777F Issues to Look Into

Your Callsign

General

Was your account linked with IFC in-app at the time of the issue?

_Yes

Version Information

20.2 (465)

Device Information

iPad 4 mini
current

Summary

General Issues with the 777F

Steps to reproduce

  • Launch IF
  • fly 777F
  • Issues

Expected results

Fuel Burn/ Stalling at high altitudes/ speed issues on descent

Actual results

relative fuel burn/ real life altitude check/ correct speed decrease on descent

More Information

I have been noticing some faults with the 777F. First of all, with a full load you can’t really fly above 350 in altitude without stalling. Tracking real flights on Flight Aware tells a different story. Many of the 777F flights that I have cloned are flying well above 350 feet in flight duration. This makes me question some of the avionic statistics on Infinite Flight such as aerodynamics and correct engine thrust during flight based on weight. I would assume most of the freight flights in real life are full like flights from KMEM to PANC, flying well above flight level 350. Additionally, with a full load flying at the highest altitude possible the thrust of the GE engines seem very high somewhere between 85 and 95% throttle. This affects the fuel burn significantly especially when you can’t fly at higher altitudes. I would fix the average fuel burn if this is a correct assumption. Finally, speed is very difficult to adjust during descent between flight level 150 and ground. Especially when the wind is directly at the plane. Most of the descent speed is adjusted with spoilers which I would believe isn’t correct in real life. This may be a aerodynamic issue within the beta round. Otherwise not having the same issues with the 77W great work Dev team. This update is superb otherwise just having some trouble with the 777F.

1 Like

This is supposed to be this way, similar to the aircraft’s characteristics in the real world.

I’ve noticed you’ve reported a lot of issues that shouldn’t be reported, I highly recommend reading this topic again, as to better give you an understanding of the issues that should be reported. Thanks.

1 Like

Do you know how much these are loaded? You can’t make comparisons without knowing the facts.
Same goes with fuel burn.

Show us stats with fuel burn at a certain altitude, under a certain weight etc. The model we have today is based on such data, and unless someone can provides that proving the data we use to be wrong, nothing can or will be done.

2 Likes

FAA won’t release this type of data to the public that is what makes this difficult.

For Instance at 350 with a full load I was burning 33,000LBS of fuel an hour with is just not reasonable.

FAA have nothing to do with it. The aircraft manufacturer does.

Based on? I think a lot of things in life are not reasonable, yet they exist. 3-cylinder engines in cars for example…

1 Like

I understand your point but just pointing it out about double average fuel burn.

Can trim help this? If so a demo video on this would be much needed.

The 777-200F and 777-200LR have the same engines, same fuel, etc. so why can’t that weight data/fuel burn/engine N1 at weights & altitude be the same on the 77F, if they aren’t already that? (legitimate question, not rhetorical, I do want to know why)

not true different engines.

Because instead of people and seats, the 77F has a bunch of cargo. They are different aircraft that act differently.

^ true that. Very different in nature.

they don’t

The 77F uses the GE90-110B1 engine and creates 110,760lbs of thrust

The 77L uses the GE90-115BL and creates 115,500lbs of thrust

Yes different engines.

I wonder about Aerodynamics in IF if they are correct. Or is it a trim problem.

Again put nearly 11hrs of fuel and getting 7hrs back. There is something wrong here.

Ethiopian 3516 heavy

The fuel estimate under “Weight & balance” is extremely rough, so that’s not saying much tbh.
We are however looking into this.

Thank you! Hope it is fixed.