I can only report that a real 744 pilot ('Janov' - you may find his report in the old forum) did exhaustive tests of the long-range fuel consumption in this simulation and he reported that it was highly accurate as compared to real life figures. The only area where he noticed higher fuel burn was when taxiing but this is due to a well known problem - runway friction coefficient.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>I can only report that a real 744 pilot ('Janov' - you may>find his report in the old forum) did exhaustive tests of the>long-range fuel consumption in this simulation and he reported>that it was highly accurate as compared to real life figures.>The only area where he noticed higher fuel burn was when>taxiing but this is due to a well known problem - runway>friction coefficient.>>Michael J.>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gif>http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpgMichael,do you have the direct link or something to read with ???!!! i canot see or read the exforumsee you

>I can only report that a real 744 pilot ('Janov' - you may>find his report in the old forum) did exhaustive tests of the>long-range fuel consumption in this simulation and he reported>that it was highly accurate as compared to real life figures.>The only area where he noticed higher fuel burn was when>taxiing but this is due to a well known problem - runway>friction coefficient.>>Michael J.>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gif>http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpgMichael,the only report i found was eddf to vomm with interruption to varna in bulgaria not the best way to check long flight ....please pm me i ll give all datas for a SAA 202 kjfk fajs and you ll report us what you found using the weather given by the flight plan and of course fuel results ...truly yoursphil

>the only report i found was eddf to vomm with interruption to>varna in bulgaria not the best way to check long flight ....That's the one. If he found only a 0.1 ton discrepancy during a 2-3 hr flight that's pretty darn good.Another point - if you try to measure accuracy of a fuel burn - forget about any weather products. Fly with default weather, standard atmosphere and compare against table values. Trying to reproduce real weather in FS is a futile proposition which is bound to inject huge errors.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Michael,Janov, of whom I remember well indeed, did test the 744 pax version.I find myself the 744 pax very accurate compared to real 744 flightplans.Here I am talking about the 744F - 744F, Michael.

>>the only report i found was eddf to vomm with interruption>to>>varna in bulgaria not the best way to check long flight ....>>That's the one. If he found only a 0.1 ton discrepancy during>a 2-3 hr flight that's pretty darn good.>>Another point - if you try to measure accuracy of a fuel burn>- forget about any weather products. Fly with default weather,>standard atmosphere and compare against table values. Trying>to reproduce real weather in FS is a futile proposition which>is bound to inject huge errors.>>Michael J.>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gif>http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpgMichael,for a so huge aircraft flying two to three hours to check long range ability is not the best way to do on my own opinion of course ....now trying to check a 13 or 15 hours flight is a better way and the one i used when i beta tested some aircrafts including 777 and 747 classics and -400 but that s another stories ....about weather if you have the weather from the flight plan and create on winds side you have a good comparaison i asked someone to do the follow up from lhr to lax with the datas posted by steve to see the results as some users posted some huge surprising fuel missing with long haul ...but again we have to double checks the pax and cargo version to see where is the trouble ...from my models (boeing datas) the cargo is burning a little less fuel but due too his less speed at better range .... so it seems the both are burning similar fuel in real ops but not with pmdg air ...so everybody want to check is welcomeyou choose the flight and i give infos on fuelsee youphil

If we can find a way to get FS9 to duplicate those winds accurately enough to allow a meaningful test flight, that'd be the boss! So far, I don't think it's possible. Even AS6 only inputs winds 6000 foot intervals.To test fly with any kind of comparative credibility, the winds must be perfectly duplicated in the FS9 environment. Otherwise, an actual flight in FS9 for fuel burn comparisons is an irrelevant exercise for this comparative purpose. Any test flight -long or short- will not be able to 'prove out' the model's fuel burn vs real life.