57 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

EDIT: Also what was wrong before B2 was not the *prediction*, but the actual fuel usage (during cruise), which was much too low. Therefore the prediction predicted wrongly, even if it was actually right. If you get what I mean.

That's what I meant. Contingency being added onto extra doesn't explain the complete miscalculation though. It told me I would be burning well into reserves on landing (not just extra time/fuel indicating this but EFOB on landing on the fuel prediction page for example too) even though I had exactly the calculated fuel from the OFP on board which would see me well above reserves. The prediction was out of reserves at T/C, and even greater at T/D. This would normally indicate a mistake in the data entered or no wind uplinked, but I double checked that.

I saw the same thing many times with B1, hence my question if fuel burn is still off. I didn't pay attention or look up IAE fuel burn during the flight though.

Edited March 4, 20242 yr by threexgreen

Anyone knows what this means?

25 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

That's what I meant. Contingency being added onto extra doesn't explain the complete miscalculation though. It told me I would be burning well into reserves on landing (not just extra time/fuel indicating this but EFOB on landing on the fuel prediction page for example too) even though I had exactly the calculated fuel from the OFP on board which would see me well above reserves. The prediction was out of reserves at T/C, and even greater at T/D. This would normally indicate a mistake in the data entered or no wind uplinked, but I double checked that.

I saw the same thing many times with B1, hence my question if fuel burn is still off. I didn't pay attention or look up IAE fuel burn during the flight though.

I still don't understand if you're actual fuel after landing was higher or lower than what the OFP predicted, because that's what will tell you if the fuel burn is still too low (Let's leave the FMS predictions aside for a moment, because that's something else).
 

2 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Anyone knows what this means?

From the OFM: "During preflight or takeoff, the LS frequency entered on the RAD NAV page does not match the LS associated with the takeoff runway. " LS = ILS by the way

4 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

From the OFM: "During preflight or takeoff, the LS frequency entered on the RAD NAV page does not match the LS associated with the takeoff runway. " LS = ILS by the way

Thanks, it makes 100% sense. I had the LS frequency in LIMJ entered in RAD NAV during departure, and forgot to clear it before arrival (LKPR). I did figure it out eventually as I always check for the correct frequency on the PFD.

Also, this was a case of some confusion as to what winds to enter on the APPR page as METAR reported variable 2 kt. 

(By the way the aircraft handled beautifully when flying the GEN9K departure in HDG/FPA mode following VOR radials.)

10 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Also, this was a case of some confusion as to what winds to enter on the APPR page as METAR reported variable 2 kt. 

In this case you enter the value with the biggest safety margin, in that case you enter a direct headwind (-> runwayHeading/2kts), because the FMS will base its approach speed on that (higher headwind, higher approach speed). For landing dist calculation you do it the other way around, so tailwind (-> 360 - runwayHeading / 2kts), because the landing distance will be longer the higher the tailwind. Tldr: In both cases you assume the worst possible case and base your data on that.

3 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Workaround: Enter the reciprocal heading of the runway you intend to land on and use the given windspeed to calculate the worst case scenario.

e.g. EGLL VRB03KT and landing rwy 27L, enter 089⁰/03 on the APPR page of the MCDU.

Learn something new everyday Thank you. That was one of the things i wanted to ask. (how to account for variable wind conditions on the app page of the mcdu)

maybe a hint for those with Fenix B2 loading trouble, after removing residual B1 liveries from community folder aircraft was loading as expected, perhaps I can listen to the cranking engine now... Best regards

19 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Anti virus software off for testing?

only windows defender active nothing else

Just now, cseu said:

only windows defender active nothing else

Well that is a anti virus software.

Just now, Fiorentoni said:

Well that is a anti virus software.

yes I know, but fenix should work together with it

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

I still don't understand if you're actual fuel after landing was higher or lower than what the OFP predicted, because that's what will tell you if the fuel burn is still too low (Let's leave the FMS predictions aside for a moment, because that's something else).

I'll have to check on the next flight(s) to know for sure. FMGC fuel prediction however was all over the place, like I've seen it in B1 on many flights (not every flight, curiously).

Edited March 4, 20242 yr by threexgreen

1 minute ago, threexgreen said:

Actual landing fuel was less than OFP calculated landing fuel.

Just a thought, were winds aloft in MSFS the same direction and strength as per SimBrief OFP?

4 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

Actual landing fuel was less than OFP calculated landing fuel.

So at least that means that the fuel consumptions is fixed. Previously you'd have always more landing fuel than the simbrief OFP predicted, as much as 2000-3000 kg too much in the worst case. Now that seems fixed if you had less than OFP calculated. How much less was it? And was that explainable via events on your flight? (runway change with longer SID / STAR etc.)

Edited March 4, 20242 yr by Fiorentoni

11 minutes ago, cseu said:

yes I know, but fenix should work together with it

Not necessarily. Windows defender gave me enough problems over last years on P3D and MSFS that I excluded the main processes and external apps that connect via simconnect. And the entire community folder.