There seems to be a missmatch in how Simbrief predicts fuel for the Toliss A320. I am not stating that the issue resides on Simbrief even though Toliss suspect it does. However I am more interested in knowing how to fix it, or try to narrow down the issue and what cause it.
Right now it seems that Simbrief under estimate fuel by a factor of 2000-2500kg during planning. I have tried several different setting, but worth mentioning this used to be no issues at all as I used the same profile for years. So either this is caused a recent update, or the issue completely resides with Toliss. Reason is, I started notice this and having issues after the latest versions that include the new CFM/IEA engines. Low fuel planning from Simbreif means when Toliss imports the OP, the EFOB is to low for the trip during planning resulting in amber prediction. I then have to add about 2,5tonns of fuel to get a working match. This should not be happening.
Included is two images and a link.
Image show flight plan from Simbreif and two system setup after adding two tons.
Image of airframe used and settings. These are based on Toliss manual
A link to the profile
Please let me know how this may have happen from your persepective and perhaps how to fix it. Not sure if this is bug related or settings related, but as mention, I used the same setting for years without any similar issues.
My suspicion is that Simbeif under estimate the fuel needed to fly the leg, pluss fly the alternate aka EFOB in total.
Additional question: As you see, I used the A3N base type, but all other settings is equal to A320 CEO as I just copied a previous airframe from A320 Neo and replaced the numbers inside. Are there any factors that will “asume” lower fuel consumption? Should I delete this and use A320 base type instead?
I just had a quick look, and I use the A320 - TOLISS - CF56 simbrief variant, and try my best to mach your flightplan, and I am getting block fuel of about 7.4t, or there about
Sure enough.. Complete different, estimated about 2t difference in the base type.. Daim, so easy to do wrong for sure. Just copy the airframe and change some settings and not knowing that the base type is another entity. Thank you for pointing out and testing this, I’ll mark hopefully your last post as solution hoping this is not fixed for good.
Well, yes, the A320neo’s fuel consumption is lower than that of the A320ceo. That was kind of the whole point of the A320neo’s existence in the first place
And yes, obviously the base A20N profile uses fuel tables meant to match the fuel consumption of the IRL A320neo and cannot be used for an A320ceo, at least not without a fuel factor.
