A recent acft D/L I got has some serious flaws in terms of fuel tank capacity and fuel flow numbers. I changed the config fuel tank capacities to reflect the real world numbers but need some guidance on where to change the fuel flow parameters.The acft in question burns approx 2500pph on my puter, as modeled, when in reality it should be around 4500 pph.Any help would be greatly appreciated.Joe

The "fuel_flow" scalar:[GeneralEngineData]...fuel_flow_scalar=1.4Adjust the scalar to increase/decrease fuel flow. In the case you've cited, changing the scalar to about 1.8 should get you close...

This is found in the Aircraft.cfg file. It can be edited with notepad.Kev

BillTks for the input. It's apparent it isn't a linear correlation so my next Q is what's the 'hidden gouge' to translate any given FF scalar number to pph? In fact is that the parameter value it use's or is it gph or something else?Joe

Hello Joe,it is normally a linear function of the net thrust. Use AFSD to display thrust and fuel to see if there is a gauge.Ian

Appreciate the feedback. The model in question originally had a FF scalar of 0.330 which produced approximately 2600pph on the burn. I ended up changing it to 0.540 which gives me 4500pph - just about ballpark for the acft modeled.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/118298.jpg

>>>>The model in question originally had a FF scalar of 0.330 which produced approximately 2600pph on the burn. I ended up changing it to 0.540 which gives me 4500pph - just about ballpark for the acft modeled.<<<

>Appreciate the feedback. >>The model in question originally had a FF scalar of 0.330>which produced approximately 2600pph on the burn. I ended up>changing it to 0.540 which gives me 4500pph - just about>ballpark for the acft modeled.Joe, as Doug noted in his reply, if the .air file were properly set up, the fuel_flow_scalar would be an ideal 1.0 (which tells the sim, "use the numbers calculated by the .air file dummy!") ;)Since it was a rather oddball value of 0.330, it is obvious that the .air file tables weren't set properly to begin with, which now requires that a weird scalar be specified.In any event though, 0.330 * 1.8 = 0.594, which is pretty darn close to the 0.540 you wound up using... ;)