December 13, 20187 yr Author 29 minutes ago, Flysimware said: Fuel needs to burn from the feeders first until they get to 600 pounds and then the feeders will draw fuel from the wing tanks. So they work as they should. I know that. And it worked as intended indee. Once the feeders got to 600, the wing tanks started flowing aft. What I'm saying is that from the fuel flow alone indicated in the gauges, I should have used around 12,000lbs on a 6.7hr trip. But the aircraft only burned 8,000lbs, despite what the gauges said. Santiago de Larminat
December 13, 20187 yr Commercial Member Just now, Guevorkyan said: I know that. And it worked as intended indee. Once the feeders got to 600, the wing tanks started flowing aft. What I'm saying is that from the fuel flow alone indicated in the gauges, I should have used around 12,000lbs on a 6.7hr trip. But the aircraft only burned 8,000lbs, despite what the gauges said. We are checking the fuel burn rate right now based on 1 hour trips and we were off by 250 LBS. We are fine tuning it now.
December 13, 20187 yr Author Just now, Flysimware said: We are checking the fuel burn rate right now based on 1 hour trips and we were off by 250 LBS. We are fine tuning it now. Ok! I will continue testing as well, will pay special attention to the fuel flow gauges and the actual fuel consumption. Maybe it was a one-off. Again, I burned 4,000lbs less than what the F/F indicated overtime. It could have been me messing around since I flew in Air Hauler and it loads the fuel automatically. But I cross checked the fuel load, and the aircraft weight. I also cross checked through my flight plan, comparing fuel usage to estimated fuel usage at every waypoint. At TOC, fuel consumption was nearly as expected, but over time and further along the flight plan, the divergence started to broaden. This was a 3,000nm route and 6.7hr trip time, planned for 12,000lbs trip time and 14,800 total fuel. Burning only 8,000lbs @410 and ISA for the duration of the flight seemed really low, my wing-tanks weren't even empty (even less the central wing tank). According to the fuel flow gauges, I was burning in average 1,560lbs/h total. But in reality, it was closer to 1,200lbs/h, good for 398 per engine per hour (like a single Metroliner Garrett turboprop engine). That's my point. Santiago de Larminat
December 13, 20187 yr Commercial Member A real quick note after adjusting the cfg file. We found that each hour we tested the fuel burn rate dropped considerably more than we expected but not sure based on real world. This we can't change because the simulator PPH scalar is already pre factored. We can only put a starting value. The 1st hour after climb was 2100 PPH and the 6th hour 1130 PPH. ================================================================= We increased the ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption slightly and lowered the fuel_flow_scalar as we found the PPH was low compared to the chart. We then flew at FL430 with a weight of 36,000 LBS and the PPH was at 620 for each engine. The PPH after each hour does not drop as much as the chart shows. It took 1680 LBS of fuel to climb to FL430 and 11,300 LBS to fly another 7 hours. A total 8 hour flight used 13,300 LBS roughly. So we are happy with the new PPH burn rate. ================================================================== To test use these settings in the aircraft.cfg. fuel_flow_scalar = 1.0 ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.7 We lowered the first value and raised the second value. ================================================================== Happy flying! This will be in our next update in a few weeks. Edited December 13, 20187 yr by Flysimware
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.