Do aircraft in Infinite Flight have way too much power? The numbers say…

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 777-200(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 non-fuel 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 A350-900 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)
A220-300 6,300 ft 6,400 ft 4,000 ft 101.6% 63.5%
A318-100 5,850 ft 6,200 ft 4,100 ft 106.0% 70.1%
A319-100 6,050 ft 6,300 ft 5,500 ft 104.1% 90.9%
A320-200 6,900 ft 6,300 ft 5,500 ft 91.3% 79.7%
A321-200 8,400 ft 7,000 ft 6,000 ft 83.3% 71.4%
A330-200(F) 9,100 ft 7,500 ft 6,800 ft 82.4% 74.7%
A330-300 8,200 ft 8,400 ft 6,700 ft 89.0% 70.7%
A330-900 7,700 ft 7,800 ft 6,700 ft 101.3% 87.0%
A340-600 11,200 ft 10,900 ft 7,700 ft 97.3% 68.8%
A350-900(ULR) 8,500 ft 6,500 ft 5,200 ft 76.4% 61.2%
A380-800 9,800 ft 10,500 ft 7,800 ft 107.1% 79.6%
717-200(HGW) 5,800 ft 8,300 ft 5,800 ft 143.1% 100.0%
737-700 6,200 ft 6,300 ft 4,800 ft 101.6% 77.4%
737-800 6,900 ft 7,300 ft 6,300 ft 105.8% 91.3%
737-900 9,100 ft 7,400 ft 6,900 ft 81.3% 75.8%
747-200 10,900 ft 16,100 ft 11,100 ft 147.7% 101.8%
747-400 10,700 ft 13,800 ft 9,200 ft 129.0% 86.0%
747-8 10,200 ft 17,400 ft 12,300 ft 170.6% 120.6%
757-200 6,300 ft 6,600 ft 4,600 ft 104.8% 73.0%
767-300(ER) 8,200 ft 8,100 ft 6,100 ft 98.8% 74.3%
777-200(ER) 11,100 ft 8,300 ft 7,000 ft 74.8% 63.1%
777-200(LR) 9,200 ft 8,600 ft 7,100 ft 93.5% 77.2%
777-300(ER) 10,000 ft 7,800 ft 6,500 ft 78.0% 65.0%
777-200(F) 9,300 ft 9,900 ft 8,000 ft 106.5% 86.0%
787-8 8,500 ft 8,600 ft 6,900 ft 101.2% 81.2%
787-9 9,300 ft 10,700 ft 8,300 ft 115.1% 89.2%
787-10 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%
CRJ-200(LR) 6,300 ft 6,000 ft 4,500 ft 95.2% 71.4%
CRJ-700 5,300 ft 5,300 ft 4,100 ft 100.0% 77.4%
CRJ-900 5,800 ft 6,500 ft 4,600 ft 112.1% 79.3%
CRJ-1000 6,700 ft 7,300 ft 4,900 ft 109.0% 73.1%
Dash 8-Q400 4,700 ft 3,600 ft 2,500 ft 76.6% 53.2%
E-175(LR) 7,400 ft 4,800 ft 4,100 ft 64.9% 55.4%
E-190(LR) 6,900 ft 5,100 ft 4,200 ft 73.9% 60.9%
DC-10-30 10,500 ft 10,300 ft 8,700 ft 98.1% 82.9%
DC-10-30(F) 10,500 ft 10,300 ft 8,700 ft 98.1% 82.9%
MD-11(ER) 10,800 ft 9,400 ft 8,800 ft 87.0% 81.5%
MD-11(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
A220-300 3,600 nm 2,920 nm 81.1%
A318-100 3,100 nm 2,980 nm 96.1%
A319-100 3,700 nm 3,500 nm 94.6%
A320-200 3,300 nm 3,350 nm 101.5%
A321-200 3,200 nm 4,540 nm 141.9%
A330-200(F) 4,000 nm 4,370 nm 109.3%
A330-300 6,300 nm 6,990 nm 111.0%
A330-900 7,200 nm 7,410 nm 102.9%
A340-600 7,800 nm 6,880 nm 88.2%
A350-900(ULR) 9,700 nm 8,910 nm 91.9%
A380-800 8,000 nm 8,730 nm 109.1%
717-200(HGW) 2,000 nm 1,670 nm 83.5%
737-700 3,000 nm 4,420 nm 147.3%
737-800 2,900 nm 3,960 nm 136.6%
737-900 2,900 nm 3,920 nm 135.2%
747-200 6,500 nm 8,280 nm 127.4%
747-400 7,300 nm 7,280 nm 99.7%
747-8 7,700 nm 8,530 nm 110.8%
757-200 3,900 nm 4,300 nm 110.3%
767-300(ER) 6,000 nm 11,040 nm 184.0%
777-200(ER) 7,000 nm 9,910 nm 141.6%
777-200(LR) 8,500 nm 13,570 nm 159.6%
777-300(ER) 7300 nm 10,270 nm 140.7%
777-200(F) 5,000 nm 6,050 nm 121.0%
787-8 7,300 nm 7,350 nm 100.7%
787-9 7,600 nm 8,280 nm 108.9%
787-10 6,400 nm 6,620 nm 103.4%
Challenger 350 3,200 nm 3,020 nm 94.3%
CRJ-200(LR) 1,700 nm 1,980 nm 116.4%
CRJ-700 1,400 nm 1,500 nm 107.1%
CRJ-900 1,500 nm 1,810 nm 120.7%
CRJ-1000 1,600 nm 2,290 nm 143.1%
Dash 8-Q400 1,100 nm 1,790 nm 162.7%
E-175(LR) 2,100 nm 2,420 nm 115.2%
E-190(LR) 2,300 nm 2,970 nm 129.1%
DC-10-30 5,200 nm 8,450 nm 162.5%
DC-10-30(F) 4,100 nm 7,570 nm 184.6%
MD-11(ER) 6,700 nm 9,760 nm 145.7%
MD-11(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 A321-200, 767-300(ER), 777-200(ER), 777-200(LR), 777-300(ER), CRJ-1000, Dash 8-Q400, DC-10-30, DC-10-30(F), MD-11(ER), and MD-11(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
747-200 9.6s @ 193 mph 747-400 9.7s @ 190 mph
717-200(HGW) 9.8s @ 184 mph 992 Turbo S 9.9s @ 138 mph
767-300(ER) 10.0 @ 193 mph A340-600 10.1s @ 183 mph
757-200 10.2s @ 182 mph 777-200(F) 10.2s @ 179 mph
777-200(LR) 10.2s @ 178 mph 787-8 10.2s @ 176 mph
747-8 10.2s @ 171 mph 777-300(ER) 10.3s @ 173 mph
777-200(ER) 10.8s @ 172 mph 787-9 10.8s @ 171 mph
787-10 10.8s @ 170 mph A380-800 10.8s @ 166 mph
C7 Corvette ZR1 10.8s @ 135 mph A321-200 10.9s @ 170 mph
MD-11(ER) 10.9s @ 168 mph MD-11(F) 10.9s @ 168 mph
737-900(ER) 10.9s @ 168 mph DC-10-30 11.0s @ 168 mph
DC-10-30(F) 11.0s @ 168 mph 737-800 11.1s @ 165 mph
737-700 11.1s @ 164 mph G82 M4 CSL 11.1s @ 131 mph
A220-300 11.2s @ 156 mph CRJ-900 11.4s @ 160 mph
A350-900(ULR) 11.4s @ 158 mph CRJ-700 11.5s @ 158 mph
Challenger 350 11.6s @ 168 mph CRJ-1000 11.6s @ 157 mph
Model 3 Performance 11.6s @ 115 mph E-175 11.8s @ 161 mph
E-190 11.9s @ 161 mph A330-200(F) 11.9s @ 153 mph
A320-200 12.0s @ 158 mph CRJ-200 12.0s @ 150 mph
Dash 8-Q400 12.0s @ 148 mph Mustang Dark Horse 12.0s @ 116 mph
A319-100 12.1s @ 155 mph A318-100 12.1s @ 153 mph
A330-900 12.7s @ 137 mph A330-300 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.

