Jump to content

Pushing Concorde's limit - PHNL-NZAA


Ray Proudfoot

Recommended Posts

Fraser Gale
2 hours ago, Steve Prowse said:

 

 

interesting point this, as far as  I know there were four flights that went direct from Caracas to Paris Charles de Gaulle, they were:

1.  F- BTSC  AF 200    29/05/1976
2.  F - BTSC AF 200    10/07/1976

3. F - BTSC AF 356 V 24/09/1979
4. F - BTSC AF 200    23/02/1980

There were of course schedule flights,  again as far as I know they began with F-BVFA  AF7452 12/02/76;  this flight went to Santa Maria then onto Caracas I think AF finished this service in 1982.

With regards to the direct flights in particular No2 above;  the Captain was Pierre Dudal,  the first officer was Jacques Moron, and the FE was Andre Blanc.  Captain Dudal was noted as saying:

Caracas - Paris en direct analysé par le Chef de Division
 
Pierre DUDAL
Pilote d'essais - CDB Concorde
1er Chef de Division Concorde
(Article publié dans le n° 47 de la Revue Mach 2.02)

 

'Ce vol ne devait pas avoir de lendemain. Je ne voulais pas que l'effet d'émulation ne joua et que d'enchère en surenchère, un équipage puisse prendre un risque quelconque. D'autre part, il fallait que tous les éléments soient favorables : sens de décollage, chargement, vents positifs etc. Enfin, le délicat problème du centrage pouvait ne pas apparaître comme majeur pour certains et conduire à des situations à risque. Je prenais donc la décision d'interdire le vol direct, soutenu en ceci par la Direction d'Air France. Ceci fut respecté tant que je restai à la Division Concorde. Depuis, deux membres de l'encadrement l'ont, à nouveau, tenté… et réussi. Mais en dépit de cette réussite, je persiste à croire que les marges sont trop faibles, que ce soit le rayon d'action ou les limites de centrage pour permettre la généralisation de ce vol direct. Air France est une compagnie de transport public et il ne faut pas qu'une naturelle émulation transforme en raid ce qui est un vol commercial de transport public'.
 
'This flight was not to have a tomorrow. I did not want the emulation effect to be played and the bid to outbid, so a crew could take some risk. On the other hand, all the elements had to be favorable: sense of takeoff, loading, positive winds etc. Finally, the delicate problem of centring may not appear as major for some and lead to risky situations. I therefore took the decision to ban direct flight, supported by Air France's management. This was respected as long as I remained at the Concorde Division. Since then, two members of the coaching have, again, tried... and succeeded. But despite this success, I still believe that the margins are too low, whether it is the radius of action or the centring limits to allow the generalization of this direct flight. Air France is a public transport company and it is not necessary that a natural emulation transforms into a raid what is a commercial flight of public transport '.
Edge translation.
 
So clearly the Captain was not happy to have crews fly this route since it pushed the crew to far, and Concorde was really at the limit.  I do hope you all find this as interesting as this Concorde Geek does...
 
All the best
 
Steve.

A classic case of the the books say it's possible but the humans say it's not.  With Concorde, both factors had to be in agreement...

There was a lot she could do that no other aircraft could but she had to be treated with respect or she would bite you in the you know where!

  • Like 1
Link to post
AdrianSmith
23 hours ago, Steve Prowse said:

Not for me it's not!

I normally try to fly "as real as possible" but this was definitely a test flight so I was prepared to push the boundaries.

BTW, as much as I like and appreciate your signature line the plain truth is that if Concorde were still flying today then, in order to be compliant with current legislation it would have had to be retrofitted with IRS instead of INS and at least a FMC, and almost certainly a "glass cockpit" PFD and ND :rolleyes:

 

Link to post
Steve Prowse
20 minutes ago, AdrianSmith said:

I normally try to fly "as real as possible" but this was definitely a test flight so I was prepared to push the boundaries.

