I had in Beta 15 and have now increased fuel consumption compared to Simbrief calculated using the latest official profile. To match actual consumption I have to add 18% to the total fuel.
It’s actually less than 4% only comparing to Fenix CFM.
For the same flight Fenix profile is exact. Well plus/minus 1%.
What are your observations?
1 Like
I’ve only paid close attention to fuel consumption on one flight and that was during beta. I find that generally it is close enough to Simbrief prediction so I haven’t worried about it since.
Here’s the data from that one flight that I posted at the time:
FUEL BURN MMTC-MMCC Alternate MMMY RNAV Approach
Although this was a short hop of just over an hour I monitored the fuel burn during the flight.
Simbrief was giving Trip 1818 kg, Taxi 230 kg for a total Gate to Landing of 2048 kg
Flight actual burn Gate to Landing was 2150 kg so 102 kg more than Simbrief’s Predicted Burn (PBRN) or 108%.
I checked the Actual Burn (ABRN) at each Waypoint and compared with the PBRN. Here are some key points:
- At ToC ABRN was 102% of PBRN
- At CU517 (Closest WP to ToD as ToD wasn’t where predicted) ABRN was 101% of PBRN
- At RIBAD (Start of approach base leg) ABRN and PBRN were the same. 1900 kg.
- At Landing ABRN was 2150 kg versus PBRN of 2048 kg. 108%
From these numbers fuel burn from take off to approach was very close to predicted. From there to landing the additional 102 kg was burnt. I don’t recall a level off so not sure why this would be but insignificant overall.
1 Like
Interesting.
Had a look over a flight now. LFMN/LFPG.
Fuel planned on Simbrief: 2.7t.
Fuel actually burnt: 3.3t.
The difference is 22%.
(yes I made sure everything was properly done)
1 Like
Are you using the Ini A320N Simbrief profile that was recently released? I personally have not had the chance to try it.
Has anyone else noticed that fuel consumption doesn’t increase when you increase the sim rate? Is that an msfs or a320v2 thing?
I have the same issue with the A320v2 and the Inibuilds A300 on the fuel consumption doesn’t increase at higher sim rates.
Ah I see the issue has been raised previously… https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/a320-v2-fuel-consumption-inaccurate-at-simrate-1x/636142/2
I also noticed that the a320v2 has trouble following flight paths under increased simrate… like it will turn at a waypoint and not level out in time and then have to over compensate to turn back, again missing the flght path. back and forth. is that also like in the 300?
I find the A300 does follow the flight plan turns without any issue at 4x sim rate.
The question isn’t addressed to me I believe but as far as I’m concerned yes this is the profile I use (of course).
Thats standard on INI planes. I believe the A310 is the same.
We are NOT discussing increased sim rate and everything connected here at all! You have another thread to talk about it.
What could be more recent and official than this one? 
Looks like this guy has too much drag. Thus very slow acceleration on takeoff and increased fuel burn.
But… The same time it’s pretty slicky on descent 
Well, I have the same issue. I sed the real OFP (I mean ofc there would be a discrepancy) but I also have a difference of around 1 ton/14% ish between calculated and actual burn.
With the CEO variant of another developer I dont have that problem or rather the difference is way less
Hi,
Inibuilds said that the profile was created with SU14 and needs looking at & updating.
They said they would look in a week or two so hopefully we should get an updated profile
Neil.