image

132 Likes

interesting

3 Likes

Cool data.

2 Likes

I agreement.

1 Like

DC-10 casually flying for over 90 hours…

18 Likes

This was…a special case lol

2 Likes

Man I respect you for all the time you’ve put into these calculations, well done !

Do you remember Citation X range in Infinite Flight ?it was crazy too long hehe.

It’s hard to act like real life in a simulator by the way, there are hundred of parameters, like taking off runways being not really flat for example (small details). The fact that airspeed fluctuates more than what we can set in IF etc…

10 Likes

I’m beginning to think this is being done on purpose. Especially considering new aircraft have a more unrealistic range and power, which they should be getting more realistic. It makes me think that devs have coded the aircraft to be more “forgiving” on players. Just a thought.

Or maybe i’m onto absolutely nothing.

6 Likes

Interesting and definitely in agreement - I’ve often felt like I don’t use as much runway as I should and with especially the 777, not use as much fuel as I should.

11 Likes

Yeah, it was like 15 hours, and yeah of course IF can’t be fully realistic but I didn’t realize how much of a difference it was.

THIS! Especially with the 777s. Although I think they probably know that people like to fly their 777s higher than most efficient, so they compensate based on that. But maybe I’m giving them too much credit, not sure if they pay attention to this stuff.

6 Likes

Damn you actually did this super acutely. The MD-11 numbers are 100% accurate. I’m quite impressed because typically people get them wrong.
great job mate!

4 Likes

You have earned Topgottem’s seal of approval.

2 Likes

I had noticed that IF fuel burns in cruise (when flying at the most optimal flight level) are lower than irl. This could be part of the reason for the extended range.

5 Likes

I’ve also noticed this. When I put together my calculator a lot of the altitudes really surprised me.

2 Likes

Interesting, and a lot of work done!

As a side note, I’d like to correct one little thing : Airbuses should not takeoff in Conf 1, but only conf 1+F, 2 or 3.

It wont change much here anyway!

3 Likes

Yea I have noticed this too. The MD-11 should burn around 16k-18k lbs of fuel/hour, but in IF it burns about 13k lbs fuel/hour. However you use about 2x the fuel for takeoff & climb as you do for one hour of cruise in IF. Thats about accurate and the same as IRL.

2 Likes

Interesting, I didn’t know that. But regardless yeah most of them still take off faster with flaps 1 (which I understand is just slats?) than they do IRL with full config.

3 Likes

Actually that brings a good point. The MD-11 uses flaps 28 & 25 normally for heavy loads, but 15 is used for light loads and sometimes dial a flap 21

2 Likes

One of the most interesting features of the MDs, shame it’s not in IF.

6 Likes

Fr I really wish it was, irl it allows you to control slats and flaps separately

3 Likes