BTW, as much as I like and appreciate your signature line the plain truth is that if Concorde were still flying today then, in order to be compliant with current legislation it would have had to be retrofitted with IRS instead of INS and at least a FMC, and almost certainly a "glass cockpit" PFD and ND :rolleyes:

 

Test flight; what were you testing?  Did you see my other post about AF flight from Caracas to Paris?  I’m so pleased that you are that interested in my signature, you find it necessary to comment.  You may find this of interest:

https://youtu.be/GuXFk90h2jg

 

All the best

steve

Link to post
Fraser Gale
2 hours ago, AdrianSmith said:

 

BTW, as much as I like and appreciate your signature line the plain truth is that if Concorde were still flying today then, in order to be compliant with current legislation it would have had to be retrofitted with IRS instead of INS and at least a FMC, and almost certainly a "glass cockpit" PFD and ND :rolleyes:

 

Firstly, she would not have been flying today (commercially) even if she had continued past 2003 - it is generally accepted that the "environmental factors" such as noise would have put an end to it before now sadly. Secondly, a task force had already been looking at upgrading/integrating new navigation technology but they were told to stop just as the retirement was announced - it was found that Concorde's old analogue ADCs were very accurate and hence the only reason to replace them with digital would be to save weight, the certification costs would have been prohibitive. Her INSs were already of a more accurate type than the subsonic versions (that are still used in older 747s) and in fact G-BOAC was regarded as being fully RNAV compliant.

There was nothing to suggest that she would have been required by regulation to have a "glass cockpit" because you could fit an FMC and interface it with the existing instruments which is what was being looked at. 

There was a feasibility study done in the early 1990's (in BA) into upgrading to full "glass cockpit" but the costs would never have been recovered in the life of the aircraft and that was in the days when the fleet could generate up to 25% of BA's total net profit, if they were going to do it, it would have been then.  Had the authorities insisted on it after the re-start in 2002 then it would most likely have ended the show anyway. 

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

I tried SVMI-LFPG today with a test version of CPS-X. Fuel loaded was 94,784Kg using the route supplied by @AdrianSmith. With winds calm I departed Rwy 10.

The combo of less favourable wx than when flown in real life plus the inability to load denser fuel or load above the normal limits meant I would have run out of fuel.

The decel point was 50nm before BIGNO with the aircraft having reached FL600.

Reluctantly I added a total of 3T to prevent running out of fuel. The CG was already at its forward limit of 58.3. I parked at K71 with 7.3T remaining meaning it would have been only 4.3T without intervention. But with denser fuel and a little overfilling it would have been possible.

Quite satisfying but the work load is pretty heavy. And to top it all the weather today in Paris was grim with a cloud base at 700ft. :(

 

Link to post
Fraser Gale
4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I tried SVMI-LFPG today with a test version of CPS-X. Fuel loaded was 94,784Kg using the route supplied by @AdrianSmith. With winds calm I departed Rwy 10.

The combo of less favourable wx than when flown in real life plus the inability to load denser fuel or load above the normal limits meant I would have run out of fuel.

The decel point was 50nm before BIGNO with the aircraft having reached FL600.

Reluctantly I added a total of 3T to prevent running out of fuel. The CG was already at its forward limit of 58.3. I parked at K71 with 7.3T remaining meaning it would have been only 4.3T without intervention. But with denser fuel and a little overfilling it would have been possible.

Quite satisfying but the work load is pretty heavy. And to top it all the weather today in Paris was grim with a cloud base at 700ft. :(

 

Good experiment.  I think even with HLI fuel you would have struggled to land with 6500kg of legal fuel reserve.  Remember that for every tonne carried you burn a tonne to carry it, so if you managed to get an extra 2000kg in you would only get 1000kg benefit.  Using high density fuel was not common practice other than the example I told you about previously which occurred in the "early days" of commercial flying. Normally you would buy the fuel from your preferred supplier at your origin airport and the fuel company would tell the ground crew carrying out the refuel what the density of their fuel was that day so you wouldn't have a choice, so I would count that one out!

