I agree it should closely match the real world values, of course.
But still, I’m not getting anything even close to what you are saying. You say at “cruising altitude at near max speed” you get arround 3600km of range?
Yesterday I did a flight of ~3200km. At FL400 and mach 0.7 for most of the time, and I had to add fuel 3 times (so +75% in total) so I wouldn’t run out. I had ~0.8T left at the end. Headwind of ~75kts on average, but still. I’m not getting anywhere near your performance numbers. Pilot error?
I don’t think you can do much wrong in that plane. I don’t have the exact numbers any more, but I started with a full tank and had around 40% left after between 900 and 1000nm air distance (ground distance was much lower, I had a constant 100kn headwind). Mach .7 would count as high speed, I think, so the expected range is already lower. Your headwind also doesn’t help, so to get 3200km under that conditions would be difficult. Do you know what fuel flow you had in cruise? The 3600km from my calculations are only when flying solely at cruise altitude, without climb and descent taken into account and neglecting wind influence. Also I didn’t respect fuel reserves, so in reality it would be lower. But according to my calculations you should have reached your destination with just a bit over a full tank (105%) instead of the 145% (0.8t should be around 30%) you needed.
In another thread we had a real PC24 pilot said 0.70 is their long range cruise, if you need to go sower than that you might as well plan a fuel stop. I usually cruise at 0.72
Ok, good to know. Mach .7 should be around 400kn at that altitude while the first post specifies 360kn as long range and 440kn as high speed, and the screenshot says up to 375 as long range.
Using the template below will greatly help the team reproduce the issue and ease the process of fixing it. Before posting, search for an existing report. If you are not sure it’s a bug, please first report in User Support Hub.
3 tags are required - add them in the tag section next to the title above:
One for aircraft (start typing in your aircraft name in the tag section and pick correct option)
Feel free to delete this quote section after adding your appropriate tags.
ISSUE DESCRIPTION
Description of the issue:
The Pilatus PC-24 continues to burn double the amount of fuel that it should. Limiting its distance. The display on the primary central MFD shows only the burn on the left engine as well. This was an existing bug in SU1. And it exists in SU2.
If applicable, which aircraft is experiencing this issue:
Pilatus PC-24
[PC Only] Did you remove all your community mods/add-ons? If yes, are you still experiencing the issue?
No community add ins
FREQUENCY OF ISSUE
How often does this occur for you (Example: Just once, every time on sim load, intermittently)?
Every time.
REPRODUCTION STEPS
Please list clear steps you took in order to help our test team reproduce the same issue:
Fly any mission or free flight in Pilatus PC-24
Fuel burn great than it should be by x2
Reporting incorrect fuel burn on central MFD
YOUR SETTINGS
If the issue still occurs with no mods and add-ons, please continue to report your issue. If not, please move this post to the User Support Hub.
What peripherals are you using, if relevant:
Thrustmaster T1600
[PC Only] Are you using Developer Mode or have you made any changes to it?
No
[PC, MSFS 2020 Only] Are you using DX11 or DX12?
DX12 MSFS 2024
[PC Only] What GPU (Graphics Card) do you use?
Nvidia 4070 Super
[PC Only] What other relevant PC specs can you share?
intel 13700KF
I got the same issue fuel consumption is very high in a 900 NM flight leg with atleast 3000 lbs of fuel i landed with 100 lbs of fuel not even enough to taxi. the range of this bird is 2000 with 6 passenger.
[Moderator edit: please do not ping the Community Managers] do we have an update on getting this logged as a bug yet? tried contacting Carenado with no response so probably needs to be passed onto them via MS or Asobo.
We have let the team know this issue is still being experienced in SU3. We will update the tag accordingly once they turn it into a bug. Apologies for the wait.
pilatus pc24 has extremely high fuel consumption
specifics: I spent 3550lb on 700nm of the route. The flight took place at an altitude of 350 the engines were not boosted, and it operated at 90% power throughout the flight.
Do you have the same issue if you follow the OP’s steps to reproduce it?
• Yes.
Provide extra information to complete the original description of the issue:
• The fuel flow indicator on the lower MFD mirrors the fuel flow of the left engine (No. 1) only. Meanwhile, the right engine (No. 2) consumes the same amount of fuel, so the actual fuel flow is around double of what the lower MFD shows. This is incorrect, since the two engines should consume that amount of fuel together, not each. Right now, the aircraft consumes twice as much fuel as would be realistic, therefore cutting the range and endurance in half, which makes flights and some Career missions impossible to complete.
If relevant, provide additional screenshots/video:
October 2025. Still not fixed. Was just in a career mode flight. Refueled during flight using hotkey and still ran out of fuel before getting to destination.
O dear. Spent all my money on this aircraft, only to find it is below par.
Last I flew it I was getting about 2200 pph at 100% N1 at FL290 (if I’m remembering it correctly), which is close to the chart in the article, but definitely high. But I didn’t write it down, so it may have been right on. It was definitely a lot higher at 15000 and ATC sent me down there way too soon, which gobbled up my fuel - but we don’t really have any data on lower altitudes. It’s conceivable we’re all just flying too low and fast (and ATC makes that worse). And, of course, the fuel flow/altitude curve could be off just enough to bork up the total range with the cruise numbers still being fairly close.
