At 45000ft and 95% N1, I am showing 960 pph, but at 360 KTAS. (10% too slow)
At 100% N1, I’m showing 416 KTAS, but with a fuel flow of 1240 pph. (5% faster, but 30% higher fuel flow)
At 397 KTAS, I’m at 97.5% N1, and a fuel flow of 1100 pph. (17% higher fuel flow)
So no matter which way you slice it, the fuel burn is probably 10-20% above spec, if not more.
I believe the original focus of this bug report is that the displayed fuel flow, even if slightly off the real life numbers, is not the sum of the two engines but is reported as for only one, so the actual fuel flow in MSFS 2024’s PC-24 is actually the double of the reported fuel flow.
Indeed, but there have been a few comments suggesting that the actual consumption is double what it should be - which isn’t the case, though it does appear to be high. Just sharing the data.
Just to make it clear, what you are saying here is that the displayed fuel consumption per engine is close to real-life, it’s just the combined consumption that is displayed in the lower center MFD that is wrong?
Correct. The per engine consumption is close - still looks high compared to real life, but only by about 10-15%. Possibly also a hair slow, and career mode is overly optimistic about it’s range with a full load.
The MDF, however, has forgotten about Engine #2, lulling us into a false sense of security until we’re halfway to somewhere running on fumes.