You should be able to squeeze a bit more fuel in though, have you tried what I suggested earlier and loaded a forward ZFCG? In other words load very little in the rear hold (number 6) and load more in the forward one - if it's possible with CPS.

This should allow you to get a bit more fuel in tank 11.

Frazz

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Thanks Frazz. It's bizarre isn't it? More fuel needs more fuel needs more fuel. Concorde could have done with a supersonic tanker drip feeding her at Mach 2. :-)

This higher fuel density really needs a tweak from Andrew whether or not a 64-bit version appears or not. Plus a few bugs ironing out too.

I've had a corrected version of CPS-X that uses the correct weather so I'll try what you suggest tomorrow. But the ZCG indicator that moves in CPS-X as you add weight was about as far forward as it's possible to get. I'll see if I can move baggage to the forward holds. CPS-X does allow that.

The other thing too is the tank 11 capacity. It seems 10,500 is the limit but by switching on the overrides it can go to 11020. Not sure how much another 520Kg of fuel aft will help but it's worth a shot.

January/February is the coolest time of year in Caracas. An early morning departure is essential otherwise it gets too warm. I'll try a 06:00 local departure and see if CPS-X willhelp me out.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
7 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

 

This higher fuel density really needs a tweak from Andrew whether or not a 64-bit version appears or not. Plus a few bugs ironing out too.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this statement. The fuel density is only simulated on one addon aircraft that I'm aware of and that's the PMGD 747-400 and I'm not convinced people would fully understand its implications in the simulation world anyway. If you mean simulation of HLI fuel then perhaps there would be mileage in that but you would need to have a system to simulate overriding the high level cutoff in order that it only be used when absolutely necessary.

She was an aircraft of compromises and brute force - the physics actually doesn't make financial sense when you think about it. If you want speed you must pay for it. 

At the end of the day you are attempting routes that as I mentioned before, are at the extremes of reality for the aircraft and when you add in slightly less accurate fuel burn models and slightly marginal weather it becomes impossible to do safely, as it would have been in real life.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Yes, HLI fuel simulation is a better option. I’m sure Andrew has thought about it so perhaps it’s not viable.

I suspect this Caracas-Paris Flight is only going to be possible with very favourable weather conditions. A session with various dates and times in AS16 beckons.

Link to post
Pierre Chassang

The SVMI-LFPG flight is right now possible when I'm writing these lines.

The weather condition are very important and the temperature must not exceed 20°C at SVMI.
Another limiting item is the runway slope. Rwy 10 has climbing 0.8% slope shortening the equivalent runway length in the MTOW calculations.
Using the Rwy 28 allows on the contrary stretch the equivalent runway length even with a low tail wind. In this case, the MTOW limitation comes from tires speed limit which affects V2 and therefore the MTOW.

The only way to perform a such flight is a SVMI temperature below 20°C, and a good en route tail wind.
Even when getting those parmeters, the payload will be limited and furthermore, an empty aircraft  can not be centered correctly because the required fuel quantity wil be too large.

SVMI-LFPG.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Flew SVMI-LFPG again today. I managed to land without adding any extra fuel which is much improved on yesterday. I took Frazz's recommendation to move as much baggage as possible to the forward hold. I also overrode the Tank 11 switches and got 11030Kg in it instead of the 10500 max if those switches aren't used.

I also ensured that the CG stayed as far rearward as possible. 59.3 is the limit. That, plus the extra tank 11 fuel paid benefits when nearing the end of the flight.

It's impossible to fly this long route without tanks 1-4 dropping below 1000Kg and the lowest they fell to was around 350Kg. But by pumping fuel from 11 very carefully making sure each tank had no more than the others I was able to keep all 4 engines running until 50nm before the planned decel point when I had to start down to prevent running out of fuel.

CG was moved from 59.3 to 59.0 to 58.8 to 58.5 to 58.2 during the final phase of supersonic flight. And despite the winds requiring a westerly approach I landed with 3.7T of fuel. Now I know that is below the legal limit but given this is a sim and the weather wasn't ideal it's not a bad result.

