Sign in to follow this  
gavr

757 Fuel Burn

Recommended Posts

Very good job on the Model and Panel. Thank you PSS, I'm one very happy customer. I had poor frames to start but after deleteing dsd_xml_tcas.dll, my frames when through the roof!!I'm just nearing the end of the following flightKADW OTT GRACO AGARD BROSS OOD DAVYS BRAND RBV JOANI CREEL SHLEP RIFLE CUTOX CUJKE ACK WHALE BANCS URTAK 4650N 4940N 5130N 5320N MALOT BURAK SHA ABAGU DIMUS SLANY STU DIKAS NOSDA BASET KENET CPT NORRY LINDY BIG DVR KONAN KOK FERDI RAVMA REMBA SPI PELIX MATUG AMASI BOMBI HAREM DKB XERUM BURAM WLD MUN LAKOL ROTIN CHIEM UNKEN OBEDI ELKAT KFT KLAGY ARLON VALLU PODET ZAG LIPNA GUBOK DER VAL GONAR LATSA OKANA BANSO RODOP IDILO BELGI KONEN KUDAK TUMER RESLI LEMDA RESNI VESAR ALSUS BALMA KAD OLBAA/C = B757-200 PW USAF ZFW = 64.4tons Fuel at Start 100%CI = 40 Flight Level = 380ASv6 enroute WX I'm now 200 miles out from OLBA and I have a predicted remaining fuel of 16.4 at OLBA. Is this possible to fly 5080 miles and have this amount of fuel remaining.Gavinok landed and after 10h26m in the air I have 17tons left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I'll say it seems way off also -I just finished a short 900nm flight at 183k ZFW (P&W 752), nothing special on the winds - block fuel was only 10,000lbs. Thats less than either the classic or NG 737 models at similar block distances by almost a third (and the 757 has 50,000 to 70,000 more in weight). FSBuild estimated Block fuel at almost 18,500lbs.Joe LorencEDIT - Just noticed another post saying the fuel was dead on on a flight with the RR variant. Looking at the aircraft cfgs I notice the fuel flow scalar is 0.5 in the P&W model, 1.0 in the RR. Honestly not sure if that is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FF scalar in the PW version would be better set to 0.99 based on a couple tests I just did. 0.5 is obviously an error.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob,Thanks for confirming. I am currently on another flight with it set to 1.00, seems better.Joe Lorenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 757-200 has a maximum range of 3800+ miles with full load and fuel. So 5080 miles seem way off. You did say however it was a USAF variant. Maybe it has an extra or larger tank, since it's not a normal passenger version? Just speculating!Edit: Looks like that is exactly the case. According to the specs on the USAF C-32A (B757-200) on the site below, it has a range of 5500 miles. That would account for the extra fuel on your flight. Interesting that this variation was modelled! It would be interesting to see if you can make this flight with a regular airliner?http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/c32.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its nothing but a fuel burn issue.The Air Force variant uses the same cfg and air file as the other PW 200 variants and has the same fuel limitation of approx 75,500lbs.As mentioned above seems to be fuel_flow_scalar issue.Joe Lorenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Its nothing but a fuel burn issue.>>The Air Force variant uses the same cfg and air file as the>other PW 200 variants and has the same fuel limitation of>approx 75,500lbs.>>As mentioned above seems to be fuel_flow_scalar issue.>>Joe LorencWell in that case! Once you, or PSS gets that squared away, you may want to separate the C-32A to it's own folder and update the the fuel capacity to 92,000lbs. As that would be accurate for that variant!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I get a new add-on aircraft I always take it an extended range flight to test the .air files for accuracy with reference to fuel burn. Given the fact I'd reduced the Payload to give me ZFW of 64.4tons. I had a rough idea of when and where I'd divert to, I was gob-smacked to have arrive with 17 tons.I've now re-installed the 757 since the general release and noticed the fuel flow scalar has been amended to 1.0 therefore I don't think I'd have made it passed Zagreb.The C-32A is only a repaint and not specifically modelled. I guess you could add extra tanks to create a C-32A.-GavinEDIT - P.S. I'm just doing a another fuel test but with a heavier ZFW of 83.2 the fuel burn and range according to Herve Sors AFSD programme is bang on what I'd expect. --------- Excellent Job PSS your best project to date well worth waiting for. -------------------------------Thank you -----------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this