Take-Off Performance

[Timmy 496]

And also ESSA please!

 

Also are you able to add in for weight and balance so you can just enter ZFW and CG rather than individual stations etc...?

[David Katona 209]

5 minutes ago, Tim Mitchell said:

And also ESSA please!

 

Also are you able to add in for weight and balance so you can just enter ZFW and CG rather than individual stations etc...?

Thank you for ESSA.

That will need some programming, but it is now on my list of things to do. I will post it here when it is done.

[Alexandre Kubatko 342]

LFMN and LFML done !

[Riccardo_Parachini 67]

LIMC is done


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tim Vancauwenbergh 79]

Want to report that only 25R can be selected for takeoff at EBBR. Furthermore the runway heading is incorrect

[David Katona 209]

3 minutes ago, Tim Vancauwenbergh said:

Want to report that only 25R can be selected for takeoff at EBBR. Furthermore the runway heading is incorrect

I don’t think anybody added the rest of the runways for that airport yet. I will check the heading later on. 

[Christoph Hackenberger 4]

EGKK rwy 26L full length is wrong in the database. Should be 3255m. Maybe you can change the Setup form so when the airport is not locked you can edit existing database entries so the community can fix such mistakes by itself. Anyway really like these new database feature! 

[David Katona 209]

1 hour ago, Christoph Hackenberger said:

EGKK rwy 26L full length is wrong in the database. Should be 3255m. Maybe you can change the Setup form so when the airport is not locked you can edit existing database entries so the community can fix such mistakes by itself. Anyway really like these new database feature! 

Good idea, done!

[Christoph Hackenberger 4]

59 minutes ago, David Katona said:

Good idea, done!

Thanks! EGKK fixed and can be locked.

[Timmy 496]

For EGLL, Can you rename the intersection NB2W to N2W for 27L and remove the N53 on 27L too. And then it can be locked. 

Thanks

Tim

[datguytho 2]

Added LIML. Can be locked

[Tim Vancauwenbergh 79]

EBBR done, can be locked as well

[Alaister Kay 10]

Awesome job folks, this is rapidly turning into a very handy and complete utility

[David Katona 209]

16 minutes ago, Tim Vancauwenbergh said:

EBBR done, can be locked as well

Thanks Tim, now we just need a good EBBR scenery for P3D

[Maximilian Schroeder 1]

EDDL done, can be locked

[datguytho 2]

EHAM finished as well and double-checked. can be locked

[NilsUnger 987]

The "open" database was a very cool idea! It is growing fast!

[NilsUnger 987]

@David Katona

I wanted to add Bangkok VTBS to the database but stupid me made a typo and now all the entered data belongs to VTSB. Can you please change that. Sorry for the inconvenience. That's what you get when you let monkeys like me edit the database.

[David Katona 209]

7 minutes ago, NilsUnger said:

@David Katona

I wanted to add Bangkok VTBS to the database but stupid me made a typo and now all the entered data belongs to VTSB. Can you please change that. Sorry for the inconvenience. That's what you get when you let monkeys like me edit the database.

Changed to VTBS  

[Christian Tengroth 3]

ESGG finished as well and can be locked.

[Roi Bennoun 116]

Added UGTB,LLBG,LLET, UMKK

[Dave Woycek 151]

Great tool! Thanks a lot, just tested it.

However, I was a little puzzled by the flex temps it produces.

Same conditions, flex temp for the A320 CFM was 60 degrees and for the A320 IAE 67 degrees.

67 degrees is quite high for the IAE, and I would have expected the IAE flex temp to be lower than that for the CFM.

What data material do you use?

 

 

[David Katona 209]

11 minutes ago, Dave Woycek said:

Great tool! Thanks a lot, just tested it.

However, I was a little puzzled by the flex temps it produces.

Same conditions, flex temp for the A320 CFM was 60 degrees and for the A320 IAE 67 degrees.

67 degrees is quite high for the IAE, and I would have expected the IAE flex temp to be lower than that for the CFM.

What data material do you use?

 

 

Fcom Volume 2

IAE Flex temps are generally higher for the same conditions - as I was told by a pilot and confirmed by FCOMs I have access to. But if you have different sources, let me know and I will look into it.

Also note that the penalties are greatly different. On the CFM if you use PACKS, the penalty is 7 degrees decrease, whereas on the IAE it is only 3. etc...

Edit: TFLEXMAX is also higher for the IAE.

[Alexandre Kubatko 342]

Later on, do you consider to make a landing performance aswell?

[David Katona 209]

23 minutes ago, Alexandre Kubatko said:

Later on, do you consider to make a landing performance aswell?

My issue is not programming it, but typing in all the data from the FCOMs that takes forever  my priority now is flaps 3 and the A319, A321 models. Once done with that, I can try to find time for the landing performance.

[Riccardo_Parachini 67]

Every time I use this program every time I see that’s really great! One quick question, in the evening (Europe) I see that clicking metars take very long, I think because server it’s busy. Maybe I make some mistake, but I can call the airport runways only by clicking metar. Is it possible to insert a feature to call one airport and its runways without clicking “Metar”? Because if I input manually the metar it computes very fast the performance, it’s only the metar request that take very long...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Liam Carbin 79]

Another request: Can we do something about the message about cookies. Maybe make it so it doesn't pop up every time we load the page after we have agreed.

[David Katona 209]

40 minutes ago, Riccardo_Parachini said:

Every time I use this program every time I see that’s really great! One quick question, in the evening (Europe) I see that clicking metars take very long, I think because server it’s busy. Maybe I make some mistake, but I can call the airport runways only by clicking metar. Is it possible to insert a feature to call one airport and its runways without clicking “Metar”? Because if I input manually the metar it computes very fast the performance, it’s only the metar request that take very long...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

6 minutes ago, Liam Carbin said:

Another request: Can we do something about the message about cookies. Maybe make it so it doesn't pop up every time we load the page after we have agreed.

Both yes in the next version. 

[Dave Woycek 151]

19 hours ago, David Katona said:

Fcom Volume 2

IAE Flex temps are generally higher for the same conditions - as I was told by a pilot and confirmed by FCOMs I have access to. But if you have different sources, let me know and I will look into it.

Also note that the penalties are greatly different. On the CFM if you use PACKS, the penalty is 7 degrees decrease, whereas on the IAE it is only 3. etc...

Edit: TFLEXMAX is also higher for the IAE.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. If it‘s in the FCOMs it must be true. Good to hear that you have access to data for the V2500 which I found hard to get a hold on. Lots of CFM information out there.

From my limited sim experience I had the feeling that I‘d end up with an overrun when using the CFM flex temps for the IAE, let alone even higher temps.

[David Katona 209]

4 minutes ago, Dave Woycek said:

Interesting. Thanks for the info. If it‘s in the FCOMs it must be true. Good to hear that you have access to data for the V2500 which I found hard to get a hold on. Lots of CFM information out there.

From my limited sim experience I had the feeling that I‘d end up with an overrun when using the CFM flex temps for the IAE, let alone even higher temps.

Yes I do have FCOMs for both. And having them right next to each other it shows that at exact same conditions the IAE has higher MTOW at higher temperature - hence the higher derate.

I just ran a query on my database for a 3000 meter long runway, and according to my data at lower temperatures CFM is slightly stronger (MTOW), but then the IAE performs better.

 

[David Katona 209]

@Riccardo_Parachini @Liam Carbin

Got rid off the cookie warning if you agree to it once (hopefully, tested in chrome, safari and firefox...)

When you enter 4 characters in the ICAO field, it loads the runways, so you don't have to load the metar to have the runways from the database. 

[Alexander Arildsson 8]

Thanks for this fabulous tool!

I've added runways for ESTA which can be locked.
EDIT: While I was at it I also added ESTL, ESMK, ESMX, ESMQ, ESMT, ESDF and ESGJ.

[Liam Carbin 79]

23 minutes ago, David Katona said:

@Riccardo_Parachini @Liam Carbin

Got rid off the cookie warning if you agree to it once (hopefully, tested in chrome, safari and firefox...)

When you enter 4 characters in the ICAO field, it loads the runways, so you don't have to load the metar to have the runways from the database. 

Thank you for your quick work! Thats much better, than being nagged every time we load it up.

 

Keep up the great work! 

[Alexander Arildsson 8]

ESSA, which is locked, has all the intersections of 19L/R and 01L/R in reverse. I.e. 19R as the intersections of 01L and vice versa.

EDIT: ESSA has now been corrected.

[Dave Woycek 151]

7 hours ago, David Katona said:

Yes I do have FCOMs for both. And having them right next to each other it shows that at exact same conditions the IAE has higher MTOW at higher temperature - hence the higher derate.

I just ran a query on my database for a 3000 meter long runway, and according to my data at lower temperatures CFM is slightly stronger (MTOW), but then the IAE performs better.

 

The data work nicely with the FSL V2500.

Thanks a lot again for providing the community with your software. Highly appreciated!

[Riccardo_Parachini 67]

[mention=14497]Riccardo_Parachini[/mention] [mention=16037]Liam Carbin[/mention]
Got rid off the cookie warning if you agree to it once (hopefully, tested in chrome, safari and firefox...)
When you enter 4 characters in the ICAO field, it loads the runways, so you don't have to load the metar to have the runways from the database. 

Thank you very much David!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob Lyddy 606]

KPHL added and can be locked.

[Jeremias Marco Harsono 33]

WIII and WADD can be locked. I have also added WSSS but not all of the intersections, only the ones closest to the final taxiways for each runway

Also, I would like to thank @David Katona and everyone else involved in this project. I've been using this since the weight and balance page was first opened and it changed how I did my FSLabs A320 flights. I know use the website to randomize the load and ZFW, then use that for Simbrief, then calculate the take off performance data and generate the load sheets, while using the checklist. I've rarely used checklists but I've been doing so for the A320 because this website is just so convenient. The CG values generated by the loadsheet correspond seamlessly with the A320 MCDU values, and you can customize each cargo bay load in the website. I've been considering a small cashier style printer to print the loadsheets, because of this website. I also like how this website seems to be very FSLabs specific yet still being open enough to be used with other A320s   

[David Katona 209]

1 hour ago, Jeremias Marco Harsono said:

WIII and WADD can be locked. I have also added WSSS but not all of the intersections, only the ones closest to the final taxiways for each runway

Also, I would like to thank @David Katona and everyone else involved in this project. I've been using this since the weight and balance page was first opened and it changed how I did my FSLabs A320 flights. I know use the website to randomize the load and ZFW, then use that for Simbrief, then calculate the take off performance data and generate the load sheets, while using the checklist. I've rarely used checklists but I've been doing so for the A320 because this website is just so convenient. The CG values generated by the loadsheet correspond seamlessly with the A320 MCDU values, and you can customize each cargo bay load in the website. I've been considering a small cashier style printer to print the loadsheets, because of this website. I also like how this website seems to be very FSLabs specific yet still being open enough to be used with other A320s   

Thank you for the nice words Jeremias.

I found - and I don't know how printer specific this is - that if I put a smaller paper (like quarter size) in my normal A4 printer, it works well with the loadsheet and that is what I have been using. And since I shared my printer on my home network, I never have to switch to any other window on my PC, I can just leave it running P3D only. Everything else can be done on phone/tablet, which is what I was aiming for when I started this website.

[David Katona 209]

I have updated the font on the loadsheet to be more printer like, and also prepared a new more standard loadsheet layout, so in the next version you can select which one to use. Almost done, just need to make it compatible with imperial units.

[Kim Ruben Fjeldstad 9]

I have added ALOT of airports in Norway and Sweden, and will do it more.

My data is from a real ToDC so real intersections, runway lenghts and so on.

Have completede the big airports in Norway, ENML, ENAT, ENNA, ENAN, ENEV, ENDU, ENAL, ENHD, ENKB, ENKR and ENCN
For sweden I have done ESNX, ESNU, ESPA, ESKN, ESNG, ESNN, ESNS and ESNO, the rest will come

[Nicolas Beaubatie 0]

Hello,

 

How i can rename an intersection or delete it ! i do a mistake ?

Thanks

[Norman Blackburn 2754]

1 hour ago, chipster19 said:

How i can rename an intersection or delete it ! i do a mistake ?

Hi @chipster19

The first thing is to change your name to be your full name.

 

[Brad Zimmer 55]

I know I’ve asked this before but just want to make sure I get it, if I am flying in the USA and am using lbs, not kg, I start in the take off page and switch to imperial.  From there, go to w&b and even though the trip fuel says kg, the results will still be in lbs, no conversion needed?

also, along the same lines, even though zfw or anything on that page says kgs, it will still be lbs after picking imperial on the take off page?  Thanks!

[David Katona 209]

4 minutes ago, Brad Zimmer said:

I know I’ve asked this before but just want to make sure I get it, if I am flying in the USA and am using lbs, not kg, I start in the take off page and switch to imperial.  From there, go to w&b and even though the trip fuel says kg, the results will still be in lbs, no conversion needed?

also, along the same lines, even though zfw or anything on that page says kgs, it will still be lbs after picking imperial on the take off page?  Thanks!

Correct. I will fix the labels for the next version so it will say LBS if imperial selected. For the time being just please ignore the KGS in the label, the figures will be in LBS.