I screwed up the math. The website it was using was using mach speed at sea level.
Mach .82 at 35k is 472 knots. Redid the math and the scalar should be 1.34, about 49 kg/min, 7 hour flight time for 3400nm with full tank, 21270 kg of fuel and default weight.
See ya in the skies.
Same issue(s) here with the neo. What helps as workaround is to disable FLT CTL the SEC1 on the overhead. Climbs and follows flight plan then
Edit seems to be corrected with latest dev mod
Since I think they reintroduced the problem after the last update, where can I find the cfg file to change that value? I looked everywhereā¦
Iām on Steam. it might be different if you got it elsewhere.
In Steam version go to you Microsoft Flight Simulator main folder then Packages > official > Steam > asobo-aircraft-a320-neo > SimObjects > Airplanes > Asobo_A320_NEO > engines.cfg
You are looking for Fuel_Flow_Scalar. The old value is 0.6. Change that to 1.34.
Next is static_thrust. The old value is 26550. Change it to 35000.
That will give you Mach 0.82 with 3400nm range. Fuel flow is about 50kg per min at cruise. probably lose a bit of range if you calculate in reserves and such.
Be warned, If you usually do short flights and have 50% or less fuel, if you use the managed climb and let her just go, sheāll climb like a bat out of hell, but that is the max rated thrust of the engine. Iāll post a link to Safranās website claiming it. Some places like wikipedia says 30-33K, I decided to go with the max rate from Safran. Airlines probably also donāt run the plane at max thrust climb to save on wear and tear but thatās up to how you want to fly.
I found some more info as Iām replying now. EASA has the Leap-1A in a dozen different types from 24K to 32K. Modern Airliners . com has 25K to 27K. Use your own judgement who to believe. if 35K is too much, you think, go wtih 30-32K and adjust the fuel flow so you can get 3400 to 3500nm on the 21,700KG of gas it has.
Sorry if itās confusing and a lot of math. I wish we had an engineer or pilot to tell us what version of the Engine is actually on the planes.
Thanks for pointing me to the engines.cfg file! Iām now flying with 31k static thrust and 1 fuel flow scalar. Plane climbs well and fuel consumption is fine. I think 35k for static thrust might be a little overkill.
Gives you a super big hug. I can fly the A320 again!
Iāve noticed this too. I practically begged it to climb after 20,000 ft. Tried everything! I just hope they fix the A320 soon. In FSX, I had none of these problems. If I set my autopilot to climb at 1800-2500 FPM, it would do it dependably. Not the case here.
Depends on weight and altitude (ISA). Even at medium weight the real A320 will not climb with more than 1000ft/min above FL330.
Ahhhhā¦ so thatās why. Thanks!
Nevertheless, (at least until yesterdays update) the MSFS A320 climb performance is noticeable too low, at least at high altitude.
See my previous post, guys, on how to fix the A320 climb rate.
But now I have done another test and here are the latest fuel_flow_scalar and semi-realistic thrust rating:
1.14 fuel flow and 30K static thrust. That will climb you up to 35K at a decent rate and you can do Mach .82 for 6-7 hours. 50KG of fuel burn per minute. This is with default load and 100% gas tested. have fun, guys.
Thanks, I set your last values and Iām on flight right now, i climbed at 38000 ft at a nice rate of 1600 V/S, no hesitations, just a stable climb. Fuel consumption is definitely increased from the previous 0.6, but I trust you if you say itās kind of semi-realistic. Iāve no idea about the real values though, so Iām fine with that. Thanks again! 
edit: I tried to search some more info and the fuel consumption of a 320 it seems itās around 2200-2400 kg/hourā¦with 1.14 of flow scalar itās around 3000 which is quite a lot in my opinionā¦a value of 0.9 maybe itās a little more accurate, donāt you think?
yeah. if that works for you, go for it. I was basing it on a 3400nm range at mach 0.82. that seemed to be about 50kg a minute. I forget what Mach 0.78 will give, which is the default cruise speed of the plane. thatās still over 7 hours in the air.
a little cross multiplication 50/1.14 = 40/X gives 1.03968. you can round it to 1.04 for the scalar, if you want. that should be about 40kg a minute at .82. thatās 2400KG an hour. thatās 8.8625 hours of flight at cruise (not counting your climb fuel). that seems a long time in the air for a āmid-rangeā jet. But whatever feels best. The other guy is using just 1.0.
The A32N engines have about 27000 lbs static thrust. The fuel consumption at 0.78 cruise is just over 2000 kg/hr. The range with max. fuel comes up to about 4600 nm but only with a payload of 5000 kg. At max. payload the range is only 2500 nm. For information see the Airbus performance comparison:
Thank you, thatās very interesting. anyway, I came up with the fuel scalar for 35KG a minute, 2100 per hour. itās 0.798. you can do the math for any other number you guys want. Looks like .78 mach and .82 mach use the same fuel burn at 35K feet, which I guess I didnāt realize before.
doing the math: .76 fuel scalar is 2000KG/hour
.836 = 2200
.874 = 2300
.912 = 2400
Total fuel is 21,270KG in the A320
use whatever you guys like. Iāll stick to the 2100, I guess.
interesting note: the original 0.6 comes out to 1578KG per hour, a pretty good 13 hours of flight time. okā¦
I havenāt given this one much attention lately but looking at the comments this has not been solved yet?
Weāve got my workaround. Which does work. Thatās all we got for now.
Please, fix this aircraft, please
Man, do you save my life, thank you!!!
Why donāt you guys just use the A320nx mod if you want a more realistic performance? It sounds like you are hacking the A320 to do the impossible.
