fuel flow / over-efficiency.

[Tom JP]

I apologise if this has being mentioned already, but a good search didn't find anything relevant.

It's good that aircraft range data is now being updated (generally increased) to allow either ferry flights or longer range flights without a full payload, but would it be possible to start issuing mandatory fuel flow scaler figures, starting with the worst 'over-efficient' offenders (Posky 777s, for example), to level the playing field for the pilots using more realistic aircraft models? This has already happened with the An124 & 225. Posky 777s are currently extremely profitable when compared to, say, a PMDG 747. These new extra-range figures will allow over-efficient planes to fly even further with a full payload and be even more profitable.

I appreciate that calculating realistic fuel flow scalers for every plane would be an endless task, but targeting a few of the worst offenders at least would be an improvement.

I admit to using the Posky 777 myself, but I also use more realistic types and the difference is obvious.

[CAPFlyer]

The profitability has nothing to do with the fuel flow scalar or their realism. The POSKY 777's fuel burn is comparable to that of the real aircraft. I've done several tests and the fuel burns (and loaded fuel) for people flying the POSKY 777 are within 5% of the Boeing figures, about the same as with the PMDG 747-400. The difference is in how the airplanes are flown. I don't see why anyone should be spending time "fixing" something that isn't broke. Each plane has it's "sweet spot" and I've found that I can make as much or more with a 747-200F as I can with a 777-F if I put it on the right route.