Yep, that one happened right at tea time ;D
Thats why i saw empty fuel tank so late - i was at galley cooking tea, and some fast snakes. pretty boring cargo flight, more than 150 nm to current VOR, no TV, no pretty Flight Attendant aboard, so i though - i'll cook some food. My F\O had his sunglasses on, so he was useless. And F\E - mmmm, i guess we forgot him in Dallas  :-?

Actually i used FSPS X, and gave me this surprise. I didnt land right away because i was still too heavy for land, and i aimed to airports, closer to KLAX. I didnt declared emergency before landing because things got clear after descend. Circling near airport much safer, but FSPS X will kill pilots statistics, and airline statistics, so i didnt tell anybody about incident  ;) So it looks like now i understand that pressure: money on one side, safety on the other.

Damage was to fuel tank 3, not the manifold or engine. it was clear from fuel usage after tank 3 were emptied.

So the question remains: Which tactic gives more range?

P.S. FS Passengers X can simulate various situations and failures randomly.  They rare, and depends on craft age and maintenance. My 707-300C pretty old, but it was maintained - ok :)

Thats another dimension for CS to explore i think. It'll be super-cool if they add random failure and maintenance engine to they planes. I'll buy it as separate add-on as well. It's a little boring to fly knowing that nothing will ever fail, or knowing what engine can probably fail soon. DEfault FSX random failure engine allow only 6 hours of time to be programed. using it in random mode, chance of failure too high :(