Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38
  1. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #1  

    ForeFlight Runway Analysis for Phenom 100

    Hi everyone,

    (Username Protected) with ForeFlight.

    I usually don't make aircraft-specific posts when we roll out runway analysis support for a new aircraft, but in the case of the Phenom 100, I decided it's necessary.

    Any ForeFlight using Phenom 100 pilots -- even if you have no intentions adding on the runway analysis capability -- should take a look at this support page:

    https://foreflight.com/support/suppo.../4407660571159

    As it explains, our Phenom 100/100E/100EV selection went from those three to nine variants. The EV model remained unchanged, but the STD and the ENH models each now have four different weight variants, which are set by the AFM weight table in Section 2 (Limitations, Weight).

    Apologies for the added complexity, but the switch to your aircraft should be a quick one. It's important you have the correct weight combination version selected for your aircraft for the upcoming W&B support (sorry no timeline to give on that rolling out, not too much longer).

    Also, for those who wish to check out runway analysis, that is now available. Thanks.
  2. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    51 Posts
    Thanked 28 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jan 2021
    #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    Hi everyone,

    (Username Protected) with ForeFlight.

    I usually don't make aircraft-specific posts when we roll out runway analysis support for a new aircraft, but in the case of the Phenom 100, I decided it's necessary.

    Any ForeFlight using Phenom 100 pilots -- even if you have no intentions adding on the runway analysis capability -- should take a look at this support page:

    https://foreflight.com/support/suppo.../4407660571159

    As it explains, our Phenom 100/100E/100EV selection went from those three to nine variants. The EV model remained unchanged, but the STD and the ENH models each now have four different weight variants, which are set by the AFM weight table in Section 2 (Limitations, Weight).

    Apologies for the added complexity, but the switch to your aircraft should be a quick one. It's important you have the correct weight combination version selected for your aircraft for the upcoming W&B support (sorry no timeline to give on that rolling out, not too much longer).

    Also, for those who wish to check out runway analysis, that is now available. Thanks.
    Thank you for the communication (Username Protected). I look forward to trying these new features out for the Phenom 100.
  3. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #3  
    (Username Protected),

    Congrats on shipping the 100 runway analysis. I made this thread the featured post in this mornings newsletter.

    For the upcoming W&B feature, will you be able to calculate TO trim setting (simple to derive from the MAC)?
  4. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #4  
    Not immediately. We know the importance of this and are planning on supporting this, but want to ensure initial feedback and experience with W&B is solid first. %MAC is supported initially, takeoff trim setting calculation from that will follow not too long after, I'd say.
  5. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    46 Posts
    Thanked 13 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    Not immediately. We know the importance of this and are planning on supporting this, but want to ensure initial feedback and experience with W&B is solid first. %MAC is supported initially, takeoff trim setting calculation from that will follow not too long after, I'd say.
    Hi, (Username Protected)!
    I hope you still reading this thread. First of all, thank you for your product, ForeFlight is amazing.

    I have 2 questions:

    1) When are you planing to add new temp limitations (-68 C) for Phenom 100? It's very important for the flight planing.

    2) I've been using runway analysis for a few weeks. Unfortunately I found a very important issue.
    Here is an example:

    Airport UKBB (elev. 529 ft), temp 0, wind 0, runway dry, Flaps 3, Wingstab On.

    The minimum landing weight in ForeFlight for this configuration is 8700 lb. Which is not really true. If I use APG iPreFlight, the minimum weight is 9100 lb, and the difference is 400 lb, which is a lot.

    As I understand you are getting those numbers from the POH 3-45-30 (I'm attaching the picture) where the elevation is 1000 feet.
    I also understand that you try to be on the safe side, and I totally appreciate it.

    But for me it means that I take 400 lb less fuel. That's a lot, especially when the closest acceptable alternate is 230 nm away (UKHH) like in my case.
    To give up 400 lb of fuel doesn't sound like a safe approach to me.

    As you see on the picture, APG shows different numbers. And as I know they use a software directly from Embraer to calculate that.

    What are your thoughts on that?

    Thank you,
    Have a great day!

