With a 55 cost index in the 900, I'll climb over 300 knots. Index, which will have my climb speeds in the lower to mid 290's knots range. On some long legs across the Pacific, but I wanted to move along fairly quick, and fuel isīut as a comparison, when I'm playing Southwest buoy, I usually run about a 36 cost Last from Toncontin, and I'll be back in Houston. I've been flying around the world in my 737-900 BBJ3. Even with a real lowĬost index, the cruise speed will still usually be around mach. The bigger change will be the IAS for climb and descent. I believe I set it at about 36, which is fairly efficient, but it could be set lower.īut all that will do is lower the climb and descent IAS, and slightly lower the cruise I did forget about stating the cost index though. For the load, the numbers I gave are for economy cruise, Maybe the figures I gave from the NGX will give him an idea what he should beīe burning for that route. The actual range you will arrive at will depend on how efficient your flight profile is.DonYep. From my notes, Clear weather, JFK to LAX and back, F元50, Mach 0.78 gave me a 2 way ave of ~3000nm. I generally use TSFC because it's easier to adjust, by the percentage of FSX range vs RW range, during testing.Ī few years back, I tackled the 738 and arrived at ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.370 vs the default 0.600.
#Level d fsx acceleration cost index how to
There are two schools of thought on how to correct it.Ĭhange the TSFC(Thrust specific fuel consumption), or, mod the fuel_flow_scalar. Problem is: He's flying the default 737, not an accurately modeled payware.įuel consumption is a known issue with many of the default aircraft. And at those levels, you run mach speed, which the flight I planned at F元50,
#Level d fsx acceleration cost index full
Full tanks with theīTW, I noticed you were flying at F元00. But from HNL to LAX, don't need that much fuel. With that heavy load, I wouldn't be able to load full tanks, as it would put So you should be able to make it, if I could do it with a full wide load, and less thanįull tanks. Like I say, with a tail wind, I would probably end up with If I loaded 38,000 lb's of fuel, which is what I set it at, I would have about 5500 lb'sĪt LAX according to the FMC. But I don't count on that in planning the flight. It's possible I could bump to F元70 later in the flight after I burn off fuel. That's planning at F元50, which isĪbout the optimum altitude for economy cruise with that load. So being west to east with a likely tailwind, I would probably end up burning aīit less than that by the time I got to KLAX from PHNL. That's according to the FMC, which generally is pretty accurate. Which is 95.2% load level, I would need about 32,600 lb of fuel, not counting reserve. With a full load, "162 pax" and 14,400 lb cargo,
I fired up the sim, "PMDG 737NGX", and loaded an Americanħ37-800, which is the default FSX model.