No the fuel displayed is assuming you will continue with the same profile. Wait until cruise before determining how much fuel is left. Once there cruise at max .85 and ensure you are at an appropriate altitude
Recommend you have a look here:
You weren’t real clear with how you figured out your fuel calculations, which aircraft you’ve tried, what the winds aloft conditions were and what altitudes you are trying to work with. You can end up burning a lot of fuel in your climb out from your destination so you’d want to have a good plan for climb to cruise. Larger commercial aircraft shouldn’t be climbing above 30,000-33,000 early on in the flight. As you burn the fuel off you can step climb to increase altitude and decrease fuel burn.
What kind of plane do you use? Some models aren’t very accurate due to bad programming. For example, on the 747-8, I usually take off at max fuel to fly on my usual route from KJFK to OTHH, on the weight and fuel menu it estimates that my fuel will have a range of way over 20 hours, but in reality I only have around one hour of fuel left by the time I reach OTHH (which is around an 11 hour flight, depending on the wind)
If you see the comments above, this is likely due to your flight profile. During your initial climb you may be burning too much fuel because of a steep ascent and then you may be cruising to high an altitude which induces high fuel flows and your cruise speed may be a bit off. You wouldn’t want 20 hours of fuel for an 11 hour flight anyway.
Routinely arrive at the gate within a few hundred pounds of the planned amount of fuel I should have on board. And this is across a wide variety of aircraft. I haven’t found anything broken yet aside from one aircraft that taxis around with magic as it doesn’t consume fuel at low power. They’re aware of that one though. Plan properly and fly the plan. See the link Chris posted above.
It always happen with the 747’s
It’s no secret that the 747s love to guzzle fuel but there are some things you can do to maximize efficiency. Lucky for us, this community has real world pilots, controllers and an all around collaboration of knowledgeable simulator pilots. 👇 See 👇
What you are saying does make a lot of sense, but for some reason, I haven’t been able to apply it to the 747, despite it applying very well to other aircraft including the 787 and the A380. When flying any jet for a long haul, I usually start my cruise at FL300 and M 0.78 (or M 0.75 if it’s really heavy) and very very slowly work my way to FL380 and M 0.85 throughout the flight while monitoring the N1 and fuel consumption to make sure I am not going overboard. This does work with most planes in IF, and I am able to get a fuel consumption even lower than what was calculated most of the time, and I usually only provide my plane with enough fuel to last it an extra hour (giving 13 hours of fuel for a 12 hour flight), but this does NOT work with the 747, even though it works with the 777, 787 and the a380. I fly from American airports to Qatar almost once every two days, and I have been doing that for months (years if you include other simulators like X-plane), and I can assure you, there is something wrong with the way the 747-8 is programmed in IF. I have been doing multiple experiments on it for 3 weeks, and it doesn’t seem to fly as far as it should, even though it is calculated to go much further. When flying the 787 and the A380 in exactly the same way, the fuel lasts as calculated and the range exceeds the calculations. Also, I have used the same fuel amounts on the 747 in both IF and X-Plane and flew them both exactly in the same way, using the same weather (I didn’t fly online for that reason) and the same weight, and I can assure you that the results were very different, and this difference between simulators isn’t as huge when I tried the same thing on the 737, 787, A320 and A380, which shows that the problem in this difference comes from the plane itself, and not that the simulators are different (I made sure to elimate any differences due to simulator discrepencies by testing different planes). So I do understand the effect of flight profile on fuel consumption, and I wouldn’t have commented on this post if I wasn’t sure that my flight profile isn’t the problem, and I figured maybe TeamasAces has the same problem. I am just happy someone brought this up because it has been bugging me for a while. There are also other issues with the 747-8 in IF that makes me feel that the plane hasn’t been as meticulously programmed as other long-haul aircraft on IF, the same thing goes for the A340, but I’ll leave that for a different post.
It just really bewilders me that even though in real life the 747-8 has a much longer range than the 787-8 (both at MTOW), I can easily fly from KLAX to OTHH using a 787 in IF while when I fly from KJFK to OTHH using the 747 (which is much shorter than the KLAX route BTW), I have to constantly look at the fuel remaining to make sure I don’t have to land the plane somewhere to refuel.
PS. I give the 747 20 hours of fuel because that’s the only where it will go anywhere across the globe, I only had to do this on another plane once, when I was actually trying to go over 20 hours to break a personal record, and oh boy did it go (thanks to the A380!). If only the IF 747 was as good the real 747, it would have been able to do the same.