Link to post
Fraser Gale

Indeed well done for achieving your goal Ray, I'm just glad I wasn't flying with you or I would have had to actioned the incapacitated crew member drill and locked your seat harness while the engineer motored your seat away from the controls, so that I could divert the flipping thing!!! :D

As an aside here, in real life you would have required a fuel bowser because with only 3.7T remaining you would not have had the required 4T to put into T9 to make the aircraft stable during unloading.  You would have also had to make an awkward PA to explain to the passengers why they were being held for a while and you would have had an interesting chat with the Flight Manager when he got hold of you! 

Oh, and an incident similar to this (but for different reasons) happened to an AF aircraft a week before the two airlines met to discuss retirement dates....

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Thanks Frazz, I guess I'm in deep do-do. :D Loads of rules broken but I had to at least attempt the flight. Now that I know it's possible in the sim I'll switch to shorter routes. :) I passed close to TFFR and have a nice addon for that so that could be next for a return to Paris.

There is quite a variation in the fuel calculations in CPS-X and what is burnt in P3D. I don't know whether those can be further tweaked. I have already made the changes to the fuel file as recommended by afterburner. Maybe there are limitations in the sim.

All good fun on these dreary January days.

Link to post
Fraser Gale

There are limitations in the sim, bearing in mind that she's the only supersonic transport with an ogival delta wing that uses it and that most of the subsonic drag/dynamics rules do not apply or in some cases reverse when an object becomes supersonic. I don't think these aerodynamic laws will work properly for Concorde, although I obviously don't know how P3D is coded. 

Also remember that the figures will have been taken from manuals that were written to help the crew but that while the numbers are accurate to within a useable margin, they will never be exact.  When I was writing the PFPX profile I erd on the side of caution with the figures and when I put your flight into it it says I need more fuel than I can take, hence a no-go. I think this would be accurate to real world ops which is what I was aiming for. 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Yes we must remind ourselves this is a sim and not the real thing. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to write the code to make it fly so close to the real thing. Pushing her to the limits is an interesting exercise but not one I intend to pursue much longer. It’s taking up too much time for one thing!

I’m curious about your profile with PFPX given it’s not possible to position pax and baggage to arrive at the optimum CG as CPS-X can. But it obviously works otherwise you wouldn’t have made it public. I’ll compare the fuel load with CPS-X on a few shorter flights.

 

Link to post
Fraser Gale

Concorde X is very accurate I would think it's more P3Ds simulation of how the air works that would be the issue, remembering that a lot of it is just FSX which is quite old and was full of bugs. 

PFPX is a flight planning tool that I'm reliably informed is close to that used in the real world. It is not a load and balance program which would have been separate for Concorde in real life anyway. You have to think on it like PFPX would have been used by the planning department either the night before or early on the day of the flight to plan the route with the predicted traffic load (PAX+bags etc) to give the crew a basic fuel figure for the weather conditions along the route.  The load and balance couldn't be done until the exact traffic load was known and where it was all being placed, hence creating the loadsheet, so this wouldn't be finally calculated until just before the doors were closed.  PFPX is about the route, not the fuel/load etc.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

I was on the beta team for the 1.39 release but as I was running FSX at the time I really couldn’t say if the fuel burn was accurate as it’s too long ago and my attention was on other aspects. I do believe P3D is better than FSX in regards to accuracy and the only thing it can be compared to for fuel consumption is the numbers generated by CPS-X. Maybe it’s just not possible to get them spot on.

I’m curious about PFPX and your profile. How do you tell it where the accel point is? Ditto for the decel especially where there is a long subsonic leg?

Link to post
Steve Prowse

Concorde X is indeed very accurate; what we should remember here is that she is a 'study sim' not just - a sim.  I think we can all agree that one cannot just simply load Concorde  into your preferred platform and simply takeoff ,  fly across the pond and land in KJFK some 3 hours later.  It simply does not happen with Concorde X.  I like some on this form tend to fly her by the book (actually many books), if not I never feel that I have has a successful flight.  How can you?  

