767PIC / FS2002 ver - Range Tested KSFO-YSSY

[Guest MB327]

San Francisco to SydneyI just finished this flight which I have wanted to do for some time. In the process I have calculated the approximate range (7,300 miles) of the version 2 767PIC. Here is a summary of the data.Route:KSFO SAU BEBOP R464 MAGGI CKH HNL ZUKEY CHOKO B580 NOBAR YSSY rwy 16R6,500 milesZFW 245,000 lbsFuel 160,000 lbs FL310 step FL380CI 90Departure 0715ZArrival 2233ZActual Flight time 15 hours and 18 minutesWinds, I seldom encountered winds in excess of 50 knots and I had them behind for about 30% of the flight.Average Ground Speed 425 knots.Fuel Used 137,900 lbs (per FMC)Fuel Remaining 19,800 lbs (actual)--(dont ask me where the other 2,300 lbs went - no clue)TOTAL Estimated Range - 7,300 miles ~ 17 hoursWith the fuel burn rate just before starting my decent, I estimate that I could have squeezed another 800-900 miles out of her before landing on fumes. This would put the overall range very near 7,300 miles or about 17 hours and about 15 minutes of flight time at CI 90.I am sure that I could have improved the fuel usage by better techniques but this should serve as a fairly good estimate as tested over the Pacific on a west bound flight with FSMeteo weather.My "seat of the pants" fuel to load calculator was a bit off on the flight. I suppose because of the extended amount of time with that much weight (fuel). I normally just figure (12,000 plus (8,000 times hours of flight)). This usually provides ample reserves. However, on this long of a flight it would have suggested I would need to take off with 134,000 lbs which would have left me in the pond about 200 miles short of Sydney. But after a little more consideration, being 25,000 pounds lighter over the length of the flight, I may have made it in just fine.If you have never landed in Sydney, by luck, I found that the left pattern approach to 16R is very scenic as you have downtown off the left side on the downwind and again on final.Hope this is of some help to those planning really long hauls.

[JLedford 0]

Mike,I recently completed several long hauls. One of them PHNL-YSSY, interesting that you only encountered 50 knot winds. My experience was much different. I have a screen shot with a crosswind component of 97 knots! Plus, I had a headwind for the major part of the trip. As far as wx is concerned, all I did was download realwx with winds aloft checked, I dont have FSmeteo.Do you get a fuel inbalance over such a long haul? I have to keep crossfeeding every couple of hours. The left engine has a much greater apetite.This flight was part of a RTW that I completed recently, here are my legs:SBRF-KLAXKLAX-PHNLPHNL-YSSYYSSY-WSSSWSSS-FACTFACT-SBRFI completed a RTW once before, yet this was back in FS98 and I traveled west to east on that trip. My objective this time was simply to enjoy PIC and land at airports that I'd never visited before. Landing in Cape Town was a challange. The wx was bad, ceiling 5000, rain winds variable, night, and lots of traffic. After a go-around due to traffic, I set her down no problems. Making matters worse, I had no charts, and was very concerned due to the fact that Cape Town has many mountains surrounding the airport.Regards,Jay

[Guest WorkingStiff]

Wow...what did I ask you last night?Now I know why you were parked at KSFO at 2 a.m. CST; I thought you were critiquing my approach and landing. :-lol Hopefully I'll be able to do a really long haul soon.

[JLedford 0]

Here is the pic that I took with that 97 knot crosswind! Love those contrails huh?

[Guest MB327]

I only crossfed once at about 700 miles out from Sydney. Rather than balancing I allowed the thirsty side (right tank) to get about 500 pounds heavier than the left before turning the pumps back on and closing the crossfeed valve. By the time I started my decent, they were pretty close.As to the winds, I was surprised myself because I had expected nasty headwinds for much of the flight.Nice picture below. She's a beauty isn't she?

[Guest MB327]

Something about insomnia I believe was the question. Nice seeing you up there last night! :-kewl

[Guest]

Jay,Could you tell me if you had the APU on during the entire flight or just at start uptake off and landing phase? I am curious, that is the main reason I know of that would cause the fuel imbalance. Also you say the left engine has an greater appetite, are you sure you mean engine or fuel tanks? I am trying to understand little bit more why this could be happening. Thanks for any additional info you can share on this.Scott...

[Guest ilh]

PIC is intentionally designed so that one engine draws more than the other side, even with APU off. I suppose this is reflective of real life and forces you to keep an eye on balance and crossfeed. Otherwise, you'd never touch the crossfeed. Well, I suppose you might with a single engine for any duration.However, the FMC doesn't seem to reflect the great draw on one side in its fuel burn numbers.BTW, I'm pretty sure the APU doesn't actually consume any fuel.Lee Hetherington (KBOS)

[JLedford 0]

Scott,The APU was off. I did make a mistake with my left right however. During the trip, the right tank empties faster than the left due to the programming that PIC has created (as far as I know). Thus one has to cross feed. This supposedly simulates a real world environment in that no two engines are exactly alike. I think that the plane will tolerate upto 2Klbs prior to actually displaying a message. I never received a message yet since I loaded the tanks equally, every so often I would cross feed to prevent a large imbalance. The larges diff I've ever seen so far has been around 1Klbs.Regards,Jay

[Guest]

The PIC does NOT model APU fuel burn, correct. Real life, the APU on the 767 will burn about 250lbs/hour and can be used up to around 22,000feet.Mikey, your flow woes seem accurate. I did some testing and found the GE flow was somewhat low at high altitude compared to Pratt's numbers...shy of mark by about 400+lbs/hour/engine....which adds up to a lot over 10+ hours.I am sure there are many reasons this is the way it is in Fs2k2PIC, I am not complaining, just pointing it out so people will see the PIC will likely have a longer range than the real thing ;-)Rob.

[Guest Martin]

>PIC is intentionally designed so that one engine draws more >than the other side, even with APU off.Wasn't it more accidentally and mysteriously than intentionally?Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

[Guest]

This is good to know, I was thinking the left fuel tanks increased consumption was from the APU and that it was always consuming fuel whether it was on or off.

[Guest KB]

Yup, I believe Eric or Wade mentioned that they really didn't know what caused it but that it really wasn't a problem since no two engines consumes the exactly same amount of fuel anyway.Regards,Karl

[Guest HPSOV]

Just a small point!The APU can be used up to any altitude, a start is not assured above 35000ft, and bleed air can not be assured above around 20000ft.If you had something like an inoperative engine generator then you can dispatch with the APU on for the APU generator (ETOPS limits will apply).