Has anyone else noticed that version 1.2 seems to have a lot less range than the 1.0 or 1.1. The differance seems to be in the way the new FMC gauge calculates fuel usage. If you replace the FMC gauge with one of the older versions,it'll allow for a longer flight without the"insufficiant fuel" notice,but you'll lose the built in weather radar. Boeing's website shows a maximum range of 5990 nmi. With version 1.2,you won't even get close to that.

I tried a Frankfurt to Los Angeles direct GPS flight which was just a little over 5000 nmi and received the"insufficiant fuel" message on the FMC. This is with an empty plane and a cruising altitude of FL380 and a cost index of 200. According to Boeing,that's a typical city pair.I'm not a real life pilot or a hard core simmer so maybe I'm doing something wrong,but version 1.2 seems to have a lot less range than 1.0 or 1.1.

i don't know if the cost index is modeled but u can try a CI of around 50 or so. i believe the less the cost index, the greater the economy and thus the range. ppl will correct me if i'm wrong

I tried various cost index values and it didn't seem to make any difference. The only thing that got a little more range was to increase the cruising altitude to the 41000' and higher which doesn't seem realistic for the 767.

I tried doing a 4900nm flight from YMML to PHNL in the Qantas 767 using a CI of 20 and received the "insufficient fuel" warning. I lowered the CI to 0 and was still getting the warning. I chose not to do the flight because I didn't want to run out of fuel after a 10 - 11 hour flight seeing as the FMC was showing that this would occur between CHEEM and CARRP just as I would be getting ready to start the OPACA4.CARRP STAR. That made the range to be about 4700nm. :(

I never tried a really long distant flight like that with v1.0 or v1.1.

Keep in mind that insufficient fuel is not necessarily the greatest predictor.  Winds aloft are going to make a difference and it changes during flight.  You'll be descending on idle.  The longest Aeroflot 767 route I know about is Moscow to LA.  13 hours, 10 minutes.  I wonder if they use a NAT track or come across the pole?  Do airlines fly over the pole?

I'm aware of the winds aloft issue. The 767 version 1.2 seems to have far less range than the 1.1 or the 1.0 versions. When I put in a flight from Frankfurt to Los Angeles with 1.2,the FMC calculated insufficiant fuel well before reaching LA. This is a 5476 nmi flight with no passengers or cargo. When I reinstalled 1.1,the same flight was calculated to have fuel to spare. A 5476 nmi flight that is listed on Boeings website as a typical city pair,isn't possible with version 1.2. At least that's what the FMC is indicating. Have you tried any long flights in the 5000 nmi range or greater? If I swap out the FMC gauge from the 1.1 or the 1.0 into the 1.2,I get better fuel calculations but I lose the weather radar which seems to be coded into the 1.2 FMC gauge.

I like to run long flights in the 767 with PAX and cargo totaling around 34,400 lbs and CI at 94.  At full fuel load I experience pitching + and - 1,000 ft at cruise altitude FL290.  The only way I could reduce the pitching was to reduce the fuel load, but then twice I've had the "insufficient fuel" warning on the CDU for flights over 4500nm.  My workaround (some would say cheat) was when pitch at cruise altitude stabilized at around FL3500 to open the fuel and payload dropdown and add more fuel.  I haven't done it systematically to check if that causes  the cruise range to fall in the ranges Boeing claims, but I'll do so in the future.

I am nearing the end of an Atlanta to Moscow flight.  Although the FMC was reporting insufficient fuel at the beginning, now it is saying I will have plenty.

My recommendation is to plan wisely, ignore the FMC and just find out if you run out of gas or not.  It is a sim.  I am using the freeware 767-300 planner originally put out for the other 767 and it works fine.

EDIT: landed with 33,600 lbs of fuel left (16,800 kg), which is too much; I should have stuck to the recommendations of the fuel planning program.  I had wing tanks full, 75% in the center.  I don't think this bird has short legs at all.  That was right at 5000 nm.

Actually the whole flight was flawless, and she was rock steady during cruise and on final.  Very, very well done Captain Sim!  This is a delightful airplane and as good as any as I have ever seen if she keeps giving me flights like this.

Tim Capps wrote on Sep 6^th, 2009 at 12:24am:

I am using the freeware 767-300 planner originally put out for the other 767 and it works fine.

Hi Tim.

Can you point me to where I can get a copy of that 767-300 planner please. I could sure use it.  ;)

Mark

Sure, buddy.  

http://www.nofuel.thatssailing.com/flightsimulator/fuelplannerb763/default.asp

I used the first one; I think the second is if you lack some Microsoft program or something.  Works fine.

Thanks for the link to the fuel planner. It does show a lot more range than the FMC indicates. I'l have to try it out on my days off with a long flight.

Yeah Tim.

Thanks for that. It'll help me better plan my flights.

Mark

Well I flew the Frankfurt to Los Angeles route which totaled 5476 nmi with full tanks. At the start,the FMC reported "insufficiant fuel" with the 767 running out of fuel well before LAX.But as the flight progressed, it slowly began to show enough fuel to make the trip. By the time I landed at LAX,the plane still had 43,300 pounds of fuel. I was flying with real time weather which when flying an East to West route usually puts the aircraft into headwinds. On this trip at FL380,the highest headwinds that I noted were 66 kts. I flew the trip in real time but did not monitor a good deal of the flight as I let it run overnight.  The plane did fly very well and I had no problem performing an autoland at LAX. There does seem to be an issue with the way the FMC is calculating fuel usage.

I had a similar experience to you cantland.

I flew from Melbourne Intl (YMML) - Honolulu Intl (PHNL) a range of 4850nm. As I stated before, I had insufficient fuel. I'm not exactly sure how much fuel was remaining by the time I landed, but it was about 30%. By the time I was at the half way mark, I knew I was going to get there easily.

Autoland worked perfectly for me too. A pleasant flight was had by all.

It also appears to me to be a FMC problem.  :(

Mark

Thank you for your input.
Yes, this false FMC "insufficiant fuel" report issue will be fixed in 1.3.

I don't think the FMC takes into account T/C or D/C. It also doesn't know winds aloft or weather data and it seems to calculate fuel burn with the current altitude.  This isn't unique to captain sim products. I have the same type of issue with the another company products I own as well. Once you reach your cruise altitude, the FMC starts re-calculating fuel burn at altitude and everything is re-adjusted.

The issue has been addressed in SP1.3.