So with this recent attempt to fly from Caracas to Paris it is important to get the fuel management correct, particularly the CG.  In my opinion one cannot simply abandon the SOP.  What follows taken from a BA flying manual:

   

Concorde

Flying Manual Vol. 2 (b)

 

When any collector tank contents fall to 1000kg

 

Set tank5 and7 INLET VALVE sels to OPEN.

Observe tank5 and tank7 INLET VALVE Mls show inline.

Set tank 11 Electric Pumps ON.

 

When tank5 and tank 7 contents are greater than 100kg

Set tank5 and tank7 PUMPS sws and sels to ON

 

NOTE

100kg In each tank 6 and 7 Is the minimum quantity at which both pumps In

each tank are sure to be submerged. Waiting for this quantity ensures that the

pumps do not start dry.

 

Transferring cool fuel from tank 11 through tanks 5 and 7 to the collector tanks

ensures adequate pump performance In the event of loss of tank pressurlsatlon.

 

 

Normal supersonic cruise operetion can be continued provided the fuel tank

pressure Is greater then 1.2 and the minimum quantity In eny collector tank Is

1000kgs.

When CG reaches 57.5%

 

Set tank 11 Electric Pumps to AUTO.

 

Set tank5 and7 INLET VALVE SWS and sels to AUTO.

 

Observe tank5 and7 INLET VALVE Mls show crossllne.

 

There is also many references to as to the importance of correct CG in each stage of the flight given in the L&B manual.  In particular a table called: 

Minimum Fuel for Continued Supersonic Cruise

Moreover we should at the very least remember what Captain Dudal said "I therefore took the decision to ban direct flight, supported by Air France's management".  (please read my previous post on the AF flight)

Please note that Frazer produced an excellent Fuel management guide available in the download section.  I hope this helps any new pilots to Concorde.

Steve

Link to post
Fraser Gale
8 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I was on the beta team for the 1.39 release but as I was running FSX at the time I really couldn’t say if the fuel burn was accurate as it’s too long ago and my attention was on other aspects. I do believe P3D is better than FSX in regards to accuracy and the only thing it can be compared to for fuel consumption is the numbers generated by CPS-X. Maybe it’s just not possible to get them spot on.

I’m curious about PFPX and your profile. How do you tell it where the accel point is? Ditto for the decel especially where there is a long subsonic leg?

With respect, the only thing to compare the fuel burn figures with are the tables in the cruise control manual, some of which I use (as they were in the real world) on every flight to do a fuel check or two.  The figures for planning and the figures for actual burn are in completely different sections of the manual and are used in completely different ways. 

In PFPX you can choose the type of climb, cruise and decent for the subsonic aircraft (fixed Mach, cost index etc.) so I just created tables for a straight "balls to the wall" climb with no subsonic and one for around 130nm subsonic cruise followed by climb. Similarly for the descent with a cruise and without. With time and inclination (it is rather boring completing tables in notepad!) I could do it for longer or shorter subsonic sections but I have to do some maths to intriculate the numbers. I have provided M2.00, M0.95, 3 engine and 2 engine cruise although you would only use them to provide figures for diversions and I can't quite figure out how the ETOPs bit works to get it working as it should. 

It is based on the planning figures from the cruise control manual that would be used by the crews should they have to do a manual flight plan, for example if they had to divert to an airfield with limited support.  This is why charter flights were cheap to run in BA because the crews could do all the jobs required with minimal support, due to the fact they loved the aircraft and were very knowledgeable. 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

I appreciate creating a profile for Concorde is far from straight-forward. As it happens I flew EGCC-LPPT today so I entered that plan into PFPX, selected 100 pax and chose an alternate around 80nm away. To avoid ballast fuel I moved baggage rearward.

