Connor Levens

P3d looks better everyday. Feels like you're really there. Beautiful shot. What aircraft were you flying? (Just curious.)

>>A lot of people have been asking me for help on this topic,>>and before any posts pop up, I'm going to post this here ->>maybe it'll help ;-)>>>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/184300.gif>>hey,>>again me.>>was wondering for your chart ....>>>KLM and Qantas charts for GE engine pax :>>CI 150 >3000 nm LDW 250T tripfuel 60t flightime 06:20>>CI500>3000 nm LDW 250T tripfuel 61.7t flightime 06:11 >>>>your chart for CI500 : -3% time 11 min +10% fuel means +6t>...???!!!>>>>>in the same time Boeing is giving in QRH LRC reference fuel>and time :>GE pax engine.>LRC 3000nm tripfuel 58.14t flightime 06:22>>>so dont know where your datas came ??? and of course is it for>GE engine for Pax version or ?>>tell me>>PhilThanks for the reply, Phil. I'm not sure if the engine data that I posted in my last post was incredibally accurate. Like I said, all I know is that I found it in an old Virgin Atlantic 747-400 manual, so, I guess the engine's not GE.Sorry I couldn't help :-(Connor Levens

>>>This is very interesting stuff, thanks for posting!>>>>>>Just to make sure I get this one right... Entering a CI of>>>1500 for example would result in a 10,5% increased fuel>burn>>>and a 3% decrease in time compared to the standard .86 Mach>>>ECON CRZ>>>>>>Correct? :-badteeth Gotta love graphs!>>>>>>Cheers>>>Holger>>>>>>>>>Edit: Just had a quick look at the cruise fuel planning>>table>>>from the 737 manual... for a 4000nm flight my example above>>>would mean using 8.000 kgs more fuel just to arrive some 20>>>minutes earlier... *scratches head* Talk about useless :-)>>>>Yes, that's correct, but as rjprest posted, I'm not sure if>>the PMDG can model such a cost index :-(>>dont know if it s PMDG FMCs or more the flight simulator>engine ... on a long haul if you re trying a CI30 or fixed .86>or even LRC (long range cruise) the results are the quickest>you fly the less you re burning fuel ... of course this is not>the way the companies are working but seems on the ground the>results are like the real FMC(PMDG good works) but in the air>the results are not similar (FS9 "bad" works) so seems there>is a gremlin somewhere ...>>if your datas good for any combo engine airframe or for a>specific one ???>>see you>>Phil>That's a godo question, Phil. I dug up this information from a few old 747-400 books that a friend of mine gave me a while back. According to the booklet cover, the chart seems to be good for Virgin Atlantic, and, as we all know, Virgin Atlantic operates their 747-400 in GE engines, so I'm guessing this chart is good for GE.Connor Levens

>This is very interesting stuff, thanks for posting!>>Just to make sure I get this one right... Entering a CI of>1500 for example would result in a 10,5% increased fuel burn>and a 3% decrease in time compared to the standard .86 Mach>ECON CRZ>>Correct? :-badteeth Gotta love graphs!>>Cheers>Holger>>>Edit: Just had a quick look at the cruise fuel planning table>from the 737 manual... for a 4000nm flight my example above>would mean using 8.000 kgs more fuel just to arrive some 20>minutes earlier... *scratches head* Talk about useless :-)Yes, that's correct, but as rjprest posted, I'm not sure if the PMDG can model such a cost index :-(

>interesting>>what are the units for the x y axis? (minutes? hours? tons?)>>>also, after years of using the 747 I am still unsure as to>what the max CI you can place in the PGDM FMC. different max>numbers are located at different locations in the manual>>thanks for posting thoughNo problem :-) I'm glad I finally found something like this lolThe X & Y axis are written in percent Block Time from LRC and Blcok Fuel from LRC.LRC = Long Range ClimbEnjoy!

A lot of people have been asking me for help on this topic, and before any posts pop up, I'm going to post this here - maybe it'll help ;-)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/184300.gif