It does not get much closer than this.  I ran out of gas just after pulling off the runway at Sheremetyevo.  Obviously, my FSX est. + 20% + 5000 lbs technique needs some work.  So next time I'll try FSX est. + 25% + 5000 lbs and see what happens.  Without favorable headwinds, I'm sure it would be at least +30%.

How embarrassing.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2466/outofgas.jpg

The good news is the fight was flawless, and my problems, at least, seem to be isolated to REX.  I am trying to get in one long flight a day during testing so we'll see if the trend continues.

So what do you think, is 108,858 lbs (100% wings, 28% center) for a 5110 nm trip from Atlanta to Moscow a reasonable amount with a favorable tailwind for the most part?  The fuel flow per hour seems about right for me: 9XXX lbs per hour (both engines combined).

A friend of mine who is a 67 pilot told me that the rule of thumb is 5500kgs per engine per hour (11,000KG/hr)

Boeings document at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767.pdf shows a usefull fuel load of 73,364kgs for the 767-300ER. At 11,000kg/hr, you won't even make a seven hour flight. Something doesn't seem right. Tim,did you use the Stephan Pellosch fuel planner? If so,what did it recommend?

With all due respect, I think there must be some miscommunication between you and your friend about the fuel consumption of a 767.  As was pointed out, at that rate the 767 would have an endurance of about 7 hours.  Perhaps it was pounds, not kilograms?  Anyway, what I am getting is closer to the Captain Sim documentation, wherever they get their numbers from.

In all honesty, it would be nice for them to pop into these discussions once in awhile.  Not everything is a ticket item and they have more information than I do.

At any rate, 133,000 lbs is what the fuel planner recommended with a 50 kt tailwind.  Is landing with 20,000 lbs good?  258,000 lbs is well below the maximum landing weight.

My last flight I loaded 111,000 lbs of fuel.  I arrived with about 3000 lbs.  That is figuring FSX estimate + 30% + 5000.  Basically, that cut it closer.  35% would be better, maybe more.

Since Captain Sim refers users to the FSX fuel planner, I am trying to come up with a formula that uses that, rather than an external program.  FSX estimate as is is a suicide mission, not a flight.  I am trying to keep it as simple as possible for people who just get the airplane and want a reasonable fuel figure for trip planning.  So I am working it out by trial and error.   I'll probably come a lot closer to the Fuel Planner numbers by the time I'm done.

I did think the picture was funny, considering a 5000+ nm trip came down to a matter of feet clearing the runway.  Not funny in real life, obviously.

When you do the fuel try it this way with regards to quantities:

Taxy fuel
Trip fuel
Contingency fuel (5% of trip fuel)
alternate fuel
final reserve fuel (holding for 30 mins at 1500ft above airport)

Thats the way i was taught when doing it for ATPL

Rich

Yeah, I agree that that is the realistic way to do it.  But the problem is, we have no way under the Captain Sim scheme to arrive at trip fuel, since we are told to use FSX in lieu of a fuel planner with ACE.  So I am trying to work within these limits.  Without an accurate trip fuel calculation, figuring how many pounds you're going to burn with 20 minutes on the APU or something seems like a waste of time to me.  I would rather have a safe, reasonable estimate.  I think I can probably do that off the FSX value.

FSX estimate + 40% + 5000 lbs gave me 22,000 lbs left over with a typical eastbound transatlantic tailwind on the KATL-UUEE flight this time, which is pretty much what I would have expected using the fuel planner.  I used 102,000 lbs of fuel which works out to 9488.37 lbs per hour.  Fuel consumption has been very consistent.  This is pretty close to the numbers in the 767 documentation. Based on my online research (which gives wildly different estimates) I think this is a very reasonable number.

I'll use the same amount on the return trip and see what happens.  It is looking like FSX estimate + 40% ought to be safe in itself for long distance flights with a tailwind at any rate.  I'd be curious to see what other people come up with.  The Atlanta-Moscow route is a nice long one that you can start before work and finish up after supper.  If anyone wants my company route I can send it to you.

I generally use 9L and Dawgs4 with a SPA transition, thence to the NAT, then plot something as direct as possible on airways to come into Sheremetyevo from the north with the SW07A STAR for Runway 07L.  Remember that your North Atlantic fixes are entered in the format 5150N, 5240N, etc.

As an aside, the airplane managed the entire flight once autopilot was engaged, all the way to touchdown, except for me setting flaps and lowering the gear, and then taking manual control of the throttles on short final.  The neighbors probably heard me saying "Oh yeah, baby, that's beautiful."

What can I say.  I enjoy my airplanes.

My mistake - for generalized planning you can bank on 5500KG/hr total fuel burn.  Side note - I was in an actual 767 simulator today, and I must say the CS767 is almost spot on to the real machine with the exception of some very minor variances.  I do look forward to speed tape on the next release (if it indeed comes)!

The thing you need to remember about loading fuel is the more you load the more you burn to carry it. And cost index plays a huge factor as well.

Yes, you don't want to waste money hauling around a bunch of extra weight with fuel costs high.

On the other hand, you don't want to have to make that "minimum fuel" call, or worse, not arrive at your destination!  In 1989 there was a tragic incident where an Avianca 707 had to hold for over an hour, missed the first approach at KJFK and crashed after losing power to all four engines due to fuel exhaustion while trying to return to the airport.

I don't know how many of us fly in an environment where we experience holds, unpredicted headwinds, etc. so we can often afford to be casual about our fuel planning, especially since we're not paying for it.  But I enjoy trying to make things fairly realistic, while yet keeping them as simple as possible.

Ideally, I suppose you would want to land with your legal minimum.  But if you don't have to hold, or there is a better tailwind than expected, you will be well over that if you have planned properly.

I have been using a cost index of 50 since there are good tailwinds going east across the Atlantic and I can get away with something low.  The 767-300 goes up to 9999.  I have not yet determined what practical effect changing the cost index makes.  It will be nice when the "insufficient fuel" message bug is straightened out.

I am uncertain to what extent real world CIs translate to FSX for this airplane due to vagaries of FSX weather, etc.  I don't think you could go wrong with 100.  This is a good area for frequent 767 drivers to put our findings together and come up with these answers.