Jump to content

Problem with CFM engines finally found and FIXED!


Deadeye31

Recommended Posts

Gentlemen, after 2 years of wondering, it's finally solved: Why do the CFM engine variants of the Airbus 320 family planes have much shorter ranges than their IAE siblings and why does fuel seem to mysteriously disappear from the EFOB part of the MCDU? Here is the reason:

 

The CFM engines eat TWICE as much fuel as the upper and lower ECAM show. In fact, the upper and lower ECAM fuel flows are LIES. At best they are just estimates of what the fuel flow should be. THEY ARE NOT REAL TIME FUEL FLOW OR ROUNDED REAL TIME FUEL FLOW. To get real range out of these aircraft, the fuel_flow_scalar must be reduced from 1.0 to approximately .50.

 

For the detailed explanation, see below.

 

I did a flight yesterday from JFK to Bermuda and took off with the A319, winglet, CFM engines. 84 passengers, 9261KG of fuel. I landed with just barely 200kG of fuel. I essentially took off with 34% of the fuel tank full and landed with nothing on an hour and a half flight. This was unacceptable. Worse, the lower ECAM stated just 4760 KG of fuel had been consumed. So where did the rest go? thin air?

 

Something had to be wrong. So I did a simple calculation. I divided the fuel I landed with by the fuel that the planner told me to bring on the loadsheet and put that number into the aircraft.cfg file as the new Fuel_Flow_Scalar. It came out to .53. I reflew the flight and landed with 4800 Kg of fuel on board and the EFOB read 5.0 for most of the trip, dropping to 4.8 near the end. It had worked and was a revelation.

 

To check what the hell was going on, I installed a fuel flow gauge from a freeware MD-11 that I use. It's a third party, realtime fuel flow and descent calculator that shows Gallons per hour, Time to Empty, Remaining fuel , Realtime Range and Amount of Used fuel.

 

I installed the gauge into all 4 CFM Aerosoft 320 family buses, from the 318 to the 321. Attached are screenshots of what I found.

 

The experiment was to idle the aircraft on 9R at KPHL and check what my third party gauge said versus what the ECAM said was the fuel flow from the two engines in the right MCDU's taxi state.

 

The results were astounding. All four aircraft showed that the ECAM fuel flow was only about 50% of actual fuel flow. The ECAMs are not a true depiction of fuel flow or fuel used, they are, at best, an estimate. Essentially those numbers are simulated, not real.

 

When dividing the fuel flow of the ECAM by the fuel flow I was getting with my third party gauge. I used the following information:

The third part gauge shows flow as Gallons Per Hour.

1 Gallon in FSX = 6.7 pounds

1 pound = 2.2 Kilograms

Therefore, in the case of the A320, N125UW in the screenshots. You get the following:

455 GPH X 6.7 pounds = 3048.5 pounds per hour.

divide 3048.5 by 2.2 to get 1385.68 kilograms per hour.

ECAM shows 650 Kg/H. 650/1385.69 = .469. rounded to .47 for simplicity.

That means that only 47% of the total fuel flow is represented by the ECAM reading...

 

On the A318, N810FR the number is .48. 

A319, N4032T: .47

A321 N185UW: .45

 

These were all done singularly. Because the fuel flows shown on the ECAMs are, by design on the CFMs, variable, you'll get different outcomes each time you start up the engines and the difference between the engines changes. I don't know, nor do I even believe that the fuel flow actually changes, I didn't do enough experiments there before wanting to get this out to the devs and others who have trouble getting these otherwise excellent planes to stretch their legs.

 

To put it bluntly, gentlemen, this is a failure.

1) Why simulate/estimate the fuel flows? Even a gauge should be create-able to round the real numbers, if that's the excuse.

2) How did all of this get by both internal and beta testing? And none of your test "real" pilots picked up how much fuel they were losing on short hops?

3) How did noone think, in the years since these planes came out to do something like this? I guess that's a fail on all of us, myself included.

 

For years Aerosoft mods and devs have made excuse after excuse about what's going on without, it seems, ever doing any checks. This problem should not just be a warning here and a NEED for a hotfix now, but it is a situation that NEEDS to be confirmed is not in the upcoming A330. The Fuel Flow on the ECAM should ALWAYS match real model fuel flow, round it if you have to or want to to keep it accurate to how the real ECAM looks, but DON'T simulate or estimate it. And if you're planning to do variable engine stats, THEY MUST BE REAL. During my time testing the planes, since both numbers did change when changing planes and playing with the scalar numbers, I cannot confirm whether the real flow does actually vary or not, it kind of seems to but needs further experimentation beyond the purpose of this post.

 

So if you, like me, experience very short ranges with the CFM airbuses, get a third party gauge like this. Install it to the plane as a new 2D window, and idle the engines and see what your gauge says versus the ECAM. Divide the ECAM KG/H by your gauge's KG/H and get a decimal number. reset the aircraft a few times (either hitting reset or reloading the game entirely) and get several numbers. Average the numbers and you should have a number that, while not 100% right, should be a good number to put as the new fuel flow scalar number.

 

as a quick, dirty, decent fix, you can just set them all to 50%. The numbers jumped up and down around that number depending on where the model decided to put the fake CFM fuel flow numbers at at that time when I was testing them.

 

I would link to where I got my gauge but I've had it for years and can't seem to dig it up this second. If I find it, I'll post a link here in this thread.

 

Enjoy guys. Finally I can use these planes and actually go someplace. Maybe now we can all do the 318 trip from London City to New York and not have to worry about running out of gas half way.

 

 

 

 

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deadeye,

 

during testing and even after release I flew countless flights from Germany to the Canary Islands, Egypt and back. Not just me, but thousands of customers have done so by now.

I always create my flightplans either through simbrief or through PFPX and with both planning tools our Airbusses fuel usage is within a few hundret kilogramm of the predicted fuel usage. On flights of about 1800-2000NM!

 

All these flights would have been impossible if the Airbus indeed used twice the fuel it would indicate. Your testing results do simply not match with those we see in the daily use by thousands of customers, not they match our own testing results during our beta tests.

Something has to be wrong on your side which causes a wrong fuel usage on your simulator. I can not tell you what that is, but I can tell you that this is not a general problem with our Airbus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuel guages like that take data from simconnect. IIRC from reading the manual, the fuel in the aircraft doesn't match the fsx/p3d simconnect data entirely. Instead of just checking what the sim vs the ECAM says, try doing multiple flights and calculate the fuel flow (or just check the ECAM...). You'll quickly notice that the value the aircraft gives you is pretty close to the real data (about 2200-2400 kg/h) depending on weight, winds etc. etc. Reading about your flight I know something is wrong, but it's not the aircraft. If I'm not mistaken, one thing to keep in mind is that the aerosoft bus does not simulate winds aloft data inputted into the MCDU, meaning the predictions do not take winds into consideration. What flightplanner do you use? What fuel policy? What weather engine? Where did you load the weight?

I've done CPH-JFK in the A319 CFM (with two ACTs) and I can assure you I didn't just get half way. I did however make a fuel stop, not because I would have run out of fuel, but since I like to keep things "legal". I filled the tanks to max, and by the fuel flow logic you describe I should've run out of fuel at around 30°W, which I certainly did not do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are having this issue. Not just me. I just figured out what is happening to those of us who have it. Here's a link to these very forums where several guys state that the fuel planner is blatantly wrong and they are running out of gas with no obvious cause.

 

The cause is now obvious. Those screenshots are not just my imagination. The ECAM is not a true reflection of fuel being consumed and the back end fuel consumption is higher than what the ECAM states. I don't have this trouble even with the IAE engines, nor do they have separate, variable fuel flows like the CFMs. No other aircraft I own have ever needed fuel flow scalar adjustments.

 

I didn't even think of looking at the fuel flow scalar on the airbuses until I recently encountered a high thrust rating from the Wilco/Feelthere A340 because it tends to climb like a rocket ship. I was thinking of adjusting that thing's thrust scalar when I wondered if there was a fuel scalar too. There was and manipulating it has led me to everything you see here.

 

As for the range of 1800-2000NM, using 34% of my gas for a 670NM trip to bermuda means a full tank would go about 1970NM. But the plane is suppose to be capable of going 3750NM according to airbus.com http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/a319/

 

The predicted, as I did say, is wrong with the fuel flow scalar at 1.0 in the case of those of us with high mystery fuel consumption. It shows correct in the beginning, in fact it was correct within 200KG after my adjustment, but at 1.0 fuel scalar myself and many others have noticed the EFOB slowly drain as the aircraft flies on. That steady, continuous drop is cause by that hidden back end fuel consumption that is not displayed on the ECAM.

 

Now that a cause and workaround has been found, we can wait till you guys work on Service Pack 4 for the buses to revisit and test what is going on but it still raises the question of "Will the A330's ECAM fuel flow for each engine be EXACTLY what the real fuel consumption is inside the model?"

 

I'm including in this post the aircraft.cfg from my two 319s. The CFM one and the IAE one. While there are differences in the fuel rates for each they do also have drag differences, both being higher on the CFM versions. But I don't know if either would be enough double the back end fuel consumption. maybe there is something else hidden in there if you guys want to look. Note that the CFM does have my fuel scalar there for it.

 

 

 

aircraft.cfg

aircraft.cfg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JakobFerdinand said:

Fuel guages like that take data from simconnect. IIRC from reading the manual, the fuel in the aircraft doesn't match the fsx/p3d simconnect data entirely. Instead of just checking what the sim vs the ECAM says, try doing multiple flights and calculate the fuel flow (or just check the ECAM...). You'll quickly notice that the value the aircraft gives you is pretty close to the real data (about 2200-2400 kg/h) depending on weight, winds etc. etc. Reading about your flight I know something is wrong, but it's not the aircraft. If I'm not mistaken, one thing to keep in mind is that the aerosoft bus does not simulate winds aloft data inputted into the MCDU, meaning the predictions do not take winds into consideration. What flightplanner do you use? What fuel policy? What weather engine? Where did you load the weight?

 

I use the standard Aerosoft fuel planner. I notice it must be an older one since it doesn't take into account the engine differences with regards to their abilities, nor does it even ask for something basic like cruise speed or cost index (I tend to stick to the default 45).

 

Active Sky Next is my weather engine, steam version. The bus versions I have are from from aerosoft's own site. version 1.31.

 

I didn't mention it because it would actually help my case but during the bermuda flight, on both occasions, I had a 50 knot tailwind. I was doing something like 511 ground speed. Yet somehow still managed to almost run out of gas with 34% in the tanks. The flights were managed, 45 Cost Index, .787 mach cruise, FL370 was the MCDU optimum so I went with it.

 

Maybe it could be simconnect. It is the steam version, steam FSX, But I would think I would see it on other planes and occasions.

 

It all comes down to, in my case, that halving the fuel flow scalar fixes the CFM engines and does so very neatly.

 

I was also a bit reluctant to post this next screenshot because I've not been able to get the numbers to line up that neatly again on any of the planes (Stupid CFM imperfect engine variables thing).

 

The screenshot is the A318 with .50 fuel scalar. If nothing else, it shows the ECAM is just simulated or something, not true, because how can two screenshots show two different numbers on one gauge and not the other?

Please login to display this image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem here is that you use the default fuel planner. You pretty much told us the issue yourself:

 

"nor does it even ask for something basic like cruise speed or cost index"

 
The default fuel planner does NOT take weather into account, and without cruise speed/CI it will be extremely inaccurate. Try the flight with a fuelplanner like Simbrief or PFPX.
 
Btw:
1. The rangemap on Airbus's page shows the maximum range in perfect conditions.
2. EFOB will drain due to the reason I've already described.
3. CI 45 is pretty high which means you'll use more fuel. Many airlines today use values lower than 20.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use 45 because it's the middle of the box that Aerosoft provides with the manual. With a tailwind, one would also assume, if wind is not factored in, that my EFOB should actually increase, instead it still decreases and does so significantly. regardless of Cost Index or weather, a third party gauge monitoring fuel flow should not be significantly different from the fuel flow indicated on the ECAM while sitting idle on the runway. How do you explain that? And with a tailwind, how does a plane burn 34% of its gas in an hour and a half?

 

I'm doing another test flight right now. with the 318 with the new scalar. I'll post screenshots of the various portions of the flight as I go. right this second it's 665 GPH, 4140KG/H on the ECAM climbing through 26,800 feet, managed mode, CI 45. final altitude 360. fuel planner says 10,378. EFOB says 5.0K Kg at end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished the flight into KCLT Charlotte, NC from TXKF Bermuda with scalar set to .50. Flight time was about 2.5 hours. Active Sky next weather, Vatsim override. Had to fight a headwind all the way to charlotte. Ground speed was 423 on a 450 knot TAS. Cost Index 45. Cruising speed Mach .787. Took off with 10,378KG of fuel. shutdown with 3980KG, 3992KG according to FSX. Fuel used was 6370 in lower ECAM, Third party said 2111 gallons which equals 6428Kg.

 

EFOB went from 4.8 down to 4.1 before I focused on approach. had a brief stint at 5.0 because I got out of bermuda fast. Attached is the fuel planner plan. Using no contingency fuel, alternate fuel, final reserve or holding fuel, estimate was 4581KG. 

 

At 1.0 scalar, essentially doubling the fuel use, would have never made it. Cost index of 20 would have been a cruise of .77. I doubt that would have doubled my range magically. Somehow, halving the fuel scalar is working for me without having to shell out $60 for PFPX.

Please login to display this image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am repeating myself, but sorry, your conclusion simply doesn't make sense.

Assuming you are correct, why can I fly those flights using the fuel loads predicted by PFPX and simbrief? Shouldn't I run out of gas if the Airbus uses twice the fuel?
Yet I didn't and thousands of customers didn't either. Do you have an explanation why, assuming that this would be a bug in our Aircraft (which would then affect ALL users)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe pfpx knows how fuel hungry those engines are?

 

Problem isn't just your engines, the fuel planner with regards to two different engines should not be so radically different that using one set (IAE) is fine and you need to essentially double the number to use the other  (CFM).

 

It also doesn't explain the high idle rate from my third party gauge to the ECAM.

 

Here's what we can do then. Given the numbers in the fuel planner screen shot, ask pfpx what the amount of gas to bring is. 

A318

TXKF to KCLT.

Cost index 45.

FL360

Route: ENAPI M325 OXANA AR8 ECG ARGAL PELTS FEDOX SDAIL CHSLY2

 

takeoff runway 30 at txkf.

land 18C at KCLT. ils approach, jedko is the IAF.

headwind is 332° at 23 knots.

contingency fuel from above is 4581kg.

 

at a minimum  it looks like something like 12,000kg to get to the runway, plus the 4581 contingency means you're looking in the neighborhood of 16,581kg. 

 

that's a hell of a lot more gas than the fuel planner says. 

 

I'll also retry the route with the IAE engines when I get a chance but I'm confident they would make it in the less than 10,300kg the planner calls for. 

 

why would anyone even look at the CFMs in real life if they needed 65% more gas?

 

either the engines are screwed up or the planner is practically useless, which would also be a shame because the twin otter planner is very good, I think. But it takes the power settings into account unlike the airbus planner.

 

Maybe a new fuel planner is what is really needed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

The fuel planner never insisted on being a precise planner. You see it yourself that a lot of things missing in there. It is for a quick use, if you do not look into every tiny detail. 

 

If you consider yourself a hardcore simmer, then the fuel planner is for sure not the tool of your choice. 

 

But there is nothing wrong with that. As I said, AS never claimed that the fuel planner is highly precise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have time for an in-depth reply. That will come later.

What I do notice though is that the CONT fuel is WAY to high. CONT fuel with EU-OPS is 5% of the en route fuel. This means that your en route fuel would be around 90000KGs. I honestly have no idea how you've got that number! And: PFPX does NOT know "how fuel hungry those engines are". I didn't plan my transatlantic flight with PFPX, I did it with Simbrief. For my planning with PFPX I use a performance file that is made to closely resemble the real engines and it gives me very accurate fuel!

I've tested to dispatch the flight through Simbrief and got this with current weather which is with headwind:

 PLANNED FUEL
---------------------------------
FUEL           ARPT   FUEL   TIME
---------------------------------
TRIP            CLT   5308   0213
CONT 10%               531   0014 <- 10% as per FAA rules
ALTN            RDU   1206   0024
FINRES                1563   0045
---------------------------------
MINIMUM T/OFF FUEL    8608   0337
---------------------------------
EXTRA                    0   0000
---------------------------------
T/OFF FUEL            8608   0337
TAXI            BDA    200   0020
---------------------------------
BLOCK FUEL      BDA   8808

 

WEIGHTS

                EST      MAX     ACTUAL

PAX             106              ......

CARGO           3.5              ......

PAYLOAD        14.6              ......

ZFW            52.0     54.5     ......

FUEL            8.8     11.0     ......  POSS EXTRA 2.2

TOW            60.6     62.8  LDG......

STAB TRIM                        ......

LAW            55.3     57.5     ......

I cannot answer why the plane burned 34% fuel in 2 hours, but I can assure you it's not a problem with the aircraft. Try it once again using simbrief with the original fuel flow scalar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deadeye31 said:

Maybe pfpx knows how fuel hungry those engines are?

 

It doesn't. The PFPX profile is totally unrelated to our Aerosoft Airbus.
Many people also use the PFPX profiles with the Flight Sim Labs Airbus and the fuel usage fits perfectly. Just as it does with our Airbus.

 

Quote

 

Problem isn't just your engines, the fuel planner with regards to two different engines should not be so radically different that using one set (IAE) is fine and you need to essentially double the number to use the other  (CFM).

 

Well, but it isn't? Fuel usage with CFM and IAE engines is almost the same, the difference is really small (else you could be sure no airline would order the more thirsty engine).

 

Quote

 

It also doesn't explain the high idle rate from my third party gauge to the ECAM.

 

Perhaps the gauge is buggy, I can't tell. All I can tell is that the value indicated on your gauge is incorrect and does not represent the actual fuel usage the Airbus has which is shown on the ECAM.

 

Quote

 

Here's what we can do then. Given the numbers in the fuel planner screen shot, ask pfpx what the amount of gas to bring is. 

 

Here you go (PFPX had a different wind than you had, so I matched our fuel planner with the PFPX wind which was an average 20kt tailwind):

 

Please login to display this image.

 

The fuel planner comes up with almost an identical value as PFPX. The only difference is ~300kg ETP addition which PFPX makes which our fuel planner can not take into account.

 

Quote

 

at a minimum  it looks like something like 12,000kg to get to the runway, plus the 4581 contingency means you're looking in the neighborhood of 16,581kg. 

 

No idea where these values come from, but they do not match either both plannings shown above, nor what I see with our Airbus on this flight.

 

Quote

either the engines are screwed up or the planner is practically useless

 

To talk in the same language as your post: No, the only thing screwed up and is practically useless is your computer. Fact is: You are the only one seeing these wrong values. So it is 100% sure something wrong with your settings on your computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fuel planner never insisted on being a precise planner. You see it yourself that a lot of things missing in there. It is for a quick use, if you do not look into every tiny detail. 

 

If you consider yourself a hardcore simmer, then the fuel planner is for sure not the tool of your choice. 

 

But there is nothing wrong with that. As I said, AS never claimed that the fuel planner is highly precise. 

 

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't essentially build these planes around the fuel planner. It controls weight, center of gravity and the fuel you should be taking. And it does work, for the IAE engines. The CFMs just seem to eat so much more, they seem to need a significant amount of more fuel for even the same journey.

 

I'm going to experiment with it all a bit more, especially put that gauge in the IAE planes and see how their fuel flow matches up with their ECAMs.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deadeye31 said:

 

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't essentially build these planes around the fuel planner. It controls weight, center of gravity and the fuel you should be taking.

 

 

Well, we didn't. You can at any time use external tools like PPFX or Simbrief and then simply load the Airbus using the loadmanager in the right MCDU. Nobody forces you to use our fuelplanner, even though I believe my example above shows it works pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least one person over there at Aerosoft deserves a little golf clap. whoever did the A320 IAE engine calculations was off by only 30KGH. 711 vs 740 indicated. That's damn impressive for this bunch.

 

Both the 319 and 321 idle at 1006 KGH. What's interesting about them is is that this number is static. That second engine powers up and boom, 1006 period, end of discussion. unfortunately the indicated is 760 on both so that's still 30% down the drain in the back end but much better than the friggin 318 CFM that is eat 1500 KGH in the back when it says 700-ish.

 

And the weirdest part of it all is that there is NO difference in any of the fuel variables in the aircraft.cfg between the 3 planes. fuel flow gain is .002 on all 3, static thrust is the same, thrust scalar are all .9, thrust specific fuel consumption is .6001 on all of them.

 

All I can think is that it's in the flight model someplace that this fuel is mysteriously disappearing. It makes no sense otherwise. I wish I was making this stuff up. screenshots below

 

319 is 809AW

320 is N125UW

321 is N120EE

all are winglet versions. Sharklet shows the same on 320.

GG 320 model maker, whoever you are, not perfect but I wouldn't complain about only 30KGH.

 

When I get more time I'll see what the KGH looks like in the air. Also included the 318 fuel flow with 1.0 scalar again for the still skeptical. N810FR below.

 

I wonder if I should, for the hell of it, just reinstall these planes. they are version 1.31. Maybe something is wrong with the files... But before I do that, is NOONE willing to go to the bat for aerosoft and actually sit on a runway, with a third party fuel gauge and confirm or deny what I'm seeing? a set of screenshots from a third person, either way, would be huge at this point.

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

I would advise you to show a bit more respect towards the people at Aerosoft. Devs, mods, testers, pilots. You are free to criticize the product in a constructive way but I do not like your tone concerning the people behind the project one bit. 

 

Third party tools are irrelevant here. If you really want to help, instead of what you are doing now, I suggest the following;

 

- Install the Airbus anew with no edits whatsoever.

- Go to simbrief or PFPX and get yourself an OFP for the flight you want to make.

- Make sure to load the Airbus up via the RMCDU like it is stated on the OFP.

- Fly the flight like it is stated on the OFP, no shortcuts, other SID/STARs, same wx etc.

- Make pictures of the ECAM with FF and fuel used and FOB as many as necessary. 

- Do all of this in kilos.

- do this some 10 flights on the same plane with CFM engines.

 

Post your results here. Show us the OFP and the before and after screenshots of the FOB, and Fuel used. And ofcourse the fuelchecks you make on the OFP every 30 minutes.

 

Thank you in advance!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs
14 hours ago, Deadeye31 said:

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't essentially build these planes around the fuel planner. It controls weight, center of gravity and the fuel... 

 

Sorry to say, but this is completely wrong. 

 

Both, the bus and the planner are completely independent from each other. Show me one planner in the sim world that controls an aircraft. 

 

The Aerosoft fuel planner is a (none high precision) tool to help you setting up your flight. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

As I already told you, the AS fuel planner is not the tool of your choice if you want high precision. 

 

And now I suggest you follow Frank's (The Dude) suggestion if you are interested in figuring what this problem causes on your machine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little off topic (because not specifically related to the A320), but faking numbers is one of the favourite hobbies of any gauge developer. The engine model in FSX and P3D is simply not versatile enough to allow a perfect simulation of N1, N2, FF, EGT, etc. all at the same time. The speed of N1 and N2 during engine startup is a prime example. Today's FDE developers do a tremendous job, but still, what you see is often not what really happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little off topic (because not specifically related to the A320), but faking numbers is one of the favourite hobbies of any gauge developer. The engine model in FSX and P3D is simply not versatile enough to allow a perfect simulation of N1, N2, FF, EGT, etc. all at the same time. The speed of N1 and N2 during engine startup is a prime example. Today's FDE developers do a tremendous job, but still, what you see is often not what really happens.

 

I don't so mind it being fake a bit as long as it's not completely inaccurate. I can see trying to put on a good show for the customer, but when sitting at idle or running at a constant thrust at altitude, the ECAM numbers should still be at or very close to the actual fuel flow from the model.

 

I'll try the reinstall idea and do 5 flights from JFK, runway 31L to Bermuda runway 30 in clear skies, direct, with the only waypoints being the ils runway 30Z route. In clear skies, fsx steam. That should be enough to see a trend. Btw, all of this is the non-steam airbus versions.

 

Essentially I'll start up, do the whole cold and dark on the runway, take off, go directly to BOVIC, the innitial approach fix then follow the ils chart into txkf runway 30.

 

I'll do it in the A318, cfm engines, and set it to just full passengers and bring 15,000 kg of gas, I think that should be enough gas either way. Cost index 45, middle box on the chart in the manual. Managed all the way. Flight level 350.

 

Shut down will be on the runway, too.

 

And then we'll see if it was just a bug when I downloaded them or something more.

 

Screenshots will be of each phase, climb, cruise, descent and approach with ECAM and third party fuel flows in the shot.

 

Won't be able to do it till maybe this weekend. Going to be a pain having to reinstall my liveries but if it helps, that's fine. Maybe even something learned here can help on the A330 project like maybe a better fuel planner like the twin otter has which I've never had a problem with at all and has settings for 75% power and 90%. That plane is a work of art.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

Actually one warning ought to be enough. Therefore I will close this topic. 

 

@Deadeye31 in the future I highly recommend you mind your wording here in the forums. This is a friendly place where people do not insult each other.

 

In case you wonder where your latest post is, I have removed it to keep you from gathering tons of down votes.  

 

Topic closed! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use