30 minutes ago, Aamir said:

Just checked and I believe Boeings do the same thing re deceleration rate, so in theory on both you should see little to no difference with rev on/off. 

Thanks Aamir....Not sure about Boeing though, or it just my feeling that Boeing rolls much longer. But makes sense re Airbus.....

16 minutes ago, cyyzrwy24 said:

Thanks Aamir....Not sure about Boeing though, or it just my feeling that Boeing rolls much longer. But makes sense re Airbus.....

The 737 autobrake is a little anaemic compared to the A320.

Deceleration rates for the 737 on AB1 is only 4 ft/sec², AB2 is only 5 ft/sec², AB3 is only 7.2 ft/sec², and MAX is 12 – 14 ft/sec².

The A320 manages 5.5 ft/sec² on LO, 9.8 ft/sec² on MED, 32.8 ft/sec² on MAX for an RTO. (This last setting is more than the maximum possible deceleration of the A320, so the system applies full brake pressure).

That's not to forget that it takes 3 seconds for the 737's autobrakes to apply full pressure for the selected autobrake setting.

The A320 takes 4 seconds to apply LO braking force and 2 seconds to apply MED.

7 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

The 737 autobrake is a little anaemic compared to the A320.

Deceleration rates for the 737 on AB1 is only 4 ft/sec², AB2 is only 5 ft/sec², AB3 is only 7.2 ft/sec², and MAX is 12 – 14 ft/sec².

The A320 manages 5.5 ft/sec² on LO, 9.8 ft/sec² on MED, 32.8 ft/sec² on MAX for an RTO. (This last setting is more than the maximum possible deceleration of the A320, so the system applies full brake pressure).

That's not to forget that it takes 3 seconds for the 737's autobrakes to apply full pressure for the selected autobrake setting.

The A320 takes 4 seconds to apply LO braking force and 2 seconds to apply MED.

All Boeing *landing* autobrakes settings (to include Max, but excluding RTO) do target a decel rate.  On a dry runway, reverse use is therefore fairly irrelevant, though we use detent 2 as a standard on every landing for a few other reasons.

You might be confusing 737 auto brake Max with Airbus RTO though.  The Boeing RTO auto braking applies no deceleration rate, but rather 3000psi (max hyd pressure), immediately, to all brakes.  No brakes or wheels are usable again after a high speed abort; it feels like an arrested landing.

I can tell you that Boeing autobrakes Max is extremely uncomfortable on a dry runway; it's much more than needed to make any valid landing performance work.  Where it's applicable is on contaminated runways where it's understood there will be some level of antiskid activation, so by asking the autobrakes for a higher decel level than they can provide, you're ensuring you get every bit possible.

 

2 hours ago, Aamir said:

So, here's an interesting tidbit from debugging this with some users in Discord.

Give this a go - if you've disabled any audio devices in your Windows audio settings, go ahead and renable everything - you don't need to change anything besides renabling them - let me know if they start playing?

Many thanks.

 

They were all enabled anyway, I saw this on the discord and was hopeful I’d find something disabled, but no joy sadly.

 

So, for me at least, this didn’t work.

Edited March 4, 20242 yr by abennett

Neither the Boeing autobrake RTO setting nor the Airbus autobrake Max setting target a deceleration rate. They both deliver max hydraulic pressure to the brakes. The Boeing autobrake system has 4 different landing settings, while the Airbus system has 3.

16 hours ago, JYW said:

I've now got fully custom announcements working for BAW and EZY.... what a lift in immersion!

For those unaware, to set up custom announcements, you don't touch the 'announcements' folder within the main Feniz A320's folder.

• You create a new folder and call it literally anything, and place it in your Community folder.
• Within that new folder, you need a folder called  Announcements (must be exactly this).
• Within that folder, you set up folders with the correct ICAO code for the desires airline; eg BAW, EZY, UAL, etc
• Within that folder you place your custom sound files (OGG format), with the same names as those in the default announcements folder.

..... and that's it.  The specific airline is picked up from the aircraft.cfg on the ICAO_airline= flag.

 

this may explain it  better  for  other  users

 

11 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

Magic what happens on different systems. 

yep amazes me  why users   try to compare different  aircraft on  their  pc  systems  Iam sure  we are all  running  the  same  systems  pc  specs 🙂

4 hours ago, Donstim said:

Neither the Boeing autobrake RTO setting nor the Airbus autobrake Max setting target a deceleration rate. They both deliver max hydraulic pressure to the brakes. The Boeing autobrake system has 4 different landing settings, while the Airbus system has 3.

Oops, I meant 3 and 2 for the number of autobrake settings that can be used for landing (and that target a specific deceleration rate). 

8 hours ago, cyyzrwy24 said:

I would be using AB, either LOW or MED and I would always be able to slow down at the exit I planned to get out, It seems that once I start rolling, brake "intensity" or force is only what is required. Even on runway 7000 ft long. Not sure that is correct but would like to hear what is your experience. I am watching Live plane spotting on YT and there is not even one Airbus that have not used TR. What's up with that?

Two points in addition to what others have said:

• As has been discussed, deceleration rate with autobrake will be the same whether or not you use reverse thrust, but there's still a good reason to use reverse thrust, because, all other things being equal, your brake temperatures will be lower when reverse thrust is used (because the brakes are doing less of the total stopping work). This can be important if you have a short turnaround. Try it out in the sim -- the Fenix should model this well.
  Brake wear, on the other hand, is not much affected whether you use reverse thrust or not -- the rule for carbon brakes is that the amount of wear depends on the number of brake applications, not the intensity of each application.
• For noise abatement, many airports forbid the use of more than idle reverse thrust, except when needed for safety. But you'll still see pilots selecting at least idle reverse -- it removes the forward idle thrust that you would otherwise get and provides just a smidgen of additional deceleration.

52 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

this may explain it  better  for  other  users

 

Thank you sir. Wil try it. But main question is where to download them as Fenix and flightsim.to are not allowing it to share on their web or discord.

 

EDIT: never mind I am blind. Avgeek put link to discord in his video.

Edited March 4, 20242 yr by Jovzin

Is the fuel prediction still off? I have the same issue on many flights I had with B1 too. EFOB for landing varies wildly from extra time -10 minutes/burning far into reserves during preflight, to showing much more than that but still significantly less than OFP landing fuel at T/C, to showing more again around T/D. Landing fuel will then still be less than OFP fuel.

Double checked all the FMGC entries and uplinked wind. OFP created with the Fenix Simbrief profiles.

So now in the Takeoff calc app there is VRB button for variable wind. However trying to calculate with it getting "Wind is not valid" error.

Edited March 4, 20242 yr by roi1862

 

1 hour ago, roi1862 said:

So now in the Takeoff calc app there is VRB button for variable wind. However trying to calculate with it getting "Wind is not valid" error.

Workaround: Enter the reciprocal heading of the runway you intend to land on and use the given windspeed to calculate the worst case scenario.

e.g. EGLL VRB03KT and landing rwy 27L, enter 089⁰/03 on the APPR page of the MCDU.

3 hours ago, threexgreen said:

Is the fuel prediction still off? I have the same issue on many flights I had with B1 too. EFOB for landing varies wildly from extra time -10 minutes/burning far into reserves during preflight, to showing much more than that but still significantly less than OFP landing fuel at T/C, to showing more again around T/D. Landing fuel will then still be less than OFP fuel.

Double checked all the FMGC entries and uplinked wind. OFP created with the Fenix Simbrief profiles.

Keep in mind that the cont reserve (enroute reserve; for ATC delays / weather evading during cruise etc.) will be cleared after engine start and instead show up on extra fuel during the flight. So e.g. if you had 1000 kg of cont fuel and 0 extra fuel according to the pre-flight prediction, you'll see 1000 kg extra fuel after engine start. That might explain why you saw more extra fuel in-flight.

Not sure what you mean by "landing fuel" or OFP fuel, you'll have to use the correct simbrief names in order for me to understand what you are referring to.

EDIT: Also what was wrong before B2 was not the *prediction*, but the actual fuel usage (during cruise), which was much too low. Therefore the prediction predicted wrongly, even if it was actually right. If you get what I mean.

Edited March 4, 20242 yr by Fiorentoni