a big difference between PFPX and the MD-82 planner on my end.
I've got something around 200kg (440lbs) more on PFPX, pretty acceptable if you ask me.
Are you matching all the information you've got from PFPX (wind, speed, cruise FL, contingency, reserve, taxi, etc)?

Edited March 2, 2018 by MauB

[GSproson 11]

Adding to MauB's reply, are you also ensuring the routes you are using are the same including alternates? Also check you are entering the same fuel figures on taxi, reserves, extra etc...

I use PFPX and also cant say I have noticed a difference beyond 200kgs

[Orlaam 306]

Sounds like you have a pounds and kilogram issue.  Are you sure you don't have LBS set to KG or vice versa?

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

No issues with pfpx here. Honestly, the fuel planning has been quite good. 

I land with the planned landing fuel +-200 lbs.

When planning the flight, I put in the number of passengers I want (not to exceed the limits set within the maddog planner.) Then, I add any amount of cargo I want....once again, making sure I stay within the limits of whatever the maddog planner has. 

What ever the fuel load thst pfpx says to use....

I put into the block fuel for the maddog planner and then pres the transfer quantity button.....that way i know how to distribute fuel in the sim during refueling. 

It all works quite well.

[MarkW 1,490]

I need to take another look at this.  I believe both are in LBS but something is going wrong.  At least I know the issue is on my end and not inherent within PFPX.

[Meekg 86]

Mmmmm.... did you download the new FlyPrecisely profile?

I also get very reasonable discrepancies, mainly due to the limited speed/wind info in the LM plan.

[MarkW 1,490]

No I have not downloaded any profile.  I just ran it again with a different flight and now I am getting numbers that match very closely.  the trip fuel is very close and other difference is just the final reserve and contingency values.  

[Meekg 86]

Try out the FlyPrecisely profile. It does support Cost Index for the Maddog X.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Meekg

[Bob Scott 7,715]

6 hours ago, Meekg said:

Try out the FlyPrecisely profile. It does support Cost Index for the Maddog X.

That link is dead

Regards

 

[twincessna340a 8]

This should work:

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/file/4442-pfpx-mcdonnell-douglas-md-8090-family-performance-profiles-pack/

The link from Meekg was the actual download link which I believe has some extra stuff that is situationally unique.

[mstockan 0]

Can confirm same experience for me and it seems as if the fuel figures are roughly twice what I would expect which leads me to wonder about the Kgs or Lbs question. I usually use KGs excusively. The fly precisely profile seems bang on the money though on initial inspection.