But it’s clearly not, by far. The aircraft kind of look similar (in that way, the BN2 is sort of a miniature Short 360), but that’s not particularly relevant to fuel burn or general aircraft performance.
First, whatever base should be a piston-powered aircraft, not a turboprop (just like you shouldn’t use a jet as a base for a turboprop aircraft, for example).
Then it should be in the same weight range-- the Short 360 is 4 times heavier, so in that way it’s like using a 747 as a base for e.g. a 737 and expecting the fuel burns to be similar.
A good starting point would be to look at the “Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era” on the Wikipedia page for the BN2:
The Aero Commander looks most similar in terms of specifications, although sadly there’s no such base on Simbrief either.
After taking a look at the list, as far as I can tell the closest matches would be:
https://www.simbrief.com/home/?page=aircraft&sort=code#aclist
- Cessna 404 Titan
- Beechcraft Duke
Both use turbocharged piston engines instead of naturally aspirated and the Duke is pressurized so they’re not close close but better than the Short as a base.
Given that the Simbrief data for the C404 is of unknown origin, I would pick the Duke (BE60). Then of course you need to adjust at least:
- weights and fuel capacity
- service ceiling (13 thousand feet instead of 30 thousand)
Eventually (this can only come through testing/trial and error), you may find you need to set an altitude offset as the Duke’s climb performance is probably a fair bit higher than the BN2’s, and one you become familiar with the aircraft’s fuel burn you’ll be able to find a fuel factor that gives you better fuel predictions for the BN2.
Regards,
Tim
Edit: forgot to highlight the service ceiling, bottom right, next to the cruise level offset.