Sign in to follow this  
Speedbyrd

Fuel Flow For Cls 747-200/300 Too Low?

Recommended Posts

The Commercial Level 747's seem very accurate (as much as you can expect in a flightsim) except for the fuel flow. According to my claculations, the aircraft could fly about 28 hours depending on conditions when it should only be good for about 15 hrs (6,600 nm). Has anyone made adjustment on their fuel flow and what figure are you suing?Thanks,

Share this post


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

The Commercial Level 747's seem very accurate (as much as you can expect in a flightsim) except for the fuel flow. According to my claculations, the aircraft could fly about 28 hours depending on conditions when it should only be good for about 15 hrs (6,600 nm). Has anyone made adjustment on their fuel flow and what figure are you suing?Thanks,
You can change it yourself, just try it out.In the cfg change the fuel_flow_scalar= 0.9001 to a higher number, she will burn more. maybe 1.5~6 will do ?Try it out. Just let us know!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can change it yourself, just try it out.In the cfg change the fuel_flow_scalar= 0.9001 to a higher number, she will burn more. maybe 1.5~6 will do ?Try it out. Just let us know!.
I've started at 0.925 and will go from there. Based on the fuel load and range specs, she should burn about 23,000 lb per hr. As it is right now she's only burning about 13K with the scalar at 0.8676 which was the default mine came with.All the other scalars seem pretty good as far as thrust, etc. Don't see anything else that needs tweaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've started at 0.925 and will go from there. Based on the fuel load and range specs, she should burn about 23,000 lb per hr. As it is right now she's only burning about 13K with the scalar at 0.8676 which was the default mine came with.All the other scalars seem pretty good as far as thrust, etc. Don't see anything else that needs tweaking.
yes the rest seem to be reasonably right..... Oh, just want to have to systems modeled like the RFP..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes the rest seem to be reasonably right..... Oh, just want to have to systems modeled like the RFP..
Hi, Johan:Is the fuel scalar a linear factor in FS9? Just curious. I tweaked a lot of scalars years ago but frankly I've forgotten how a lot of them worked. Sadly, I hardly have time to even turn the sim on these days!Hope you doing well.Thanks and Cheers!JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, Johan:Is the fuel scalar a linear factor in FS9? Just curious. I tweaked a lot of scalars years ago but frankly I've forgotten how a lot of them worked. Sadly, I hardly have time to even turn the sim on these days!
All scalars are linear, and a value of 1.0 represents 100% of the .air file's value.So, 1.25 = 125% of the value in the .air file...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All scalars are linear, and a value of 1.0 represents 100% of the .air file's value.So, 1.25 = 125% of the value in the .air file...
Righto and thanks. Off I go !JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what the scalars actually do is provide a multiplicative factor to the air file tables/graphs. In the case of the fuel flow, the scalar is multiplying all the values contained within table 1505. That table/graph plots fuel flow vs N2 and is often shaped like an exponential function, i.e. low vaues for fuel flow for low N2, and then the fuel flow values increase rapidly with N2 increasing in a non-linear fashion. Each plane, however, has a different shaped curve. The scalar will just give a change in the fuel flow across all N2 values. IF you want to increase the fuelflow at cruise, but are happy with the taxi consumption, then the FFS won't really be the way to go. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuel_flow_scalar setting is how you would set what is called the "thrust specific fuel consumption" or TSFC. It specifies how much thrust is produced for every pound of fuel consumed. It's value is determined by the following formula: TSFC = fuel_flow_scalar/2.For a value of 0.9001 that would result in a TSFC of 0.45 and for a value of 0.8676 it would be a TSFC of 0.4338.It's important to point out... it is not, unlike other scalars... a linear value or percentage multiplier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fuel_flow_scalar setting is how you would set what is called the "thrust specific fuel consumption" or TSFC. It specifies how much thrust is produced for every pound of fuel consumed. It's value is determined by the following formula: TSFC = fuel_flow_scalar/2.For a value of 0.9001 that would result in a TSFC of 0.45 and for a value of 0.8676 it would be a TSFC of 0.4338.It's important to point out... it is not, unlike other scalars... a linear value or percentage multiplier.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________I posted this at CLS 747 forum yesterday evening:The CLS default fuel flow is relatively low in at least one of the 747-200s: in the case of the model I have tested, it is the 747-200 with PW engines rated at 54,750lb.st.t I have run tests in this aircraft with the following data and fuel flow results:Conditions: Standard Atmosphere; "Clear Weather" in FS9: no wind, no clouds, no moistureFlight Weight: Approx. 615,000 lbs (279 metric tonnes) - A VERY important variable that MUST be accurate for testing like this!Altitude: FL350 (typical cruise alt for this weight)Speed: Mach 0.85 (IAS 298) - Cruise range speed varies from .84 to .86 but .85 was very typical in this classic model so I went with that. Fuel flow can vary to a significant extent with certain flight models in FS if you change the mach speed by even a factor of 0.01.Groundspeed: 490 knotsN1: 94% (default CLS--seems like a representative rate)Outside Air Temp: -54CTotal Air Temp: -22C (perfect!)Pitch: 3 degrees nose upResultant Fuel flow: 18,000 to 18,400 lbs/hr.Default CLS fuel scalar in AIR file for this 747: 0.8418The objective is to raise the cruise flow flow to around 23,500 lbs/hr. which is much more realistic.However, the calculation to do this proved to be non-linear; I forgot, I guess, that fuel flow scalars are not in fact linear after all. I experimented with several alternate fuel flow scalars and found that the one that seems to be working closest to the objective fuel flow is 1.23. This means that if you edit you aircraft.cfg file and insert the number 1.23 in the fuel flow scalar field you will get a fuel flow of around 24,000 lbs/hr with the above flight conditions. At present I am getting almost exactly 24,000 lbs/hr at a weight of 612,000 lbs. The weight I use incidentally is based on the BOEING table in the CLS manual (page 21). "At present" means I have allowed the aircraft to stabilize for at least 5 minutes after loading or reloading a saved flight with these parameters. It takes some minutes for speed to settle down, for N1 to stabilize, and for fuel flow to stabilize accordingly.I shall keep tweaking further but in general if one is within the ball park under Standard Atmosphere conditions in the sim with an aircraft model like this, you can't hope to get absolutely precise fuel flow data even if you drive yourself totally nuts. It can be done but it can be hugely time consuming. Also, it may work textbook in cruise, but fuel flow may not necessarily be textbook (but might be close enough) for takeoff, climb, descent, and approach. Nonetheless, for trip planning purposes, the figure of 1.23 should serve very well for any kind of longer distance flights.Hope this helps.Please post questions, objections, arguments, etc. Always good to discuss this stuff on forums!Thanks for looking.Cheers,JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is... fuel_flow_scalar only affects the value of TSFC.The rest of the formula is contained within the aircraft's .air file.Someone stated that REC 1505 set fuel flow, it actually controls engine spool up during start.REC 1506 is actually the key to ensuring an aircraft has the right fuel burn rate through all phases of flight.Every turbine engine has a TSFC number. If you know it... you set the fuel_flow_scalar appropriately. Then you adjust REC 1506 to set up the correct thrust levels and your fuel burn will be accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is... fuel_flow_scalar only affects the value of TSFC.The rest of the formula is contained within the aircraft's .air file.Someone stated that REC 1505 set fuel flow, it actually controls engine spool up during start.REC 1506 is actually the key to ensuring an aircraft has the right fuel burn rate through all phases of flight.Every turbine engine has a TSFC number. If you know it... you set the fuel_flow_scalar appropriately. Then you adjust REC 1506 to set up the correct thrust levels and your fuel burn will be accurate.
This is a fascinating thread because I am going through the same thing with the CS757. Only in addition to the fuel burn issue the CS 757 also burns from the wings first so when you increase the fuel flow you end up landing with empty wings and fuel in the center... Last night I did KEWR-EGCC on 18k lbs of fuel LOL... It should be 56k lbs! I bumped it from 0.4 to 1.4 but do not know what other adverse affects I am in for...Fascinating stuff,-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a fascinating thread because I am going through the same thing with the CS757. Only in addition to the fuel burn issue the CS 757 also burns from the wings first so when you increase the fuel flow you end up landing with empty wings and fuel in the center... Last night I did KEWR-EGCC on 18k lbs of fuel LOL... It should be 56k lbs! I bumped it from 0.4 to 1.4 but do not know what other adverse affects I am in for...Fascinating stuff,-Paul
Hey guys, After reading this thread I actually found an .air file editor last night and was able to dump the entire CS757 .air file to a .txt file. I can see the appropriate tables and I can update them with the contents of the PSS .air file but is the fuel tank burn order in the .air file as well or is that in the .mdl? The reason I ask is accurately depicting fuel flow on the CS757 means you will have empty wing tanks on long hauls. I was trying to figure out how to change the center tank to burn first but can't see that anywhere in the .air file. Any help would be greatly appreciated,Thanks in advance,-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So is all of this saying we should leave the fuel_flow scalar alone?
No! -- well at least I wouldn't. I'd use my revised fuel scalar of 1.23 for the CLS 747-200 and go from there. I might live with that figure and be satisfied. As long as I remember to always cruise at M0.85. The rest of the technical stuff in this thread I don't know about and have no experience with. But I am not going there because I suspect it requires too much additional homework and I've done more than enough in my 12 years as a fairly avid simmer. I changed a lot of scalars for many BOEING types in my time and mostly they worked very well at least if simplistically. I changed pitch angles, engine thrust, flaps and other factors, and always ended up with improved performance that was closer to book values, but I never delved deeply into models per se and editing tools. I just made changes in the aircraft.cfg files. You need to have knowledge and be seriously dedicated to do more technical stuff and while it is always interesting and gratifying to learn such stuff it takes time and great patience and skill too. Take that 1.23 and stick it in the CLS aircraft.cfg folder. It will work very well for you--at Mach 0.85.JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well. I've done my share of tweaking and usually get things the way I want them. Maybe it's cheating but I like for my aircraft to lift off with a minimum of effort, turn smoothly and get a reasonably accurate fuel burn.My Overland aircraft have been tweaked by Bryan Betts and he's done a phenomenal job. I think they're as close to perfect as it gets. The 747-200 is the only non-Overland product that I use as I'm not as keen on CLS as I am Overland/Simmersky. but the 747-200 is a masterpiece and it works very well for me.I wish I could get a perfect DC-10 but it still eludes me. The visual models are great but the flight dynamics are not much to my liking. If I could get a DC-10 model that handles like the Overland MD-11, I would think that Heaven has smiled on me.I will try your 1.23 fuel scalar in Air Force One which will be leaving KADW next Saturday bound for its first diplomatic stop - the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, dont forget to set the first value to 0 in table 1506, because of the fuel burn on the ground due a ''simulated apu''.And, the fuel tank issue is in the gauges, and with wrong logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, dont forget to set the first value to 0 in table 1506, because of the fuel burn on the ground due a ''simulated apu''.And, the fuel tank issue is in the gauges, and with wrong logic.
ok, you lost me. What table? what fuel tank issue?I don't spend a lot of time messing with the aircraft.cfg or the air file. In fact I don't even know how to get into the air file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Download Aired, open table 1506, and see the first value, its 0.09 and make that 0.00000.You can observe the fuel 'burn' when engines are off. With the above tweak its burning nothing.They didnt add an APU, but simulated the burn the apu uses this way. I dont know if they also then kept the battery from draining.Aired can be found here, and also the latest ini file. http://perso.orange.fr/hsors/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Download Aired, open table 1506, and see the first value, its 0.09 and make that 0.00000.You can observe the fuel 'burn' when engines are off. With the above tweak its burning nothing.They didnt add an APU, but simulated the burn the apu uses this way. I dont know if they also then kept the battery from draining.Aired can be found here, and also the latest ini file. http://perso.orange.fr/hsors/index.html
ok, got that and I'm there, but it won't let me change the value. I've tried inputing 0 but the value doesn't change. is there a trick that I missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Download Aired, open table 1506, and see the first value, its 0.09 and make that 0.00000.You can observe the fuel 'burn' when engines are off. With the above tweak its burning nothing.They didnt add an APU, but simulated the burn the apu uses this way. I dont know if they also then kept the battery from draining.Aired can be found here, and also the latest ini file. http://perso.orange.fr/hsors/index.html
OK, I figured out how to change the figures but there are 2 lines that give the value 0.09. Do I change both of them? the value shows on line 2 and line 3Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the 0.09 in the white entry field, not the left below, thats the speed in mach. Leave that alone.On a side note, old Captain Tarmack told me that for a 747-400 the fuel burn is averaged on 24000lbs hour. If you for example have a 10 hr trip, just take 10x24000 lbs andyou will have roughly the same ammount as a fancy planner would come up with. Dont add holds and reserve, its all included this way.A Classic would burn a little more he told, 26000 average. (Free info!)Anyhow, the CLS is a mixed bag for me.I like the classic, more than the -400, but the RFP is so old looking (VC, I only fly VC) and the CLS looks so good. Very real. But, it has nothing to offer, just stock working gauges, exept for the vor gauge, what has a wrong ILS course needle, and a fuel panel what does NOT work.Then a lot of dummy switches...If only the RFP gauges could be used in the VC.. well, I keep on dreaming.Then another question.. maybe someone can answer that.Imagine I fly from KJFK to EHAM, and somewhere during descend EHAM ATC tells me "direct to SUGOL".. how to do that quickly with an INS driven airplane?Since intersections are a pain to set up with vors, given the short time frame you have to be on course, I wonder how they do that so quick in real life ?Johan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PDF tutorial which CLS created and posted a few weeks ago will tell you how to do that (you can download the tutorial PDF from CLS, or look on Avsim's archive news from the past few weeks and you'll find a link). It's a bit long winded and not what you'd call an easy read, but look on page 57 of 'Chapter 3 - Flight Tutorial - CLS B747 Classic Version 1.30' and you'll get the general idea of what to do.Al

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