PFPX calculated 39.9T of fuel whereas CPS-X calculated 42.6T. I landed with 14.8T remaining. It seems either would produce enough fuel. My subsonic leg to the Welsh coast (5237N00411W) was around 90nm and I reached FL280 before reaching it.

At the other end I reached FL580 and started the decel around 115nm before ORSOS. Standard routing via the BUSE2P STAR to Rwy 03.

This was done without any weather input to PFPX which will make a difference. Here's the routing if you're interested.

EGCC MONTY DCT 5237N00411W DCT SLANY DCT 50N007W DCT LAPEX DCT 4350N00935W DCT XERES DCT ORSOS DCT BUSEN BUSE2P LPPT

Link to post
Fraser Gale

Was that with my profile Ray? Did you also apply my fuel policy? It looks about right. 

I seem to remember a discussion a while ago about the differences in fuel policy between the two carriers so it might be that CPS takes a bit more as extra. My one (which you can change) sets the minimum reserve at 6500kg and the additional at 2000kg, which in reality BA usually set at 2500kg. 

You might find if you plan a BGI that you have to plan without an alternate or at least pick one very close to Barbados. This would be easier in real life because you could plan for a diversion to alternate from along the route but PFPX seems to plan from destination. It is possible to use a re-clearance operation in PFPX which was used on Concorde when range was marginal. 

How did you find using it in general?

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

I installed as per your instructions so I assume it uses your policy. I chose OPT for Cruise Altitude (default) and the only other input from me was random pax which ended up at 100 and the alternate.

Just tried EGLL-TBPB and despite pax of 50 and no alternate I get:-

Error in performance file : Mode=Climb, Weight =93749, Altitude=26786, Fuel=13606
Error in performance file : Mode=Climb, Weight =92750, Altitude=34786, Fuel=13606
Error in performance file : Mode=Climb, Weight =91688, Altitude=38786, Fuel=13606

Do you get the same or close? Again, no wx is used.

It seems straight-forward enough to use but then again, am I using it correctly? Does the user need to make any selection from the defaults?

 

Link to post
Fraser Gale

Try increasing the number of passengers to above 68, this seems to be a bug but I can't find anything wrong with my tables and obviously I can't see the code.  It should still let you plan the flight despite the warnings though. 

You have to select the climb, cruise and descent type for the flight you are about to do also. This will make a difference to figures.  

The passenger number thing is puzzling.

Link to post
Steve Prowse

For interest see the Attached PDF,  no errors using Frazer's PFPX Concorde profile.  Do not forget to change the fuel policy to "Concorde".  Ensure you have the correct Phase of flight selected,  changing the aircraft reg may help as Frazer suggests in his README.

 

EGLLTBPB.pdf

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Frazz, in the light of Steve’s post might it help if you posted the instructions required to generate an error-free plan? I’m not sure where I need to select the right fuel policy or whether it’s selected automatically. Thanks.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Frazz, in the light of Steve’s post might it help if you posted the instructions required to generate an error-free plan? I’m not sure where I need to select the right fuel policy or whether it’s selected automatically. Thanks.

Sorry but I never wanted to get into the business of providing a load of support - I do mention the bug in the "read me" if I remember correctly and as I said, increase the number of passengers which fixes it. Other than that refer to the manual for PFPX as my profile works in exactly the same way as any other aircraft in the application, but you do have to understand how it works.  The fuel policy is selected under "fuel" like for any other aircraft.  You MUST select the correct climb, cruise and descent regime near the top of the planning page, again in the same way as you would for any other aircraft.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
9 hours ago, Steve Prowse said:

For interest see the Attached PDF,  no errors using Frazer's PFPX Concorde profile.  Do not forget to change the fuel policy to "Concorde".  Ensure you have the correct Phase of flight selected,  changing the aircraft reg may help as Frazer suggests in his README.

