DF9AA

Members
  • Content Count

    353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DF9AA

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/30/1938

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Berlin THF
  1. Hi Damian,Where did you find FSUIPC 4.75 ( seventy-five ?? ) - on the official page of Pete I find 4.25 ( twenty-five !! ) from Feb 14, 2008 !Is 4.25 the latest ?Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  2. DF9AA

    Is the PMDG 744 a fuel guzzler?

    Hi Rudy et al,this is an ever lasting story with the FMC in the PMDG . . .Here a few figures :EGLL-KPHX Jan 25 calc flt time 10:18 - TO 1115Z (ETA 2133Z)Calc burn 115.7 kgs/1000ETA accdg. FMC 2134Z with 17.7 KGS/1000 ( reading after initial level off at FL320 )- this would mean a burn of 119.5 kgs/1000Act Arr at 2147Z ( plus 14 minutes - lost 10 mins over Atlantic - )Fuel remaining at KPHX 21.6 Kgs/1000 !!Ttl burn 115.6 kgs/1000I must admit that my calculation was also a little off . . . but better than the FMC !This was discussed here a long time ago - even the boss himself ( Capt. RR ) wrote a reply, stating that the FMC is one of the most complex systems in the airplane and over 9000 pages of material must be worked into the PMDG program! He also mentionned that his team will look into this problem and hopefully improvements will come - the latest 747X still has the same problem. . .How come that I, with a rather simple spreadsheet program, be closer to the actual burn ? My program calculates the FF along the route by 15 waypoints ( all sectors more or less even ) and taken into account that the FF reduces by decreasing inflight weight and higher altitudes.The FMC does NOT calculates the step climbs, which are programmed by the FMC - after each step climb the est. fuel at destination jumps up - it should be already included in the FMC prediction.The FMC apparently calculates the time to dest with the present speed and not with the standart speed at a given mach number, altitude and temperature ISA - The last sector of the flight - OM to touchdown - the fuel calc is defenitely wrong in the FMC - average indication on all flights I did is 1200 to 1500 kgs, but in actual the aircraft needs only 400 to 500 kgs - checked in over 100 flights !!Several collegues here in the forum will now argue that this is not so important . . . but they want a simulation as close as possible to the RW - and an important part of FS is the FMC - and a relatively easy part to be checked by a normal flightsimmer - most of us cannot check if the 747 behaves like a real one ! ( Capt. RR will soon . . . )EDIT : Forecast winds are of course entered into the FMC - waypoint by waypoint, using ASX !! My calculation is based on those forecasts . . . !Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  3. Hi,1. NO2. Looks OKKarl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  4. Hi Santiago,this will be a lengthly excursion into flight planning - btw the US-Americans have a slightly different approach to this . . . I am not sure about the Canadiens - I am talking about the European - German way.( see PMDG manuals re flight planning in the US ! )I remember a big discussion in my former company about cont. fuel for long haul flights, since in 99 out of 100 flights you DO NOT need this fuel and each kg/lb you carry around you increase your fuel flow ! This was during the period with 7,5 %, apparently it is reduced now to 5 % and if I read the RW flight plan correct it is now reduced to 3 % with a theoretical landing at an earlier airport - it was a flt pln to the Neareast and cont.fuel at 3% was only calculated for a theoretical landing at HECA - Cairo.An example : For todays winds a flight from EDDT to KSFO with a 747 you carry as cont. fuel ( 5 % ) around 13500 lbs or 6150 kgs !! You can save a lot if you plan 3% to Winnipeg - my estimate would be 4500 lbs or 2000 kgs less . . .the burn figures for this flight would be reduced from 270600 to 268500 lbs or from 123000 to 121900 kgs - this is a figure where the bookkeepers of an airline