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

[Speedbyrd 0]

So is all of this saying we should leave the fuel_flow scalar alone?

[JSACKS 0]

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

[Speedbyrd 0]

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.

[Johan_Dees 84]

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.

[Speedbyrd 0]

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.

[Johan_Dees 84]

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

[Speedbyrd 0]

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?

[Speedbyrd 0]

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

[Johan_Dees 84]

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

[Chock 17,769]

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

[JSACKS 0]

Hi, Johan:Just use FSNavigator if you have it. I use it for everything. Sometimes it's pointless to simulate reality when there's only one of you when in reality there would have been 3 or maybe even 4 crew in the Classic cockpit. I don't use the INS at all.Happy Landings!Jonathan

[killairbus 3]

The CLS 747-300 burns about 17.78Kg of fuel per nautical mile with a payload of 91,500Ibs. At 35000 and Mach .84. Whenever I plan a flight I simply multiply the fuel burn with the distance of the flight. And add 25,000 tons (metric). This is with the default fuel scalar. 

 

 

-Angelo Busato