 

EGLLTBPB.pdf

For information, the preferred aircraft for BGI were G-BOAD, G-BOAE and G-BOAF. The whole fleet could do the route and did but these aircraft were slightly lighter, especially 'AF so just provided an unofficial extra margin. G-BOAC was the heaviest as she was actually the oldest and she had a modification done on a wing that made one wing heavier than the other, G-BOAA and G-BOAB were slightly heavier being from earlier in the production phase. G-BOAG was not actually the youngest and hence not the lightest, 'AF was but BA got 'AG last after nobody else bought her. 

Incidentally there were strict guidelines as to which airframe would do the BGI run - they had to have done at least 1 (or was it 2...) New York sectors after any engineering work before being allowed to do BGI and they had not be within a certain time of scheduled maintenance, as well as there being limits on top of normal fuel leak rates etc.

Bare in mind there is often a bit in the middle of the route in which a double engine failure would result in not being within range of land.....

All a bit tricky! 

All very tricky! 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Despite selecting G-BOAF and trying all 4 Init Alt/FL options and selecting Concorde in Fuel Policy the fuel required is beyond the max. Tried without an ALT but still no joy.

I'll figure it out - eventually.

Link to post
Fraser Gale

What was the winds?

You should select the climb option with "130" in the title as that signifies a subsonic cruise of up to 130nm, the Super M2.00 cruise option and the normal default descent option. The optimum cruise option should do as it calculates the flight levels wrong anyway.

Try putting 80 passengers (was often limited to 85 in real life) with no cargo. 

Then see what you get...

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
1 hour ago, Fraser Gale said:

What was the winds?

You should select the climb option with "130" in the title as that signifies a subsonic cruise of up to 130nm, the Super M2.00 cruise option and the normal default descent option. The optimum cruise option should do as it calculates the flight levels wrong anyway.

Try putting 80 passengers (was often limited to 85 in real life) with no cargo. 

Then see what you get...

No winds. I don't subscribe to the annual service any longer. I can connect to AS16 but not now as the FS PC is off.

But I have found the problem.  I only have the one climb option - Supersonic Climb. What is missing?

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Finally! I'd only installed one aircraft type - G-BOAF - instead of all of them and that omitted critical data. I have them all available now and choosing AF with 67 adults and Alternate of TLPL computes without problem.

I can now better compare it to CPS-X. :)

Link to post
Fraser Gale
2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Finally! I'd only installed one aircraft type - G-BOAF - instead of all of them and that omitted critical data. I have them all available now and choosing AF with 67 adults and Alternate of TLPL computes without problem.

I can now better compare it to CPS-X. :)

I'm glad it now works for you. 

I didn't create the profile so it could be compared with CPS, either use it or don't use it, the figures are from the manuals so any error will be down to the limitations of PFPX and the fact that Concorde planning is complicated.

Link to post
Steve Prowse
13 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

All a bit tricky! 

Indeed it was a tricky route, moreover, as you know,  it had its own manual "Barbados Operation".  I don't think any other route has this honour; unless you know different....:D

steve 

Link to post
Fraser Gale
5 hours ago, Steve Prowse said:

Indeed it was a tricky route, moreover, as you know,  it had its own manual "Barbados Operation".  I don't think any other route has this honour; unless you know different....:D

steve 

Yes indeed, and the graphs that are within it were crucial to the tactical performance of the route - they were writtien by a rather intelligent flight engineer called Ian Kirby who's nickname within BA was "Brains"! 

This was the only route that had a specific manual but all BA aircraft including Concorde carried a two volume route manual that would have had a wealth of information in it. These days it's all electronic of course...

Frazz

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
11 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

I'm glad it now works for you. 

I didn't create the profile so it could be compared with CPS, either use it or don't use it, the figures are from the manuals so any error will be down to the limitations of PFPX and the fact that Concorde planning is complicated.

Sorry. Don't want to tread on any toes. Appreciate your effort in creating it.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
53 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Sorry. Don't want to tread on any toes. Appreciate your effort in creating it.

It's fine, I think for someone like yourself who uses CPS for everything the advantage of using PFPX is purely in being able to plan new routes within the limits of Concorde operations. You can then export it to CPS already knowing it is possible to fly. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...