    Name:  IMG_0276.jpg
Views: 3227
Size:  54.4 KB


    Name:  IMG_0275.jpg
Views: 3272
Size:  51.8 KB

    Name:  IMG_0273.jpg
Views: 3225
Size:  117.4 KB
  6. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #6  
    Hi (Username Protected),

    I'm monitoring all the time :-)

    1) I was not aware of the operational temperature restrictions on cruise until 4-5 days ago, when a customer asked us about it. I'm still playing catchup to this and also just saw Neil's latest post on the other thread. If I understand the restriction correctly, a *minimum* Mach is required for these colder regions at altitude? When I checked the various cruise data and in-flight performance software, Embraer only provides cruise results through 30000 ft for conditions colder than ISA, but not for any higher altitudes. We are looking at adding the restriction just like that, but I'm still waiting to hear from Embraer for more information here.

    2) Thank you for the report. With the 100EV, I am getting a valid result at 9100 lbs for those conditions, see below. But I'm not getting results with 100E for those conditions and looking at the Opera software, it's a valid condition. I assume you fly the 100E? I'll dig into the 100E model to see what's going on. Thanks for the feedback here.

    Name:  IMG_6C694BC8DA9D-1.jpg
Views: 3129
Size:  52.1 KB

    (Username Protected)
  7. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    46 Posts
    Thanked 13 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
    #7  
    (Username Protected), thank you for the fast respond!

    The data on pictures for a straight 100.

    As to temp limitation, what is important to be able to create a flight plan on high FL when temp is lower then -60 there. And getting the correct performance and fuel flow numbers. I didn't have a chance to look at updated POH yet. I hope they added new data for low temp.

    Thank you!
  8. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #8  
    Thanks. I don't even have an updated POH yet, nor updated software. But I'll keep the pressure on my contacts at Embraer.
  9. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    46 Posts
    Thanked 13 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    Thanks. I don't even have an updated POH yet, nor updated software. But I'll keep the pressure on my contacts at Embraer.
    Ok, waiting for some new, have a good day. Thanks!
  10. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #10  
    Quick update on the runway issue you found. I see what's going on and it boils down to needing to add a bit more data to the performance model to capture that particular scenario. I don't have a timeline on this fix -- it could even creep into next year -- but I'll make sure it's addressed by the team. I also want to revisit the Phenom 100 models to see if there are other improvement opportunities around the data fidelity we currently have.

    Thanks for the report, (Username Protected)
  11. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    46 Posts
    Thanked 13 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    Quick update on the runway issue you found. I see what's going on and it boils down to needing to add a bit more data to the performance model to capture that particular scenario. I don't have a timeline on this fix -- it could even creep into next year -- but I'll make sure it's addressed by the team. I also want to revisit the Phenom 100 models to see if there are other improvement opportunities around the data fidelity we currently have.

    Thanks for the report, (Username Protected)
    Good you found it . Right now I have to pay for both AGP and ForeFlight Runway Analysis. I hope you will be able to fix it.

    And I looked into the new POH, they added a lot of performance data. Hope ForeFlight will add all that soon.
  12. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #12  
    Hi (Username Protected),

    I pushed an update to all Phenom 100 variants with higher fidelity landing data. UKBB now shows 9100 lbs, as expected. I recommend kill-app ForeFlight and relaunch it and let it sit for a minute or two on strong wifi as the Phenom 100 models are a bit larger than most aircraft (lots of data in it, more now).

    I'm going to go back over the takeoff data and look for similar data granularity improvement opportunities after talking to Neil about this yesterday. Longer term, we have some ideas how to handle these data boundary issues/constraints in a better fashion than just by adding more data, so I expect this to improve even more in 2022.

    Finally, I received new in-flight performance software from Embraer yesterday, which adds in the cold temperature, high altitude cruise data with the envelope expansion. Next week we will work on overhauling the flight planning models for all Phenom 100 to get that updated.

    As always, I appreciate the feedback, as it helps in making our product even better.
  13. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    46 Posts
    Thanked 13 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
    #13  
    Wow! (Username Protected), it works perfectly now!
    Thank you so much for such a fast response and fix. Actually ForeFlight support always works amazing.
    I'm in love with your product. Interface is clean, links and the navigation logic is perfect, so much data, frequent updates.

    And great news about the new performance profiles. Please, update us when it's ready!

    Thank you one more time, have a great day!
  14. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    46 Posts
    Thanked 13 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
    #14  
    (Username Protected), as we started so great, let's try to fix all issues with Phenom 100 runway analysis.
    Here is one more VERY important in my opinion.

    Straight 100, KSNA, wet runway, safety factor 1.67 (60%), Full Flaps, landing weight 9302 lb.

    Unfortunately, I cannot land at KSNA in these simple conditions. 5'700 LDA ft is not enough. And exceedance is 2'695 ft (!).
    At the same time AGP iPreFlight allows to land, just 4'940 ft needed (wet, 60% factor).
    So, the difference between
    iPreFlight and ForeFlight is 3'455 ft.

