Okay, let me make this simple, here’s an example, Air Canada has a 767-300ER and on the simulator, it is put as an 767-300, when we get fuel consumption the Air Canada 767-300ER will only have a range of the 767-300. You see the problem.
Im not getting to what your saying
But we may not even get fuel burn so… yeah. But I see your point like the United 737-800/900 is supposed to be the 737-800/900ER but it has more range that’s all.
They will change it (probably)
If they don’t, then too bad I guess
Basically 767-300ER and 767-300 are not the same thing
I know it not the same but with the sim thing. Its incorrect or what?
There not the same thing, one has larger range.
That’s what I said
Oops I misread.
So maybe you should check all of that before your flight. This is a simulator. Set the parameters appropriately.
Obviously, but what if the fuel is set to the aircraft.
@tranquil_skyflyer… What?..Sorry kiddo, I just don’t get it. Hypotheticals are like (delegated) holes, everybody has at least one! Splain yourself? Max Sends
Ok then why would a 767-300ER be set to a 767-300?
Because in IF it says 767-300, not ER…
The plane is listed under the 767-300
Then it is using the 767-300 model. Not ER model.
Wouldn’t these problems be fixed with like a rework of the 767 or other aircraft with the problem so that the correct fueling capabilities and range is used, the devs will come with a fix knowing how great they are
I think what will end up happening is each aircraft with fuel burn will end up getting its own SFC number which will vary with throttle, drag, speed. Initially it will likely be a one size fits all proposal solely based on fuel on board vs load but going further will be fitted to individual aircraft possibly using multipliers.
Maybe this is all off base, but that’s why I’m not a dev. 😅
Fuel burn was confirmed.
No, because, for example, Air Canada doesn’t have 767-300, or LAN doesn’t have 767-300, etc.