Mach .75/.78 is a bit slow for the 747.
Have a look at the speed and alt charts:
I understand what you are trying to say Chris, but there is a difference between an issue in the way we fly the plane and an issue in the plane itself. I am not saying I am a 50-year-old pilot with 20,000 hours of flight experience, I do have my flaws and do have a lot to learn, but if there was a massive issue in the way I fly planes, it would have shown in other planes as well, not just the 747 in just one simulator. But in all my 11 years of flying, this is the first time I encounter such a fuel issue, and it so far applied to one specific plane. I understand that we as simulator pilots make a lot of mistakes when flying, but gaming developers make mistakes too, and there is no shame in that, there is also no shame in listening to the players and correcting the code behind the dynamics of the plane. Making a simulator is really hard and it is normal for many things to go wrong. You’ve sent me speed charts, but throughout the last decade I have seen tens of speed charts and am aware of them, I know what you’re trying to tell me, but this isn’t the issue.
Can you instead explain why is this problem only found on the 747 in IF? If the problem is from how I fly the plane, why don’t I have the same problem on other planes in IF, even the mightier a380 or the smaller 787? Why aren’t I having the same problems with the 747 in other simulators?
Oh also, the 0.75 is a general statement, it depends on the plane and situation, but I sometimes need to go as low as 0.75 in some models, especially on X-plane, for the 747 at MTOW I usually start at 0.80 or 0.81, the reason I don’t go higher is that then it will go beyond 100% N1.
The last rework of the 747 was back in 2016 I believe. Could some things be tweaked, improved and reworked? Not out of the realm of possibilities… I’m not downplaying that at all nor am I discrediting your experience so I apologize. I just tried to share some helpful things passed along from fellow members of the community. I wouldn’t expect the 747 to be a flagship piece at this moment in time since a newer higher efficiency aircraft like the 787 is in this sim but for what it is worth a few of the aforementioned pointers above helped simulator pilots like myself get the most out of the aircraft and Infinite Flight.
No actually I really admire your feedback, sorry if my tone sounds bad, my bad writing is the reason I love flying more than desk jobs! This discussion has encouraged me to look more into it again. I will use your charts to see if there’s something I can do to further modify my flying. I will fly from KJFK to OTHH tonight with new tweaks and I will publish everything here, that will raise some good discussion, and also a good way for me to improve my flying further. Stick around and hopefully we can get to the bottom of this and @TeamasAces will have something to thank us for ;)
Just remember two very important things that many seem to miss:
The “estimated” flight time in the Weights & Balance settings are extremely rough. Almost to the point I sometimes believe it should be removed, in my personal opinion. It doesn’t take weights or winds into consideration and can be very misgiving.
This is more a common issue for newer users; but the “Fuel remaining” option in the status bar is based on current fuel consumption. Hence it will show a significantly lower flight time remaining during climb, as well as initial cruise during longer flights as the fuel consumption will decrease as you burn fuel and therefore lose weight.
I assume @badzer is already aware of this, but thought it might worth throwing out there as it’s brought up from time to time.
I’ll add this to my list of test flights. Been a very long time since I flew a 747 in IF. See if my numbers are still right. Which model 747 is in question? All of them seem to have this issue or just a specific one?
747s work fine. As you burn more fuel, your time in the air will increase as you will be lighter.
The fuel consumption model of the 747-8 was set by a real-life pilot. That being said, the estimated endurance shown in the fuel menu is not always accurate as the fuel flow encountered in flight largely depends on the way you fly.
For the 747-8, I would advise starting the flight at roughly FL300/ .85M for long hauls and gradually climb to higher levels. If you fly in a proper manner, the fuel flow will be realistic.
There. Planned a flight for during work from OMDB to KJFK. FL320 /.85M. I can’t step climb but still says I’ll make it without using any contingency, alternate, or final reserve fuel. Flight departs in about 6 hours. Goodnight!
Everything you need to know has been discussed and shared. (Step climb, plan for more fuel, plan a route with favorable winds, etc.)
It’s unlikely that there are issues with the fuel burns. If you’re burning through a 747-8 tanks in an hour, and they’re topped off then we can reopen this. I can say that that’s not the case and I don’t see any issues with the fuel burns we have in the Infinite Flight fleet.