Hi Martin,it sounds like you were quite heavy. I had a nearly full flight, appropriate luggage, but not that much cargo, so I was quite comfortably under MTOW.FL 370 is correct for going East in North America (you were going from Honolulu to Vancouver, weren't you?). I don't remember the trans-pacific procedures, but you may have a lot more additional flight levels available to you than you would over the continental US (not sure if RVSM applies over the Pacific). In any case, you should have been able to climb to FL410 not very long after departure. Also, make sure to select your optimal cruise speed - Mach .81 will get you there faster, but at a cost :). So, your weight, cruise level and speed would explain your high fuel consumption.Instead of asking the Aloha dispatchers, you could post a request here in the flightplan forum - there are quite a few regulars with access to real-world flightplans, and more often than not, they include the weight and fuel information as well as altitudes etc.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Hi Martin,the fundamental flaw with your tweak is, that it affects the fuel consumption, and therefore the flight dynamics, and FMC calculations - i.e. you're not losing weight as fast as you should, and the FMC fuel predictions will be unreliable.I also have made some modifications for my BBJ repaints. But I just checked the Boeing website for the specs and adjusted the weight and added the extra fuel capacity the BBJ has. With everything else left alone, it now has the range of the BBJ with accurate FMC data and flight behaviour. Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

@Randyi am anxious waiting for SU2 ;) any time horizon for me?@Gostai remember that i flew westwards, Vancouver to Honolulu. I wonder if you could make the aircraft.cfg available to me which you have tweaked ;)i agree, FF readout could be altered due to my tweak, but i would expect that the FF would be lower, when lowering the fuel_flow_scalar parameter, since the fuel usage is much lower, am i right?once i asked some pilots about som input on loading their AC's. of course they gave me FL and such information, but not the FOB. guess why. :D they said, we don't know if you are not using this information for another airline, to fly more economical than we do. so, do we have any proof that the information in the flight planning section would be accurate. the information could containg missleading information. i mean, those pilots posting in there can assume, that others airline pilots are reading this.

>Instead of asking the Aloha dispatchers, you could post a>request here in the flightplan forum - there are quite a few>regulars with access to real-world flightplans, and more often>than not, they include the weight and fuel information as well>as altitudes etc.Another thing that should help is whenever we get cost modelling done in the FMC - that will allow us to specify that economy/range is more important than speed/time.

Hi Martin,if you went West, valid FLs would have been 310, 350, 390, 430 over the continental US, but FL370 may be valid on the Pacific tracks (not sure, though...)>i agree, FF readout could be altered due to my tweak, but i would expect that the FF would be lower, when lowering the fuel_flow_scalar parameter, since the fuel usage is much lower, am i right?:)While pilots may keep certain information secret from outside persons, they will have to give it to ATC, and those are the ones with access to the highest number of flightplans. Whatever the reason of those those pilots for not giving you the information, keeping company secrets wasn't one of them - I mean do they blindfold deadheading pilots from other airlines, so they don't look at the EICAM?Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg