Incorrect fuel flow numbers

[Swamp_Fox]

According to the NATOPS, the fuel flow indicator "Displays main engine fuel flow only (afterburner fuel flow is not displayed). Range is 300 to 15,000 pounds per hour with 100 pounds per hour increments. The tens and units positions have fixed zeros. When fuel flow is less than 350 PPH, zero is displayed."

 

Here it is at mil,

 

 

and here it is at max.

 

 

Now, unless the engine alone consumes 180% more fuel in mil power than max power... I suspect that the fuel flow indicator is counting both. It's also listing fuel flow as 25,000 lbs per hour on the EMI, which is 10,000 lbs higher than the EMI is supposed to be able to count.

[Swamp_Fox]

Also, while I'm at it, "During high g maneuvers when moving the throttle to idle, the flight idle stop may retract and allow selection of ground idle."

 

This affects about 0% of my ability to enjoy the Hornet, but it'd still be cool if it were modeled.

[Tholozor]

According to the NATOPS, the fuel flow indicator "Displays main engine fuel flow only (afterburner fuel flow is not displayed). Range is 300 to 15,000 pounds per hour with 100 pounds per hour increments. The tens and units positions have fixed zeros. When fuel flow is less than 350 PPH, zero is displayed."

 

This is only correct for the Engine Monitor Indicator on F/A-18A/B models.

 

Just below that is the description for the IFEI on C/D models, which the display range is 300 to 199,900 PPH. When fuel flow is less than 320 PPH, zero is displayed.

[Swamp_Fox]

Yeah that was my bad, but it still says it doesn't display afterburner fuel flow, and an 180% increase in non-afterburner fuel flow from mil to max seems stupidly high.

[Tholozor]

Well, judging by your HUD repeater on the left DDI, you're on the ground, where afterburners are going to consume a lot more fuel (plus you're not moving, so you're not taking in any ram air). 50,000 PPH doesn't seem all that unreasonable for the Hornet (especially with 2 engines, the F-16 can burn over 60,000 PPH on just the one).

 

Granted I don't have the NFM-210 performance chart for the GE-402 engine, but looking at the NFM-200 for the GE-400 (and making ad hoc estimations), that fuel flow looks pretty standard. I might be wrong though.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Tholozor

[Swamp_Fox]

Yeah, I know the afterburners consume a lot more fuel. The issue is that the NATOPS specifically say that the fuel flow indicator doesn't include fuel flow to the burners, only to the main engine. The fuel flow is showing the real number; the bug is that it's not supposed to.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Swamp_Fox

[Tholozor]

Gotcha, I see the problem. Absolute fuel flow rate should only be visible on the ENG page on the DDI.