I use a CI of 80 it will give you higher altitudes than 90 . 0ver 100 is just ridiculous . Also set to 80 you can set it to max weight and you wont even notice , the MD-11 packs some serious power just watch one take off its a great site to see . Its not nicknamed the rocket for nothing . Boeing made a mistake stopping production .Lee Marrow

anyway nobody replied to my question. The fact is that the higher the CI the faster should be climb and cruise speed. If that is untrue, then apologies to all I am not a real pilot and I need to learn; if that is true, then we have a problem to report (and that's why I open the thread).It wasn't my intention to create false alarms here.

I learned something from your post. Thanks.

anyway nobody replied to my question. The fact is that the higher the CI the faster should be climb and cruise speed. If that is untrue, then apologies to all I am not a real pilot and I need to learn; if that is true, then we have a problem to report (and that's why I open the thread).It wasn't my intention to create false alarms here.

Let me link to an article on the Boeing site that explains the use of CI... to try and explain it here would take too long :Dhttp://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...07_article5.pdfI think the issue you have is the high CI: look at the last page of the article, a high CI leads to a flat climb, as low CI minimizes fuel to climb...That certainly looks like the behaviour you experienced... though I do not understand the speed being so low... it should be a lot nearer Vmo/Mmo with a flatter climb... perhaps a combination of the enormous TOGW and CI?Andrew

Thanks Andrew, that it what I was looking for...then I must admit the MD11 is perfectly simulated.Cheers

Let me link to an article on the Boeing site that explains the use of CI... to try and explain it here would take too long :Dhttp://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...07_article5.pdfI think the issue you have is the high CI: look at the last page of the article, a high CI leads to a flat climb, as low CI minimizes fuel to climb...That certainly looks like the behaviour you experienced... though I do not understand the speed being so low... it should be a lot nearer Vmo/Mmo with a flatter climb... perhaps a combination of the enormous TOGW and CI?

hi, thanks for the link that is very interesting. i found this thread by searching because i was having a similar issue. i have been working on a fuel profile for the md-11 for fsbuild and have everything accurate including step climbs and stuff matching now, but the default cruise burn data i was working with (just what came with fsbuild, i think it's from an md-11 manual somewhere) seemed to be designed around a CI of 675. everything matches perfectly except while climbing the desired econ speed was ridiculously low.after reading the link, i'm still puzzled, however, as to why the high CI values should result in very low econ climb airspeeds. it would seem to me that a flatter climb would go hand-in-hand with higher desired airspeed. i can't really figure out why the econ climb dramatically drops off after CI values over 500+ almost to lew speeds that are barely above stall speed. all i can guess is that it is trying to maximize vertical speed and not airspeed during the climb phase? if so, why would that operate differently than at cruise where high CI maximizes airspeed? if values higher than 100 are not realistic for real world, is it just that the behavior is undefined past that point? i just don't really get why the curve drops off rather than just approaching vmax.cheers-andy crosby