will get big eyes . . .Final reserves is always taken in minutes and then calculated with FF of LRC ( long range cruise - a little less than normal cruise ).As the word FINAL means, it will be used as FINAL RESERVE - in case you arrive at an airport with one runway and this runway is blocked by any reason, you obviuosly cannot land. Unless you have more than the minimum diversion fuel you HAVE to divert to your alternate airport. The min.div.fuel is : Fuel to altn and final res. Lets stick to the KSFO flight : I did it yesterday with a 747-400F - plan figures wereburn : 128.000 kgs plus altn./min.res.fuel 10400 kgs plus cont fuel of 7400 kgs - so I planned to arrive in SFO with 17800 kgs of fuel. So in case I could not land at SFO I had to divert to my altn if I had only 10400 kgs which is very seldom the case since normally you do not use your cont. fuel. Possible holding at DESTINATION will be done with the fuel you have in excess to your min.div.fuel. The FINAL RES is used for any possible problems at arrival at your alternate airport . . .The alternate fuel is also calculated with winds to the altn. airport - in my self-created flight planning tool I disregard this, but its a good idea for improvement. For the SFO flight I used OAK as altn. and this would be no case to calculate winds, it would only be a couple of lbs/kgs, but if you have to use an altn. like LAX ( roughly 200 NM ) it means a difference with 50kts head or tail wind . . .The trip fuel is calculated with the winds aloft - also here time x FF per min or hour !In case you are interested in my flightplanning tool send me a PM with your e-mail adress and I send you a copy - be aware its based on EXCEL 2003 and you must have this office program - I don't know if it works with "WORKS" or any other spreadsheet program ! Allow me a couple of days since I have to rewrite the readme file . . .Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  5. Hi Santiago,I am not a pilot but worked nearly 45 years with the airlines :here my planning ( btw 737NG are not all alike - 736 73G 738 (w ) and 739 )For 738 - your trip SCIE to SCEL with altn SCIETrip: 3600 lbscont.: 5% 180 - it all began with 10 %, then reduced to 7,5 % now 5 %recently I saw a RW flight plan with 3 % !Altn.: 3400 Final res: 2400 for 30 minsMin.Ldg. Fuel : 2000 lbs ( ONLY to be used in an emergency - supposed to keep the fuel pumps running )Taxi: all depends on the traffic situation at dep airport and distance to runway but with 500 lbs you should be OKExtra : anything up to max ldg wt - will be used in RW for tankering - which means if the fuel at dest is significantly more expensive - fill her up to MAX LDG WTMin. T/O Fuel : 11580 lbs PLUS taxi 500 lbs and possbl EXTRAKarl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  6. Hi,I am not flying online, but I use ASX wind and temperature reports (navlog) as basis for my fuel calculation - and in the days of high fuel prices ( thanks god not in FS . . . ) I usually fly with minimum fuel. Therefor I am dependant on most accurate wind forecasts.Yesterday I flew KJFK-EDDM with the 200830Z ASX WX report - till 4940N the winds were more or less accurate, but from 50N030W to LIMRI the forecast called for wind at 230/20 - ACTUAL winds were 265/130 and 270/130 (!!) - I was on the favourable side and the winds gave me a real push of nearly 20 mins - on the other hand, westbound it would put me into a fuel shortage.After the flight I checked the ASX WX again at 1625Z and the navlog still showed between 50N030W and LIMRI a wind at 222/36 . . .Enhanced route coverage was ON - wind smoothening was OFF and other than at descend into MUC there were NO wind shifts of any major significance.Sometimes I have the impression that ASX uses two different sources for the navlog and the feed into FSX during flight - I checked ( on other flights - NOT yesterdays ) ASX and hit the button for REFRESH WX and update the flight plan - the winds there and in FSX were completely different !!Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  7. DF9AA

    Again . . . 2 FMC-Questions

    Hi,I did a row of "test flights" with the 400F and got confirmed that the fuel consumption is LESS than the pax version . . . I use for my flightplanning about 5 % less during cruise - from TOD to touchdown it is about equal to the pax version,but . . .time and FF to TOC is much less than the pax747normal to FL330 with pax a/c is about 19 to 20 mins and a distance of 120 to 125 NM - the 400F uses only 14 to 15 mins and of course also less fuel for about 90 to 100 NM - both within the same weight range !!Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  8. DF9AA

    STEP SIZE in FMC/PERF INIT Page

    Hi,both entries are NOT required for a normal flight, but it is very helpful. . .As Dan mentionned before I also change to 2000 from ICAO - differencebetween both is the area you fly in. In most areas the RVSM or MNPS rule governs, which means that you will fly from 0 to 179 ODD levels ( 310/330/350 ) and from 180 to 359 at EVEN levels ( 300/320/340 etc ) and the entry into the FMC helps you to define the time for step clb.In the other areas the conventional or ICAO rule takes place which means that the steps are 4000 ft ( from 290 to 330 then 370 for ODD ). Whereby the FMC time for step climb is not very accurate - I use the indication of MAX level minus 20 as my point of climb which is earlier than the FMC time and saves even more fuel !The COST INDEX is related to the fuel consumption and fuel price - I use in the 747 a C/I of 135 which gives me a speed of M .855 and a TAS of 495 kts - you can play around with this function of the FMC and find out for yourself . . .EDIT : Even in flight you can change the C/I and will let you see the change of TAS/Mach nbr and fuel flow, but this is very limited in the engines page - you will notice the FF change only over longer period of time.Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  9. Just great for a 13year old . . . Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  10. DF9AA

    Again . . . 2 FMC-Questions

    Ryan,I have to bring up this question again . . .Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  11. DF9AA

    FS9/XP/Graphic problem

    Hi Ryan,you are right - hardware problem, graphic card problem with high-end graphic jobs - all other indications are OK.Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  12. DF9AA

    FS9/XP/Graphic problem

    After a few adjustments on the graphic card ( hardware acceleration 2 digits to left from max - I found this hint on a MS site ), I got in the air but passing Fl180 it freezed again . . .Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  13. Hi,yesterday I finished my flightplanning program for the 738 and I liked to test it - so I reactivated my FS9/XP machine and had a good flight from SIN to KIX . . . and my calculated plan was just fine . . .Today I wanted to fly from my hometown Berlin and started the FS9 and after roughly 5 to 10 mins the screen went blank, the PC was just freezed and I could only hit the ON/OFF switch. I am pretty sure that nothing was changed during the night when I was in bed . . . I loaded new display drivers for X1650 series but nothing changed - sometimes it stopped already at the gate, sometimes during taxiing, but I never got airborne. Sometimes a failure message came up from MS telling me something about a STOP FAILURE.Any ideas what happened ?Happy New Year !Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  14. DF9AA

    Again . . . 2 FMC-Questions

    Are those questions too difficult or too silly ?Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg
  15. 1. After a few flights with both 744 and 744F I noticed a considerable difference in the fuel consumption between both aircraft - its about 7 to 10 % LESS FF in the cargo version. Is this normal or just a mistake ?I asked this before but received no answer neither inofficial nor official from PMDG.This is especially important when planning a flight very close to MAX LDG WT - I had several occasions arriving at destination OVER max ldg wt.2. Next item I noticed ever since I use the PMDG 744, the FMC shows for fuel at dest a figure which is too high - the reason for this is a wrong fuel calculation for the very last part of the trip, which is from OM outer marker to touchdown whereby the figure is about 1200 to 1500 kgs for ONE minute - actually the real value is about 400 to 500 kgs.My question now - is the figure in FMC for dest the fuel at TOUCHDOWN or does it include the taxi-in fuel ?I have saved about 25 approaches at different airports and after a test row at all apts I found the same difference ! Karl-Heinz - EDDI/THF " Tempelhof "" The mother of all airports " - Sir Norman Fosterhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg