Analyzing Performance Data of the Infinite Flight Fleet
A few days ago, a topic was posted by @MrSenpaiHD with the observation that aircraft in Infinite Flight seem to get up to speed way faster than their real life counterparts. This is something I’ve also noticed as well, but I’ve never thought to look into it. However, seeing how many people agreed that thread, I decided to run a couple tests.
I have also long said that aircraft in Infinite Flight have too much range. In 2005, a 777200(LR) flew for nearly 23 hours from Hong Kong to London eastward with about 40 people onboard. Infinite Flight’s version of this aircraft could fly this routing and quite nearly make it back to Hong Kong from there with the same load. However, one plane having ridiculous range is not generalizable to the whole Infinite Flight fleet, so I took a look at this too.
Finally, I will test raw acceleration of these aircraft (while empty) over a quarter mile. This has no value, I just thought it would be funny.
Methodology

Method 1 (M1) takeoff figures are ISA, MTOW, 0 wind, 90% N1, 0 MSL (more or less), “launch control”, and the minimum usual flap extension (1 on Airbuses and Embraers, 5 on Boeings and Dash 8s, 8 on CRJs, and 10 on McDonnell Douglases and Challengers), with 15% safety margin.

Method 2 (M2) takeoff figures are ISA, MTOW, 0 wind, 95% N1, 0 MSL (more or less), “launch control”, and the second slot extension (1+F and 2 on Airbuses, 2 on Embraers, 10 on Dash 8s, 10 and 15 on Boeings, 15 on McDonnell Douglases, and 20 on CRJs and Challengers), with 15% safety margin.

Range figures are determined by “showroom specification”, which is max passengers (or cargo if it’s a freighter) and no other nonfuel loads.

Range figures are the product of flight time and cruise speed, minus 100 nm for takeoff and landing.

Quarter Mile is minimum weight, “launch control”, and done at an airport with a 1,500 foot runway (which is pretty much 1,320 once you subtract out the length of the planes).
Disclaimers

Range is not actually tested, I don’t have time for all of that. I am using numbers from my fuel calculator which has been acceptably accurate in my testing.

I know that M1 is not likely to happen at MTOW. However, since I have a preconceived notion that Infinite Flight planes get up too fast I’m giving them a slight nerf to drive the point home. M2 points to a more “real” setup.

Tests were done at Doha (OTHH) for its runway length. It is not perfectly at sea level but it’s close enough that it makes no difference.

Some of Infinite Flight’s models are not based after the base version of that aircraft. For example, the A350900 in this game is based on the ULR (by fuel capacity). This has been accounted for and are marked in the charts below.
Aircraft Takeoff Distance
Data Collected
Aircraft  IRL Takeoff  IF Takeoff (M1)  IF Takeoff (M2)  Percentage (M1)  Percentage (M2) 

A220300  6,300 ft  6,400 ft  4,000 ft  101.6%  63.5% 
A318100  5,850 ft  6,200 ft  4,100 ft  106.0%  70.1% 
A319100  6,050 ft  6,300 ft  5,500 ft  104.1%  90.9% 
A320200  6,900 ft  6,300 ft  5,500 ft  91.3%  79.7% 
A321200  8,400 ft  7,000 ft  6,000 ft  83.3%  71.4% 
A330200(F)  9,100 ft  7,500 ft  6,800 ft  82.4%  74.7% 
A330300  8,200 ft  8,400 ft  6,700 ft  89.0%  70.7% 
A330900  7,700 ft  7,800 ft  6,700 ft  101.3%  87.0% 
A340600  11,200 ft  10,900 ft  7,700 ft  97.3%  68.8% 
A350900(ULR)  8,500 ft  6,500 ft  5,200 ft  76.4%  61.2% 
A380800  9,800 ft  10,500 ft  7,800 ft  107.1%  79.6% 
717200(HGW)  5,800 ft  8,300 ft  5,800 ft  143.1%  100.0% 
737700  6,200 ft  6,300 ft  4,800 ft  101.6%  77.4% 
737800  6,900 ft  7,300 ft  6,300 ft  105.8%  91.3% 
737900  9,100 ft  7,400 ft  6,900 ft  81.3%  75.8% 
747200  10,900 ft  16,100 ft  11,100 ft  147.7%  101.8% 
747400  10,700 ft  13,800 ft  9,200 ft  129.0%  86.0% 
7478  10,200 ft  17,400 ft  12,300 ft  170.6%  120.6% 
757200  6,300 ft  6,600 ft  4,600 ft  104.8%  73.0% 
767300(ER)  8,200 ft  8,100 ft  6,100 ft  98.8%  74.3% 
777200(ER)  11,100 ft  8,300 ft  7,000 ft  74.8%  63.1% 
777200(LR)  9,200 ft  8,600 ft  7,100 ft  93.5%  77.2% 
777300(ER)  10,000 ft  7,800 ft  6,500 ft  78.0%  65.0% 
777200(F)  9,300 ft  9,900 ft  8,000 ft  106.5%  86.0% 
7878  8,500 ft  8,600 ft  6,900 ft  101.2%  81.2% 
7879  9,300 ft  10,700 ft  8,300 ft  115.1%  89.2% 
78710  9,100 ft  10,100 ft  7,800 ft  111.0%  85.7% 
Challenger 350  4,800 ft  2,600 ft  2,200 ft  54.2%  45.8% 
CRJ200(LR)  6,300 ft  6,000 ft  4,500 ft  95.2%  71.4% 
CRJ700  5,300 ft  5,300 ft  4,100 ft  100.0%  77.4% 
CRJ900  5,800 ft  6,500 ft  4,600 ft  112.1%  79.3% 
CRJ1000  6,700 ft  7,300 ft  4,900 ft  109.0%  73.1% 
Dash 8Q400  4,700 ft  3,600 ft  2,500 ft  76.6%  53.2% 
E175(LR)  7,400 ft  4,800 ft  4,100 ft  64.9%  55.4% 
E190(LR)  6,900 ft  5,100 ft  4,200 ft  73.9%  60.9% 
DC1030  10,500 ft  10,300 ft  8,700 ft  98.1%  82.9% 
DC1030(F)  10,500 ft  10,300 ft  8,700 ft  98.1%  82.9% 
MD11(ER)  10,800 ft  9,400 ft  8,800 ft  87.0%  81.5% 
MD11(F)  10,800 ft  9,400 ft  8,800 ft  87.0%  81.5% 
Insights

For M1, Infinite Flight’s fleet, on average, took off using 98.9% of the runway they would use IRL. Keep in mind, this is essentially a MTOW derated takeoff and it’s still slightly less.

For M2, Infinite Flight’s fleet, on average, took off using just 77.2% of the runway they would use IRL. This is a relatively large discrepancy (think major international airport runway to small regional airport runway). This result comes despite the fact that a lot of the heavies would like to use higher than 95% N1 as they simply cannot climb at that thrust level (especially 747s and A380s).

Unfortunately, the trend is getting worse. Refer to the below chart.
 I want to make clear that these aircraft are getting airborne faster because they are accelerating faster, not because they generate more lift (their rotation speeds are maybe even higher than IRL). With M1 most of them are rotating between 170 and 200 knots, and with M2 most of them are rotating between 140 and 180 knots.
Aircraft Range
Data Collected
Aircraft  IRL Range  IF Range  Percentage 

A220300  3,600 nm  2,920 nm  81.1% 
A318100  3,100 nm  2,980 nm  96.1% 
A319100  3,700 nm  3,500 nm  94.6% 
A320200  3,300 nm  3,350 nm  101.5% 
A321200  3,200 nm  4,540 nm  141.9% 
A330200(F)  4,000 nm  4,370 nm  109.3% 
A330300  6,300 nm  6,990 nm  111.0% 
A330900  7,200 nm  7,410 nm  102.9% 
A340600  7,800 nm  6,880 nm  88.2% 
A350900(ULR)  9,700 nm  8,910 nm  91.9% 
A380800  8,000 nm  8,730 nm  109.1% 
717200(HGW)  2,000 nm  1,670 nm  83.5% 
737700  3,000 nm  4,420 nm  147.3% 
737800  2,900 nm  3,960 nm  136.6% 
737900  2,900 nm  3,920 nm  135.2% 
747200  6,500 nm  8,280 nm  127.4% 
747400  7,300 nm  7,280 nm  99.7% 
7478  7,700 nm  8,530 nm  110.8% 
757200  3,900 nm  4,300 nm  110.3% 
767300(ER)  6,000 nm  11,040 nm  184.0% 
777200(ER)  7,000 nm  9,910 nm  141.6% 
777200(LR)  8,500 nm  13,570 nm  159.6% 
777300(ER)  7300 nm  10,270 nm  140.7% 
777200(F)  5,000 nm  6,050 nm  121.0% 
7878  7,300 nm  7,350 nm  100.7% 
7879  7,600 nm  8,280 nm  108.9% 
78710  6,400 nm  6,620 nm  103.4% 
Challenger 350  3,200 nm  3,020 nm  94.3% 
CRJ200(LR)  1,700 nm  1,980 nm  116.4% 
CRJ700  1,400 nm  1,500 nm  107.1% 
CRJ900  1,500 nm  1,810 nm  120.7% 
CRJ1000  1,600 nm  2,290 nm  143.1% 
Dash 8Q400  1,100 nm  1,790 nm  162.7% 
E175(LR)  2,100 nm  2,420 nm  115.2% 
E190(LR)  2,300 nm  2,970 nm  129.1% 
DC1030  5,200 nm  8,450 nm  162.5% 
DC1030(F)  4,100 nm  7,570 nm  184.6% 
MD11(ER)  6,700 nm  9,760 nm  145.7% 
MD11(F)  3,600 nm  6,210 nm  172.5% 
Insights

Infinite Flight’s fleet, on average, flies 122.9% the distance they could IRL. This average comes from a select few planes flying just about how much they could IRL give or take a few percent, and a lot of planes flying way further than they could IRL. Additionally, I only used the maximum range given, which is sometimes showroom specification and sometimes typical passenger configuration. For some planes like the A350, loading max passengers cuts the range by quite a bit, but I needed to keep it standardized. The real number is most likely a bit higher than 122.9.

Special mentions go to the A321200, 767300(ER), 777200(ER), 777200(LR), 777300(ER), CRJ1000, Dash 8Q400, DC1030, DC1030(F), MD11(ER), and MD11(F) for flying much further than their real life counterparts.

The trend by year is unclear, but is generally underscored by roughly alternating releases of aircraft with reasonable range and aircraft with absurd range. There is some downturn, though, in the last few years  perhaps we’ll start to see more realistic ranges in the future.
Quarter Mile
Data Collected
Vehicle  Quarter Mile  Vehicle  Quarter Mile 

747200  9.6s @ 193 mph  747400  9.7s @ 190 mph 
717200(HGW)  9.8s @ 184 mph  992 Turbo S  9.9s @ 138 mph 
767300(ER)  10.0 @ 193 mph  A340600  10.1s @ 183 mph 
757200  10.2s @ 182 mph  777200(F)  10.2s @ 179 mph 
777200(LR)  10.2s @ 178 mph  7878  10.2s @ 176 mph 
7478  10.2s @ 171 mph  777300(ER)  10.3s @ 173 mph 
777200(ER)  10.8s @ 172 mph  7879  10.8s @ 171 mph 
78710  10.8s @ 170 mph  A380800  10.8s @ 166 mph 
C7 Corvette ZR1  10.8s @ 135 mph  A321200  10.9s @ 170 mph 
MD11(ER)  10.9s @ 168 mph  MD11(F)  10.9s @ 168 mph 
737900(ER)  10.9s @ 168 mph  DC1030  11.0s @ 168 mph 
DC1030(F)  11.0s @ 168 mph  737800  11.1s @ 165 mph 
737700  11.1s @ 164 mph  G82 M4 CSL  11.1s @ 131 mph 
A220300  11.2s @ 156 mph  CRJ900  11.4s @ 160 mph 
A350900(ULR)  11.4s @ 158 mph  CRJ700  11.5s @ 158 mph 
Challenger 350  11.6s @ 168 mph  CRJ1000  11.6s @ 157 mph 
Model 3 Performance  11.6s @ 115 mph  E175  11.8s @ 161 mph 
E190  11.9s @ 161 mph  A330200(F)  11.9s @ 153 mph 
A320200  12.0s @ 158 mph  CRJ200  12.0s @ 150 mph 
Dash 8Q400  12.0s @ 148 mph  Mustang Dark Horse  12.0s @ 116 mph 
A319100  12.1s @ 155 mph  A318100  12.1s @ 153 mph 
A330900  12.7s @ 137 mph  A330300  12.9s @ 141 mph 
Insights
 Why is every plane so fast?
 I guess this is proof enough that the A330s are down on peak power, which would explain why they don’t climb well.
 BMW is lying about the S58’s HP numbers.
Conclusion
Honestly, I had a pretty good idea of what to expect going into this  I just wanted the numbers to prove it. After pouring through the numbers, it turns out that mine (and a lot of the IFC’s) initial hunch was correct. Aircraft in Infinite Flight gain airspeed quickly, take off quickly, and have insane range. While it can be argued that my methodology is not rigorous, I feel like the discrepancies are large enough that small methodology errors wouldn’t change anything.