Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'weight'.
Found 7 results
-
Hi, I'm kind new to the 787 and I have some questions regarding the weight and balance configuration. I usually import my data from simbrief, but I noticed that only changes the info in the FMC, not the actual payload. So I look at the numbers in simbrief and I set them in the weight and balance tab. Even If I have the tanks full or the weights exactly like I should, I always get an insufficient fuel message. Any idea what I should do, or any tutorial that can help?
-
First of all, I want to commend the devs for Little NavMap on an incredible job for this software. It's rapidly become my go-to for flight planning and tracking while flying in MSFS 2020 (I have it handy on my iPad via spacedesk app). I love how I can easily implement the flight plan into MSFS2020 as well as the FMS on aircraft (at least on the TBM-930 so far, haven't flown others yet). I'm still learning my way around it, but I made a critical error in my last flight in that I didn't have enough fuel to get to my destination. I thought I followed the suggestion of the Fuel Report tab pretty good, until I realized I didn't account for the weight of my co-pilot. So, if I may, I'd like to request a new feature to be added into Little NavMap for fuel calculations to include input for passengers and/or cargo. I understand if this is not feasible, I'm no developer, but I hope it is and that this request would be considered. Blue skies! (Edit: Grammar)
- 4 replies
-
- fuel report
- fuel
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
I've been wanting to do this for a while and today I have a little time, so here it goes. I am constantly bombarded by statements about how reducing image weight reduces the image quality. For the purpose of this discussion, "weight" is determined by the "quality" setting dialogue box when you save a jpeg. First, it is important to understand the difference between image size and file size. Image size is simply the length of the image times the height of the image times the resolution in pixels per inch (ppi). File size is the amount of physical space the entire file of the image (including metadata, etc.) on the hard drive. File size is often dependent on the internal algorithms within the imaging software being used. When you press the V key, MSFS captures the screen image and saves it as a bitmap (bmp) image. Usually, the user will change the image to a jpeg. When saving as a jpeg, a dialogue box will appear with the choice (a slider) to adjust the image quality. Obviously, the higher the setting, the more space the file will take up on your hard drive, or a server. In an effort to reduce the space taken up by forum images on the AVSIM servers, the size limit has been set to 1600 pixels and 400Kb IF you save your image to the AVSIM servers. If you save your image on a third party image hosting site, obviously that space is not used by an AVSIM server, so the limitations are lifted. A monitor screen has a resolution of 72 pixels per inch (ppi). That's the highest resolution it can handle. It doesn't matter if you call up a 100 megabyte image with a resolution of 300 pixels per inch, the monitor will only display that image at 72 pixels per inch. Images with resolutions of 300 ppi are used for printed outputs. My monitor is a 27" ASUS. When I hit the "V" key, the image size is 1920 x 1017 pixels, at 72 ppi. This makes a 100% image approximately 26.7 x 14.125 inches on the screen (if my screen was that large). The algorithms of MSFS and the screen capture vs. monitor size is beyond the scope of this discussion, and my understanding. Suffice to say, the image saved, on my computer, is larger than the actual screen size at 72 ppi. If I save that image as a jpeg without adjusting the size, the result is a 1.43 Megabyte file. If I reduce the image size to 1600 pixels max, and image quality at max (12), the file is 1.07 Megabytes. This is still too large to save on the AVSIM servers. To make the file "legal" you must either reduce the size of the image or the "quality" or both. Below is four images. The first image is the original size saved at the highest quality. (1.43 Mb) The second image is reduced to 1600 pixels at highest quality. (1.07 Mb) Still to large for AVSIM servers. The third image is a 1600 pixel image at quality medium 8. (325 Kb). Quite a change in file size and now we are "legal". The fourth image is the original saved at 1600 pixels and quality setting low 4. The image file size is now only 179 Kb. I challenge you to tell a difference in visual quality. Original screen capture saved as a jpeg, quality max (12). 1.43Mb Original image reduced to 1600 pixels max, image quality max (12), 1.07Mb Original image reduced to 1600 pixels max, quality level medium (8), 325 Kb Original image reduced to 1600 pixels max, image quality low (4), 179Kb I hope this clears up a few concepts about image size, file size, and image quality. Please feel free to comment or ask questions.
-
Hi all, Thought it was interesting to share some info I found with you guys. British Airways ships: G-BNLX MTOW is 396893kg and has a fast taper washout (Type A, 15000ft). No longer flying, dont have the seat plan. I guess it would have been around 345 seats. G-CIVI MTOW is 364000kg and has a fast taper washout. 275 seats. G-CIVX MTOW is 364000kg and has a slow taper washout (Type C, 5,5% residual derate @ 35000ft). 275 seats. Virgin Atlantic Airways: G-VROM MTOW is 362874kg and has a fast taper washout. At least, this is what I found... http://aerowinx.com/forum/topic.php?id=2469 (Aerowinx forum - topic about Climb Derate and Washout) https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=1 (Site where you can find data about any G- registerd bird) Anyone with more infos or corrections, please let me know! Happy flying!! Alex
-
Hi all Santos Dumont (SBRJ/SDU) is one of the most challenging destinations; hence it's also one of my favorites. Most of the time I fly from Sao Paulo (SBSP), as that route makes an interesting return flight as well. I use the 737-800SFP with GOL painting. I'm getting quite good at landing at SBRJ. Occasional go-arounds due to late cockpit preparations still happen, but that airport requires you to be pretty precise. I was wondering what limitations there are for takeoff and landing at SBRJ, and searched this and other forums for answers. This is what I ended up with: SBRJ T/O Only RWY 20L/02R Tail Wind max 5kt Max OAT = 40c Flaps 15 / 25 (15 = best performance) Max TOW: 68K (Wet =64K) Opt for Bleed off (Only very little gain) 27K TO-B (Always) No rolling. Release brakes at N1=70% Then TOGA Thrust reduction/Acceleration = 820’ / 820’ Speed mode = N1 VNAV engaged @ Transition ALT = 5000’ Assumed Temp. Max. 44c SBRJ Landing Tail Wind max 5kt Only 20L/02R Flaps 40 Autobrake MAX Max LW 58.2 It’s the very last bullet (max landing weight 58,2 tonnes) that I never seem to get even close to. I’m mostly well above 60 tonnes when I land! This is the post I got the number from: http://forum.avsim.n...-field-package/ So, these are my calculations: Dry weight = 41,413kg Reserve fuel and final taxi fuel = 3,000kg (incl unused holding, alternative and contingency) 166 PAX + 10kg carry-on = (80kg+10kg)*166 = 14940kg Luggage = 166pax * 15kg (average checked in luggage) = 2490kg No extra cargo Total landing weight is then 61,843kg! I’m often told, that I need to lose weight :-), but here we are talking about 3.6 tonnes ! I haven’t overrun the runway yet, so it might be the 58.2 tonnes max landing weight, that’s not right. But it really sounded like the poster knew what he was talking about. My guess is that my calculations are wrong. But I can’t really see where? Any help, knowledge and guidance is appreciated. Thanks in advance. //Lasse
-
Hello. Firstly, I would like to apologize in advance if this topic already exists ; I have tried to find the solution, but I couldn't. The problem I have with my Wilco A340, A330 and sometimes A320 family, basically Wilco Airbus in general, is that it climbs too fast. I do not think this is realistic. For example on a hot day in New York which I just departed with my Airbus A340-300 (fully loaded for a 10hr flight), the Airbus was climbing at about 3700 v/s+ ... this is too fast! The plane climbs too fast initially, but then gradually calms down. For example now with 67 tons of Fuel, FL267, climbing FL350, I'm climbing with 1800 v/s with CLB setting. Shouldn't this be much lower to reflect real weight? Can I change anything from my config to make this aircraft a bit more heavier , like in real life? I mean on the ground when turning when taxiing , even with low speed it feels heavy, as it's fully loaded w/ fuel + pax. But in the air, when it climbs, I don't get this feeling. It just seems too light! Should I merge w/ Project Airbus? Project Opensky, or Overland? Overland has GPS that I used many years ago, but had a great behaviour Thank you for your help in advance :-)
-
Anyone know why the ZFWCG is out of range when the aircraft (all versions) has no payload or passengers? How do pilots fly the aircraft when it's empty? This is according to the MD-11 load manager.