The flow inside the combustion chamber has been simulated using two different combustion models. All simulation results agree with the experimental data, but the results obtained with the extended EDM model have a better agreement. The extended EDM model predicts the pressures and the wall heat fluxes within the experimental error; however the disagreement with the experimental data slightly exceeds the experimental error at the first 100 mm. The difference between the CFD simulation and the experiment is partially explained by the crudity of the numerical model; namely, it uses two strong assumptions: a) fluctuating part of the velocity is much less than the mean velocity, and b) chemical reactions are infinitely fast. These assumptions are not completely valid for cryogenic flames in rocket combustion chambers. Partially, the difference between the experiment and simulations is also explained by the crudity of the experimental method, which is characterized by low spatial resolution and by the heat transfer between the adjacent sections of the combustion chamber. The main drawback of the ECFM model (or, more exactly, of the current formulation of the ECFM model in CFX) is the neglect of heat losses from the combustion zone that leads the underprediction of the wall heat flux and the gas temperature in the nozzle.