Suggestion: Performance data in FMS
We already have weather in the FMS, and some googling/reading the docs indicate that some real world operators have performance data in the FMS. Aurasim is getting increasingly outdated.
In a future version, could we get a takeoff/landing performance data calculator (v-speeds and distance) in the FMS? It would be VERY helpful.
Comments
While this data can be helpful, it is not likely to happen as this is not the norm for every operator.....most data is usually acquired from the dispatch release. Which to be done correctly would require data for all available runways
It doesn't have to be perfect, IMO a similar solution is good enough for flight sim purposes.
Having the FMS provide distance required instead of distance remaining would be just as good, and easier to implement than gathering information for every runway in the world.
For this to be done "the correct way" there are many variables that go into factoring landing distance apart from length of the runway.....(weight, temp, runway condition, altitude, wind component). Now its not that fact the implementation of performance data hasn't been thought of taking into consideration that we have runway friction implemented into the TRAINING Edition, but as I said if we are going to do something it has to be done correctly. This in itself will be another time consuming venture which is which is why I stated ...Not Likely.
Alright, if that's what you guys feel. But something is really better than nothing here, especially since Aurasim is getting so old (and takeoff distance charts weren't included in the docs with this add-on). An FMS menu where you could input weight, temp, runway condition, altitude, and wind, and it would provide speed and distant required seems like it would be doable and pretty close to right
If not this though, takeoff distance charts, or some other replacement for Aurasim would be awesome. But I'm sure not the only person that would like to see it in the FMS like this.
I'm just hoping Aurasim will rebuild their application in such a way that you could enter the runway data by yourself and do not have to use their outdated database. Shouldn't be too hard to implement, even for Aurasim.
they're pretty much out of business
Hello,
Available on the Internet:
Request : "dash 8 series 400 airport planning manual".
You'll have plenty of information regarding the TOFF and LDG distances in respect of Altitude, OAT and Weight but you have to use the graphs instead of entering directly the figures like with Aurasim but it is accurate as published by Bombardier.
You do not have the wind and regarding the runway condition and the slope, these informations are no use as FSX do not take them into account.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
JP
Or MJC could add them to the FMS.
Hello dlrk,
To implement these into the FMS would be quite consuming for the devs and, to me anyway, I do not see the point as you could do these calculations quite easily. It is the same for the speeds, leaflets are already provided.
I never flew the Q400 but I do not think lot of operators have these features in their FMS.
OK, I am from the old school and I learned doing the calculations with the graphs as there were no FMS when I started and it worked.
Something to keep in mind: when you work for an airline you fly to and from a limited number of airfields and you have tables which could tell you straight away if a runway is limitative or not. It is easy to do such tables.
Just as an exemple: you fly from an airfield at SL and you have 1900 m available, you know that if the OAT is below +32°C you can TOFF with the MTOW and below +32°C the runway is not limitative.
I know it is a bit more complicated in RL as you have to take into account the wind, Rwy condition, slope but not for the Sim.
Do not expect to have the FMS doing everything for you. On another forum (PFPX) which by the way I find a fantastic tool for the Q400, lot of people want to have the results sent directly to the FMS which is wrong as if you do that you have nothing to check if you OFP is right or wrong.
Regards,
JP
Kroswynd, yes, and I, and fakeflyer737, and lgl3592, would all like you to revise your comment.
I'm not sure if FSX takes runway condition into account (I know at least some addons do), but wind definitely is a factor in FSX.
If you look at the included performance manuals, reference is made to an AeroData service that apparently many operators use to get performance data via ACARS. So that is a realistic thing.
The really is no reason why it would not be feasible to have an FMS function (you can simulate it in an ACARS menu) that takes wind, weight, temp and QNH and yields stopping distance. It would be very much appreciated.
That said, if MJC absolutely refuses to do this, some means, if only a chart included with the Q400 documents, to determine takeoff and landing distance really is necessary.
To be completely honest, @kroswynd , I'm not really sure why asking for some means to know if a runway is long enough is an unreasonable request.
Is it feasible for us to do.... Very possible... But not probable at this time.. As I stated previously this will be a time consuming venture for which we don't have the time due to our other obligations at the moment.
The very least we may be able to offer for the time being, if accessible, would be TLR tables.
Cheers
@kroswynd
Tables for takeoff/landing distance would be great. FMS data would be ideal, but tables would definitely be sufficient.
I gave a link in a previous above post and you have these tables available there.
Go to Chapter 3 - pages 67 to 84.
I do not know for along they would be available on the Internet as usually these informations are quite restricted but I just checked now and it is working.
JP
@jpgmultimodal
Obviously, something legally distributed by MJC would be better.
I am not sure that MJC can distribute legally the official documents from Bombardier so we have to use what we can collect ourselves. Anyway the D8400-APM is an official Bombardier document.
We'll see the comments from Kroswynd about that matter.
JP
We'll see what Kroswynd/MJC say, but my understanding would be that, while they may not be able to distribute the original charts, they could rewrite them
By the way... what about optimal altitude? How exactly can we know, for a given configuration, weight, CG etc, what is the optimal cruising altitude?
Thanks
Hi,
in the Q400 you would climb up to the maximum FL of 250 pretty much all the time, unless:
1: Temperatures up there are extremely high - if ISA deviation is greater than +35 and weight above 27 tons, you would be limited to FL240 straight away for instance. (Obviously, that happens very very rarely)
2: The flight is very short. This chart might be useful:
@RGomes
Luckily, for flight planning, excellent software is available. Simbrief.com handles this great. It's takeoff/landing performance we're missing
Thanks for both answers.
I use PFPX and indeed all but one of the flights I planned were @FL240-250. I found that a bit odd but not anymore, I guess.
Performance: I paid the US$ 5,00 to Aurasim. I guess that is all there is...
PFPX is quite optimistic on the FL most of the time. But for reference you can look up the flights on Flightradar and see what level theyre usually cruising at or just take the chart I sent into consideration.
@jpgmultimodal,
Thanks for sharing the online documentation provided by the Bombardier website. This at the moment would be the only available source to allow for the required date by some users.
@dlrk,
Currently, we do not have access to a digital copy of TLR tables (which would be great if we did), and the copy of data that is available we have not been granted permission to replicate for use with the MJC Q400. As I have mentioned the undertaking of making TLR data accessible via the FMS is an extensive and time-consuming project which at this time we are not willing to invest the time due to it further delaying our projects already on the drawing board. While we at MJC would love to add some of these additional features to assist in the overall functionality of the Q400, we have to make decisions in determining what features are best suited for the project, especially when resources are limited.
Cheers