once upon a time i read an article on the economics of the learjet, where it was explained with a bunch of diagrams that the most economic speed and altitude is 220 knots at the altitude where it equals .75 mach, which is around 45'000 feet, depending on air temp. (the figures might be off a little, i'm going from memory here)
a comment that this is acurately depicted in FS2000 got me a hit on google while looking for something else.

does anyone know what the most economic speed/altitude for the FS stock planes are, or failing that, how it can be measured other than doing a lot of flights and compare the actual burned up fuel afterwards?

and for flight planning, how do i calculate the most economic altitude and the resulting speed (indicated, true, over ground) for a given flight, and what parameters do i have to have to start this calculation in the first place?

never mind, i'll ask that question where no spelling nazis are around.

Charlie you are in the right as it does state in the sign-up to please use correct English. No txt spk or the like. Speaking as a teacher of English I find this sort of thing depressing

There is nowt wrong wiv my punctution! Now get off that toilet and let someone else have a number 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

well, to the part you did answer:
i figured that out all by myself. i was asking for figures or a way to aquire them without going out to buy manuals for the actual planes, which might be accurate when used with FS or not.

aside from that, most places i chat it's considered bad manners to use caps at all, unless it's for emphasis or terms like GPS. so i gradually dropped them. nobody ever minded me NOT using caps.
your remark makes for a nice welcome and i can see now why you guys here got a reputation for being snobs.

Quote:


The secret's out!

I think it's more the fact that some of us are old fashioned, like to read properly constructed sentences (spelling mistakes are allowed, even I make them). It also sets a good example to others whilst we watch the educational standards of the mother country descend into modern depths.

Quote:


My apologies. If you'd written it in the style of someone who might actually understand, I may have credited you with that. Unfortunately it was impossible to tell whether you were 12 or 22! My degree isn't in mindreading, which is probably a good thing.

Quote:


Well, here it's considered good manners to use them. It makes it easier for our older (over 21), more partially sighted users (whether medically, or alcoholically) to read. 

If not, Ozzy will either liberally cover you using marmalade, or even issue a SASBO (SimV Anti-Social Behaviour Order).

Quote:

A fate worse than death itself.

Now, is anyone going to answer this chap's question? We can convert him to our ways at our leisure.

PS. Don't look at me. I'm a simple bush pilot. This stuff is way over my head.

Quote:


Well, the logical way is to take an aeroplane, such as the Learjet, and fly given altitudes for set time, and from that do a simple fuel burn calculation (fuel used/time) for each altitude at certain, or one set, speeds. The joy of FS is you can easily slew to each, and make sure you have an identical fuel load at the start of each run. A couple of hours flying would give a fair range.