Fenix A320 MCDU/FMGS Feature Review

[bjablonka8120 29]

Any ETA? Thx

[abrams_tank 7,426]

45 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Just tell me that you plan on branching out to other types of airplanes in the future! I can’t wait to see what you guys do with other types after what you’re doing with an Airbus! Keep up the great work. A day one buy for me….unless I’m at work then it’s a day two…or four haha

Fenix will likely do the A321 and A319 since they have much of the base code completed with the A320 already, which saves them time on the A321 and A319.   It’s a no brainer for them: minimal work, but the sales from the A321 and A319 will be good.

This is the goal of every rational business - heck. It’s the goal of every rational person: less work, more $$$.

Edited July 17, 2021 by abrams_tank

[Manny 1,293]

Whats diff between A320 and A319/A321

Edited July 17, 2021 by Manny

[tweekz 2,165]

6 minutes ago, Manny said:

Whats diff between A320 and A319/A321

Mainly the length (capacity) and some minor flight characteristic differences that result from it. Almost no difference in the cockpit.

V1 mentioned in his streams that the A319 notably feels a little more powerful whereas the A321 feels more inert.

Edited July 17, 2021 by tweekz

[Matchstick 1,886]

24 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Fenix will likely do the A321 and A319 since they have much of the base code completed with the A320 already, which saves them time on the A321 and A319.   It’s a no brainer for them: minimal work, but the sales from the A321 and A319 will be good.

This is the goal of every rational business - heck. It’s the goal of every rational person: less work, more $$$.

If the sim avionics are utilising the ProSim system them a lot would seem to depend on ProSim having a working version of the avionics for the 318/319 or 321.

If they don't then a 737 would seem more likely as a release.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Matchstick

[abrams_tank 7,426]

19 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

If the sim avionics are utilising the ProSim system them a lot would seem to depend on ProSim having a working version of the avionics for the 318/319 or 321.

If they don't then a 737 would seem more likely as a release.

Yes, I agree with you if the Fenix A320 is using Prosim and Prosim does not have the logic for the 319 and 321.

However, Aamir did not confirm the architecture of the Fenix A320 (probably to keep a competitive advantage),  I suppose Fenix’s use of Prosim for the A320  is still speculation at this point, albeit, it was an educated guess  by Matt from Working Title who knows the ins and outs of MSFS better than anyone else, so it’s as best of an educated guess as we can get.

Edited July 17, 2021 by abrams_tank

[NovemberUniform 156]

12 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

However, Aamir did not confirm the architecture of the Fenix A320 (probably to keep a competitive advantage),  I suppose Fenix’s use of Prosim for the A320  is still speculation at this point, albeit, it was an educated guess  by Matt from Working Title who knows the ins and outs of MSFS better than anyone else, so it’s as best of an educated guess as we can get.

Well, it was definitely not denied. I wonder how strong the dependency is. Will there be boundaries? Will they be able to add features on top of prosim? Some people pointed out fonts are at some places not as IRL. Will they be able to adjust?

Interesting approach, that's for sure. Could be win win for everyone (except some other devs with A320 in their lineup).

[Chock 17,769]

4 hours ago, Manny said:

Whats diff between A320 and A319/A321

There are literally three loose leaf pages in the A321 section of the SOPs as a supplement to the A320 SOP. One covers the landing approach geometry and ground segment visuals, the next page covers clearances and body pitch up angle and the last page covers reverser use, spoiler use and taxying visibility and clearances/turning circles.

It's a similar scenario with the A319. This is not to say that they are not additionally mentioned in the A320 main SOP section, for example there is a warning about take off rotation angle and landing angle in the A320 SOP take off sections if you are in an A321, because these double for the other aeroplanes as well, with it being a single certification for all these types, and since the cockpits look the same, there is the potential for someone who has been flying an A320 all week to then get in an A321 and forget that it has a longer rear fuselage with greater potential for a tail strike (personally I always check all variants for this whenever I do a walkaround and when doing so I did find something untoward on an Aer Lingus one during a walkaround this week - there were some blown out panels on the forward edge of the tail fin on the port side). This made me concerned that it might have a rear pressure bulkhead leak; it didn't, but it's better to be safe than sorry and check that kind of thing, so it was not serious and we still pushed it out for departure with me handling the headsetting and engine starts etc, but I did insist on having the crew give it the once-over as it's my voice on the CVR saying I've done a walkaround check, so it'd be on me if something occurred which I did not spot.

So there is a warning on the take off and landing pages about not over-rotating past about 12 degrees deck angle on an A321. On the pages concerning taxying, there are diagrams about the different clearances for a turning circle of an A321 compared to an A320, i.e. stuff it would be easy to forget if you were not thinking about it specifically when maneuvering in tight spaces at an airport. Some A321s (and one or two A320s) have an additional fuel tank in their rear hold space, which gives them longer range, but obviously reduces the amount of baggage they can carry. Some of these go Transatlantic, or other long routes such as UK to Africa.

The A318 is a bit of a special case though and has some additional SOP stuff. It is certified for steep approaches of around six or seven degrees (i.e. London City Airport for example) and so it has a different overhead with some additional switches over on the right hand side which the P2 pilot operates which are related to that steep approach stuff. The FMC has some differences too because of this. Most of the shorter Airbus variants have lower-rated versions of the CFM engine (or alternatives) than what you find on the A320 and A321 (in the case of the earlier, i.e. not a NEO, version of the Airbus, which is what Fenix are making).

On ground ops, the rear hold of the A319 has an additional latch toward the rear entrance lip. This has to be up before the door will close. This is there as a reminder to check the stops and nets on the thing because there is no bulk hold entrance door at the rear of the shorter Airbus variants; instead you go up through the main ULD cargo door and load the rear bulk via that, so you have to fasten things up before you load multiple ULDs. You sometimes don't cone the number 2 engine, or at least have to move the cone when putting a high loader on it, because the loader clears the engine by only a couple of inches.

Below is a pic I took from the driving/load platform control position of the high loader on an BA A319 on stand 42 at EGCC bound for EGLL, which I was loading ULDs onto. You can see how close the loader is to the number 2 engine, behind the wing you can also see that the belt is loading bags into the rear bulk hold via the rear ULD cargo door, this is because when the ULDs go in, you won't be able to access the loose bulk bags in the rear because the last can in will be blocking the doorway. There are switches on the edge of the door up at the top which operate the floor rollers inside the cargo hold, or at least they do when they aren't broken lol. The six claws you can see on the edge of the door are what rotate to lock the door via a dirty great big lever on the outside of the door, the door itself is operated hydraulically via a switch under the fuselage in the recessed panel. When the claws are locked, there are six corresponding viewports on the bottom exterior of the cargo door which show a green flag to confirm they are correctly latched.

You can see some additional ULDs on trailers waiting to be loaded; these will have about thirty or forty suitcases in each of them. If you were ever curious about what the numbers on the side of those ULDs mean, the first three letters (in this pic AKE) refer to A (air container) K (base size) E (container profile shape) the numbers which follow this are the ULD's unique ID and the last two letters are the airliner identity, in this case BA. The little white card in a transparent pouch on the ULD contains the 'bingo card' which identifies what is in the ULD. The ones loaded in the front hold have their opening curtain facing the front, the ones loaded in the rear hold have them facing the rear, the trailers they are on can swivel around to facilitate that when loading them. They usually contain different bag classifications and are loaded accordingly, sometimes to assist balance too, so you might find local bags (ones unloaded and collected at the arrival airport), transfer bags (ones going onto another continuing flight, which have to be security screened again), mixed ones, and sometimes ones cargo in them (these have to go through security to leave airside for the cargo depot). All of this is facilitated via the paper (and an ipad) load plan from the despatcher, and also confirmed via the BRS (baggage reconciliation system), which is a weatherproof computer terminal located at the head of the stand. The ULDs themselves are secured to the floor of the hold via a series of stop locks which prevent them from moving when in flight once they are correctly placed in the hold; all these have to be up and checked that they are up, before the hold is closed, and if you loaded them, you have to sign for this too on the load plan:

Below in this pic is the cargo net I'm talking about which you can't access after the last ULD is loaded into the rear hold. you can see bulk bags (i.e. ones not in ULD cans) secured behind the net. The panel you can see in the door frame is where the radar altimeter avionics are located if you ever wondered where that thing was. The black/white crosshatched line marking about three inches below the hold ceiling is the maximum load height for bags and cargo. This is to allow the fire suppressant system to spread halon properly around the hold if there is a fire detected in the hold via a number of outlets in the cargo hold ceiling.

If you load the bulk bags, you have to sign for that too in order to confirm you secured the nets. This is one of several bits of paperwork which the crew are given in order to confirm the load distribution and if there are any hazardous goods loaded, this too is marked on paperwork and given to the crew so that if there is an emergency, they will be able to inform the emergency crew about anything which might be hazardous on board. Typically, any hazardous good are placed on spreader boards (wooden planks) in the hold and then secured with nylon ropes and special fasteners which lock to the cargo floor. There are a lot of rules about where things can go. For example, there are specific distances apart which radioactive materials have to be from one another, and they also have to be a specific distance from the ceiling of the aeroplane hold. AVIs (animals) have to be in the front hold, since this is the one which is typically heated, and some things cannot be carried on passenger airliners at all, only cargo aeroplanes; some things cannot be carried by air at all (unless by the military). Guns and the ammo for them cannot be in the same hold unless there is a special dispensation. Electric wheelchairs have to have their systems disabled, only limited amounts of batteries can be carried, and so on. Anything hazardous on board has to be reported to all countries over which the aeroplane will fly. As you can see, there's a lot to all this airliner planning and loading malarkey and a lot more to flying them than simply turning up, kicking the tires and loading a flight plan if you are a pilot:

Edited July 17, 2021 by Chock

[SAS443 1,723]

3 hours ago, Manny said:

Whats diff between A320 and A319/A321

From top of my head  (I had an A321 training captain as CFI for my PPL, he loved talking about his job... 😁)

Slightly Different wing, with double slotted Fowler flaps vs single slot on A320

Beefed up landing gear

Different fuel system (fewer pumps, saved weight)

Heavier, harder to slow down, more restriction on speed brake use.

Not a performance Ace by any means, lower crz alts than the 320.

 

 

 

 

[Mike S KPDX 597]

4 hours ago, bjablonka8120 said:

Any ETA? Thx

I would start looking for this around mid Feb 2022, we might see something then.

[omarsmak30 4,068]

5 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Yes, I agree with you if the Fenix A320 is using Prosim and Prosim does not have the logic for the 319 and 321.

Or as part of the commerical agreement with ProSim, they would have access to the source code or at least part of it to modify which I think it is the case for Fenix.

[Mark_A 31]

Another systems developer is JeeHell - Fenix could possibly be using it behind the scenes.

Comparison between ProSim and Fenix - font looks slightly different, but not much in it.

 

[ca_metal 2,025]

45 minutes ago, Mark_A said:

Another systems developer is JeeHell - Fenix could possibly be using it behind the scenes.

Comparison between ProSim and Fenix - font looks slightly different, but not much in it.

As of now, they won't confirm or deny it, but, as I understand it, based on what he said (see bellow), they are using MSFS' flight model. I think JeeHell and ProSim use their own flight model, outside the sim, right?

 

[Lord Farringdon 495]

5 hours ago, Chock said:

There are literally three loose leaf pages in the A321 section of the SOPs.........

.... As you can see, there's a lot to all this airliner planning and loading malarkey and a lot more to flying them than simply turning up, kicking the tires and loading a flight plan if you are a pilot:

 

Great stuff Chock.  As an ex military Air loadmaster  (C130, B727)  this brought back a lot of memories 🙂.

We flew the 100 series B727 with a rear hold aux tank that increased range but reduced payload. We used the aircraft on regional and international sectors but as you can imagine there was a lot of puddle jumping and the Honolulu to San Francisco was always our limiting leg payload.  The frames were all ex United and we noted that their crews were also flying the longer 200 series as well. I suspect they had to be careful of which variant they were flying much the same as the A320 series guys do. The B727 was also used for steep approaches and had a rocket like climb performance after take off. (No ULD's coming loose to worry about though because it was all hand loaded in the holds with nets to secure after loading.) It was fitted with a tail skid and and compression cartridge which was inspected after every landing and there was more than one occasion where the skid was damaged and the cartridge was compressed. Although unlike the Airbus A320, the concern with the B727 was to ensure the No 2 engine tail pipe didn't strike the ground!. 

Anyway, there are lots of aircraft types out their that have variants and most are simply to carry more passengers and are generally extensions of the original airframes with our without powerplant/fuel/range improvements. The A320's series are no exception. 

By the way, I know how you felt in the heat of the hold. The B727 had less space than Airbus and was very cramped. It did not escape my attention when transiting Calcutta on one occasion and we wondered if this is what the Black Hole actually felt like!!

Note; since 2001 Calcutta's names was officially returned to the Bengalese, Kolkata. We flew in there when it was still Calcutta.   

Thanks for the memories Chock!

Edited July 18, 2021 by Lord Farringdon

[JRBarrett 3,079]

On 7/17/2021 at 8:18 AM, MattNischan said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying that there is still a good deal of effort required here. Just explaining that when you don't have to write, say, the whole flight plan system, FMC, or VNAV behavior from the ground up (just as an example, since I realize ProSim also does all the systems), that is a time advantage for sure, and in that perspective the timeline makes a lot more sense. And again, this isn't meant to downplay, but someone like FSL would be writing all of what ProSim already brings to the table, so just to offer folks a bit of understanding as to why there might be a time mismatch.

It is a similar situation with the Aerowinx PSX 747-400 simulator, which is a complete stand-alone emulation of the 747-400. PSX (on its own), has no external views to speak of, but there are two interface software packages available which allow PSX to drive the MSFS 747-8 via simconnect. All of the flight deck /autopilot /FMS functionality remains in the PSX main program, (run on a separate monitor), with MSFS giving the “out the window” view. It works very well indeed - I have been using it this way for several months.