    If use POH I have the following data:
    - unfactored 2'399 ft
    - wet 3'138 ft
    - factored
    3138 x 1.67 = 5'240 ft
    My calculations are sloppy, I don't take into account runway slope, temp, etc. But numbers are close to iPreFlight. Let's say "much closer then to ForeFlight"

    I'm attaching the pictures, please, look at this. Seems you apply safety factors 2 times. Ones, when you use Wet Runway safety factor from POH and the user's safety factor then. Or it could be any another issue. Anyway it looks wrong to me.

    Thank you, have a good day

    Name:  IMG_0278.jpg
Views: 3140
Size:  62.9 KBName:  IMG_0277.jpg
Views: 2307
Size:  55.4 KB
  15. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #15  
    Sorry for the late reply on this one, I just now saw this post from days ago.

    You should not be selecting Wet and a 1.67 factor. If you are trying to achieve a wet factored distance, you simply need to select Wet with a 1.0 factor. The Phenom 100 is set up as follows:

    Dry - Actual, unfactored dry distance
    Wet - Wet factored landing distance, right column in table 3-45-40 (or dry actual x 1.92)
    Contaminated - contaminated distance using the table provided in the POH and based on unfactored dry

    A customer asked about the "Unfactored Wet Landing Distance", or the second column in the table 3-45-40. That appears to use a 1.308 factor on Dry Actual. In order to get that in FF, you have to select Dry and set the 1.308 factor manually.

    Before the criticism on this setup rolls in, let me say that I want to overhaul our labeling around landing factors next year. Not just for the Phenom 100, but other aircraft as well. There are known issues here and we can do better. Having said that, OEMs are also struggling with this and their customers, as pilots don't always fully understand the nuances with landing actual versus factored. But we need to be clearer in our labels so the customer knows what they are setting.

    Appreciate the feedback! Also, I will be updating Phenom 100 STD and ENH flight planning models today with the expanded temperature range data. I overhauled the models since their performance software has small changes here and there compared to the previous version.
  16. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #16  
    I updated Phenom 100 on ForeFlight with the landing options shown below. You now have unfactored Dry and Wet, followed by factored Dry and Wet, followed by Contaminated. Hopefully that will make the setup a lot clearer.

    As always, thanks for the feedback!

    Name:  unnamed.jpg
Views: 2292
Size:  38.2 KB
  17. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    46 Posts
    Thanked 13 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    I updated Phenom 100 on ForeFlight with the landing options shown below. You now have unfactored Dry and Wet, followed by factored Dry and Wet, followed by Contaminated. Hopefully that will make the setup a lot clearer.

    As always, thanks for the feedback!
    Oh,
    (Username Protected), sorry, I couldn't respond earlier. Just spent half an hour writing a message about how important to have unfactored distances. It's a basis for all calculations and so on.
    And then got that you have already fixed it!

    Thank you so much. I'm totally happy .. I will spend a few days testing it, but looks perfect so far. And looks like I don't need APG anymore and it's a great news.

    And I see new flight planning data on production. Works well at a first look, will play with it to confirm.

    Have a great day
  18. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    134 Posts
    Thanked 73 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #18  

    One more thing…

    While on the topic of things that are unnecessarily confusing in the Phenom performance in FF…
    Could you fix the labels for the landing speeds? In the top bar, it lists a Vapp speed (107 in the example below) which is actually Vac.
    The list of speeds below includes a Vlc speed which I’m not even sure what it is…
    It would be great to just the the speed summary at top in the same way it is presented for takeoff data, and in the same order as the QRH: Vref/Vac/Vfs. This order matches the input into the Garmin as well.



    Name:  FF landing.jpg
Views: 2211
Size:  53.1 KB
  19. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #19  
    VLC = Landing Climb speed. But you're correct, it does not look like it's used on the 100 and equates to VREF. I can remove that.

    Unfortunately I (personally) do not control the order or header title names. that comes via code and is meant to be more general. Hence APP instead of VAC. I'll talk to the devs to see if there is anything that can be done here. On the takeoff side we have provisions to handle a few different OEM specific naming schemed for VFS versus VFTO and some even use VENR. But any code update will take some time, as the process is more involved. But I'll write up your feedback, thanks!
  20. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    134 Posts
    Thanked 73 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    VLC = Landing Climb speed. But you're correct, it does not look like it's used on the 100 and equates to VREF. I can remove that.

    Unfortunately I (personally) do not control the order or header title names. that comes via code and is meant to be more general. Hence APP instead of VAC. I'll talk to the devs to see if there is anything that can be done here. On the takeoff side we have provisions to handle a few different OEM specific naming schemed for VFS versus VFTO and some even use VENR. But any code update will take some time, as the process is more involved. But I'll write up your feedback, thanks!
    Thanks, it would be good if they could fix it to be custom by plane. The Phenom doesn’t have a Vapp speed, but it does have a Vap speed that can be bugged for approach speed, which is much higher than Vac. Anyone flying Vac in the approach segment could end up in real trouble…
  21. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #21  
    The Phenom 100s have been updated with VLC removed (thanks for bringing this to my attention!). I left the VAC, VREF, VFS list order as-is, since we list landing speeds in the order they occur for all aircraft and I don't want to go against that internal rule for one aircraft. I also created a case to allow more flexibility in the header title and list VAC instead of VAPP, but that will take longer to implement.
  22. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    134 Posts
    Thanked 73 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #22  
    Thanks (Username Protected), and fwiw, these apply to the 300 as well (which is what I fly).
    As for the landing order, for the Phenom the speeds are encountered in the order of Vap -> Vref -> Vac -> Vfs
  23. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #23  
    Thanks (Username Protected). Looking at the 300, I see three speeds here, VAC before VREF (which is equal to VLC and something I will remove since it matches VREF, always) and then VFS. So same three speeds and order as Phenom 100. But you have VAP listed above, which I think is same as VAC?

  24. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    134 Posts
    Thanked 73 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    Thanks (Username Protected). Looking at the 300, I see three speeds here, VAC before VREF (which is equal to VLC and something I will remove since it matches VREF, always) and then VFS. So same three speeds and order as Phenom 100. But you have VAP listed above, which I think is same as VAC?

    Hi (Username Protected) - if you attached an image it isn't going through.
    Vac is the approach climb speed, and is the speed that you immediately climb at after a go-around.
    Whether that speed is encountered "before" or "after" Vref is somewhat academic I guess - typically you are on final at Vref, then decide to go-around and immediately climb at Vac before accelerating to Vfs, so I think of the order as Vref->Vac->Vfs which matches the Garmin.

    Vap is the approach speed, and I don't think it's something that is anywhere in the manuals, it's part of your SOP.... so I wouldn't expect it in FF.
  25. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    79 Posts
    Thanked 62 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #25  
    (Username Protected),

    If it helps, these are the screens we use for V Speed entry, and they are entered in order, top to bottom.

    Name:  1.jpg
Views: 1951
Size:  173.2 KB

    Name:  2.jpg
Views: 1955
Size:  169.4 KB
  26. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    46 Posts
    Thanked 13 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    (Username Protected),

    If it helps, these are the screens we use for v speed entry, and they are entered in order, top to bottom.
    I also vote for this order
  27. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 63 times
    Other Services Provider
    Join Date
    Joined Jun 2021
       #27  
    Hi everyone. Thanks for the feedback and pictures (always nice to see what pilots are looking at).

    I updated both 100 and 300 to remove VLC and reorder speeds in Garmin avionics order (VREF / VAC / VFS). I also added an engineering case to allow more flexibility in the header naming so I can replace VAPP with VAC in the future for the 100 and 300. Unfortunately when code changes are involved, it takes some time (think weeks to months).

    I'm curious if anyone knows the origin of VAP? I don't see it mentioned in the manuals, nor Embraer's software. Is it a Garmin-only addition? Is it always VREF+5?
  28. Username Protected
    Frequent Poster

    Posts
    79 Posts
    Thanked 62 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #28  
    I think you can ignore VAP. Its really operation specific, if used at all. I've seen VREF+5, VREF+10 and I've seen it turned off as well. I think its from Garmin as Embraer doesn't use it. Some people with more history in the type may know more...
  29. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by (Username Protected) View Post
    I'm curious if anyone knows the origin of VAP? I don't see it mentioned in the manuals, nor Embraer's software. Is it a Garmin-only addition? Is it always VREF+5?
    The Embraer SOP manual references it in the Definitions section, but never again.

    – Approach Speed (VAP ) – The speed on the final approach, in landing configuration.

    I usually bug it at VREF+10, but Tom Norton makes a good case to not bug it to avoid confusing it with VAC on a go around.
  30. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    53 Posts
    Thanked 33 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #30  
    Embraer uses VAP on other types, but not on the Phenom.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions