Hawaii to mainland, no fuel?

[jlcame]

Hello. I have a question regarding both default a321 and 737, i not a pilot, but i dont consider myself a fs noob. My question is, when i make a flight from Hawaii to LA, San Francisco or any other airport on mainland closest to Hawaii on those two default aircrafts, i allways run out of juice, shortly before arriving any close to mainland. I find this wierd, as i try to mimic the standards, being 30k feets at 280 indicated airspeed, also with default load settings. Is this normal or i am doing this wrong? I mean, this is a distance to fuel relation problem, hawaii to mainland is an example, isint these aircrafts suposed to travel that distance?

Thank you very much.

[fxsttcb]

Common issue! Maybe this will help you get your planes set up for the proper range...Don

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?245877-FSX-fuel-problems

[Sampa]

could be that you loaded the plane up wrong (ALWAYS check your weight and balance). Remember, the more weight you put in passengers, the less fuel you have to work with. Also, remember, an overloaded aircraft will burn more fuel during the takeoff run, JUST to take off!

[mrzippy]

Proper weight and balance, proper altitude and using MACH instead of KIAS will help in the fuel burn rate.

[napamule2]

If you don't mind 'cheating' a bit:

For increased range for the Default 747-400 make these changes to cfg:

 

(General Engine Data)

fuel_flow_scalar= 0.600 //o=1.0

 

(Jet Engine)

thrust_scalar= 1.3 //o=1.0

 

Won't 'hurt' anything (except maybe Microsoft's feelings - but it's their mess so...).

Chuck B

Napamule

[jlcame]

Thank you all for your time. I stated before that i usually use standard weight loads, the ones that load automatically when you start a new flight.

fxsttcb-Thank you for the link, i'll check it out anytime soon.

Have a great one.

Just one more question for napamule2, i will definitely change this soon, but is this closer to "real life" or it just bumps up fuel and fuel flow to an unrealistic way? Also, could you tell me the changes i need to make on the a321 and 737 (defaults)?

[MBKHOU]

Should be able to make it. I fired up the sim, "PMDG 737NGX", and loaded an American

737-800, which is the default FSX model. With a full load, "162 pax" and 14,400 lb cargo,

which is 95.2% load level, I would need about 32,600 lb of fuel, not counting reserve.

That's according to the FMC, which generally is pretty accurate. And I didn't punch in

winds. So being west to east with a likely tailwind, I would probably end up burning a

bit less than that by the time I got to KLAX from PHNL. That's planning at FL350, which is

about the optimum altitude for economy cruise with that load.

It's possible I could bump to FL370 later in the flight after I burn off fuel.. Which would

lower the fuel burn a bit more. But I don't count on that in planning the flight.

 

If I loaded 38,000 lb's of fuel, which is what I set it at, I would have about 5500 lb's

at LAX according to the FMC. Like I say, with a tail wind, I would probably end up with

a bit more than that.

 

So you should be able to make it, if I could do it with a full wide load, and less than

full tanks. With that heavy load, I wouldn't be able to load full tanks, as it would put

me over MTOW. But from HNL to LAX, don't need that much fuel. Full tanks with the

737-800 is a tad over 46,000 lbs fuel.

 

BTW, I noticed you were flying at FL300.. Too low.. Bump up to FL350, 370 depending

on load. And at those levels, you run mach speed, which the flight I planned at FL350,

would be running at mach .785. Which is probably... 270-280 IAS ??.. plus/minus.

[mgh]

...I stated before that i usually use standard weight loads, the ones that load automatically when you start a new flight.... i will definitely change this soon, but is this closer to "real life" or it just bumps up fuel and fuel flow to an unrealistic way? Also, could you tell me the changes i need to make on the a321 and 737 (defaults)?

 

Google is your friend - http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/737.pdf will tell you everything you need to know.

 

I'll leave you find out details for the A321

[fxsttcb]

Should be able to make it. I fired up the sim, "PMDG 737NGX"...

Problem is: He's flying the default 737, not an accurately modeled payware.

Fuel consumption is a known issue with many of the default aircraft.

 

There are two schools of thought on how to correct it.

Change the [TurbineEngineData] TSFC(Thrust specific fuel consumption), or, mod the [GeneralEngineData] fuel_flow_scalar.

I generally use TSFC because it's easier to adjust, by the percentage of FSX range vs RW range, during testing.

A few years back, I tackled the 738 and arrived at ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.370 vs the default 0.600. From my notes, Clear weather, JFK to LAX and back, FL350, Mach 0.78 gave me a 2 way ave of ~3000nm.

The actual range you will arrive at will depend on how efficient your flight profile is...Don

[MBKHOU]

Problem is: He's flying the default 737, not an accurately modeled payware.

Fuel consumption is a known issue with many of the default aircraft.

 

There are two schools of thought on how to correct it.

Change the [TurbineEngineData] TSFC(Thrust specific fuel consumption), or, mod the [GeneralEngineData] fuel_flow_scalar.

I generally use TSFC because it's easier to adjust, by the percentage of FSX range vs RW range, during testing.

A few years back, I tackled the 738 and arrived at ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.370 vs the default 0.600. From my notes, Clear weather, JFK to LAX and back, FL350, Mach 0.78 gave me a 2 way ave of ~3000nm.

The actual range you will arrive at will depend on how efficient your flight profile is...Don

 

Yep. Maybe the figures I gave from the NGX will give him an idea what he should be

be burning for that route. For the load, the numbers I gave are for economy cruise,

which would be the most efficient.. I did forget about stating the cost index though..

I believe I set it at about 36, which is fairly efficient, but it could be set lower.

But all that will do is lower the climb and descent IAS, and slightly lower the cruise

speed. The bigger change will be the IAS for climb and descent. Even with a real low

cost index, the cruise speed will still usually be around mach .78 at the higher flight

levels.

I've been flying around the world in my 737-900 BBJ3. In fact, my next leg will be my

last from Toncontin, and I'll be back in Houston. I was running as high as a 55 cost index

on some long legs across the Pacific, but I wanted to move along fairly quick, and fuel is

free in the sim. lol.. :)

 

But as a comparison, when I'm playing Southwest buoy, I usually run about a 36 cost

index, which will have my climb speeds in the lower to mid 290's knots range.

With a 55 cost index in the 900, I'll climb over 300 knots.. Say 305, maybe a little higher

on some trips. And the cruise at CI 36 will be mach .78 at the higher flight levels, where

as a CI of 55 will have me a bit over mach .79. So naturally, you will burn a bit more, but

get there a tad quicker.

 

Anyway, if he can tweak his cfg or air file to burn around the 32-33k lb range for HNL to

LAX, not counting for winds, he should be in the appx ball park for a B738.

 

And maybe run a bit higher than FL300.. Bumping up a bit can save a bit of fuel unless

there are stronger tail winds down lower to shove him along, which are not there at the

higher levels. Sometimes that happens..

But generally, it's better to be higher if possible. For the route I punched up, FL350 was

about optimum for the fully loaded plane and 38k lbs fuel. Max econ was a bit under FL370

with 38k lbs for takeoff. So I'd have to burn off a good bit to be able to bump up to FL370

for economy cruise.

I don't fly artificial Airbuses, so wouldn't have a clue what they should do. :/