I've also noticed that the thing seemed to have an excessive range, but I never tried to fly around the world in it!  I was also able to fly the default Lear 45 from Bermuda to Malta.  The generic turbofan engine model that MS uses seems to be too fuel-efficient to me.  It also seems the same even in CFS3.

I don't know of any specific patches, but a Quik & EZ thing you might try is open the aircraft/747_400/aircraft.cfg file with Notepad, find the "fuel_flow_scalar= 1.000" field, and change it to read "fuel_flow_scalar= 2.5", since 20k/8k = 2.5.  This will make the aircraft burn 2.5 times the amount of fuel as the MS flight model says it should.

I think it is excessive that the MS engine model is off on fuel burn by a factor of 2.5.  How could it be so far off?  It's not like we're trying to model some low-bypass military turbofan, this is exactly the sort of engine the sim should model quite well!

What settings would that be?  I was doing Mach .85 at 35,000 in the 747-400 and burning only 7,200 # per hour.

I didn't see any reference to what #/NM numbers are typical for the 747 when I did a search on the web.  However, I did see #/hr figures which were close to what you said in your first post, 20,000 #/hr.  Basically, I think you were right in your first post.

I don't think a 747 would ever cruise at Mach .9 and 20k feet.  Fuel economy is vital for airlines.  I don't think a 747 would every cruise at Mach .9 at any altitude.

And one more thing, there is absolutely no way a 747 could fly around the world without refueling (it took Rutan's Voyager to do that), so I think the fact that you did so pretty much clinches that the fuel economy of the plane is far too high in FS2002.

Please forgive my ignorance, but it seemed to me that the Deault 747 was not a very good aircraft.

If I use the numbers for instance from the "Create a Flight" utility within FS 2K2, it is not very cost effective to send the aircraft out of the US.

Fuel capacity, time in flight, fuel needed for flight (without the astro-science mathmatics, all seem to indicate that using a Triple Seven 200 to Europe from Boston (as my example) is actually more cost efficient than using the Jumbo Jet.

Please don't get me wrong here I happen to like the Jumbo, but as a manager of a VA I have a problem with scheduling the trans pacific or trans atlantic flights with her.

I am always open for discussion, if I'm wrong, please show me the error of my ways