Foreflight Desktop Beta

Cessnaflyer said:
They both have their pro's and con's but if the boss says we are going to go from point a to b how much fuel do we need and how long will it take? Fltplan is much more accurate, I get a route and I'll be able to tell him in a minute. When we are flying we use Foreflight because it is much better than everything else.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose. But how accurate does one need to be with fuel?? I mean, one can usually estimate within 50-100 lbs just using one's noggin if one is familiar with the equipment. Regardless of the planning software, I'm usually going to SWAG conservatively, anyway. Call me odd, but I like having fuel in the tanks. Once I set up my performance profiles in FLTPLN and FF, they started producing almost identical performance predictions.

I'm not saying FLTPLN is bad. I think it is a great tool with terrific data and resources behind it. I'm just saying they need a new interface. And I'm not talking about pretty pictures. I'm talking about ease of data entry and making changes. I think FP is dooming itself to dino status. It's popular because it was the first to be widely accepted. Now they don't want to change because their user-base is used to the tool and entrenched. But, to new users, the interface makes FP way more difficult to use than it needs to be. So if FP doesn't change, I think all the young-bloods coming up will go to easier to use products. Kinda like how Kodak - who invented digital photography - lost the whole digital photography market and bankrupted itself by ignoring the digital technology they invented in a shortsighted attempt to protect their entrenched, legacy film business.
 
Crop Duster said:
Well, I suppose. But how accurate does one need to be with fuel?? I mean, one can usually estimate within 50-100 lbs just using one's noggin if one is familiar with the equipment. Regardless of the planning software, I'm usually going to SWAG conservatively, anyway. Call me odd, but I like having fuel in the tanks. Once I set up my performance profiles in FLTPLN and FF, they started producing almost identical performance predictions.

I'm not saying FLTPLN is bad. I think it is a great tool with terrific data and resources behind it. I'm just saying they need a new interface. And I'm not talking about pretty pictures. I'm talking about ease of data entry and making changes. I think FP is dooming itself to dino status. It's popular because it was the first to be widely accepted. Now they don't want to change because their user-base is used to the tool and entrenched. But, to new users, the interface makes FP way more difficult to use than it needs to be. So if FP doesn't change, I think all the young-bloods coming up will go to easier to use products. Kinda like how Kodak - who invented digital photography - lost the whole digital photography market and bankrupted itself by ignoring the digital technology they invented in a shortsighted attempt to protect their entrenched, legacy film business.
Click to expand...
Once Foreflight can give me accurate time, fuel burn, complete an E-APIS then I'll use it for preflight. Every time we've used Foreflight it has been off by a few hundred pounds and that means the difference to fuel stop or non-stop.
 
FF and/or Garmin Pilot are fine for normally aspirated piston birdts below 10k.

Once you get into the teens, or turbine, Fltplan gives better results, IMHO. It's easy to run the plan in FLTPLAN, the. cut and paste the route into FF or Pilot.

Richnan
 
ozziecat35 said:
I'm a full on FF fanboy. For the kind of flying I do right now, accurate fuel burn isn't a primary concern. Weather, fuel prices & availability are. In that category, I think FF wins. I can appreciate what fltplan does but right now I"m not their demographic. It'd be nice if FF opened up a few more of the premium features to the standard subscription (IE weight & balance on the app) but that would just be gravy.
Click to expand...
It has W&B on the app.

Cessnaflyer said:
Once Foreflight can give me accurate time, fuel burn, complete an E-APIS then I'll use it for preflight. Every time we've used Foreflight it has been off by a few hundred pounds and that means the difference to fuel stop or non-stop.
Click to expand...
E-APIS, no. But as I've been saying, for me -with the profiles I've set up- the two products are equal in terms of time and fuel, and both are quite accurate when compared to actual.
Writing the above statement made me realize something. FP & FF are not really both products... FF is closest to a product. It's a tool that can be used for planning, but then can be taken with and used effectively and seemlessly on the flight. FP is really a preflight planning service. That's not to elevate one over the other, just to point out that they are different.
One thing I didn't mention that I really like about FP is the nav log... not found in FF. It's old school, which appeals to the old school, Navy-trained navigator in me. But, for the life of me, I can't figure out how to print the darned log onto paper so I can actually use it in flight! (Any tips would be appreciated.) I'm the kind of weird dude who still writes down times over fixes - I suppose, these days, mostly so I don't forget how to do math. But it does come in handy sometimes flying old school avionics when international or when the radar goes out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm not sure where people are getting these problems with fuel burn in FF. I'm usually within a gallon or two.
Click to expand...
In your plane I'm sure that's true. In my 210 FF was relatively accurate. But like Richman said, when you're operating higher and faster with higher fuel burns the FF accuracy falls off. I find Fltplan to be within 10-20 lbs if I stay on route which I consider to be very accurate.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm not sure where people are getting these problems with fuel burn in FF. I'm usually within a gallon or two.
Click to expand...
Like the Lear is 1800lbs the first hour. About 1200-1300lbs the second hour and around 1100lbs the third. In FF you only get to put in say in avg burn. In FP people have taken the time to add all the burn info from the Pilots manual. So on short thirty min flights at FL270 or longer 3+ hour flights at FL450 it's pretty accurate. Plus it gives me this nice little wind matrix with the different winds/times/burn from FL290 to FL530. And I guess it's what I'm used to. :)

image.png
 
I took the time and plugged in the advanced performance model for my TNed Bonanza into FP. It is creepily accurate, both in fuel and time.

FF is off by 2-3 gallons.

As for a copy of the log, I used the FP app to download the log for offline viewing.

I really miss the DTC DUAT app. Anything where you can brief and file with one hand on crap bandwidth is full of win. RIP :(

Richman
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm betting that's just a garbage in/garbage out problem. People have taken the time to put the right performance data into Ptlplan, but they don't with FF.
Click to expand...
Does FF have the option to enter climb/hourly cruise/descent burn by altitude? All I've seen is one data block, but maybe I'm missing something.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you. I've seen my old man's fuel planning for the C-5. I agree that FF is currently more targeted towards the piston GA crowd. But I do believe as FF continues to be successful you will see more features/options.
 
"Airliner 123, fly a scarily efficient Teutonic speed to zee marker. Cleared for the approach"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top