>Tonight, I will set the sim to do a flight to MMUN, Cancun. >Which also took place about 1 month ago, I still have the >plans somewhere. I think FSMETEO can data that far back, >not sure. >>I will post the results tomorow. Rusty,Your results are indeed interesting. As there are many variables that might be affected by adjusting scalars - some obvious and some not so obvious - the fact remains that you have set a priority on fine-tuning the fidelity of the sim in terms of total fuel burn over time. That may come at the expense of greater fuel burn during some portions of the flight, and less in others. However, your initial results are indicative that over the course of the entire flight such variations more or less even out.It would be interesting, once you have established a scaler that gives you accurate results in terms of total burn - to see specifically what the effect is during the incremental phases of the flight. Another experiment entirely.In the interest of furthering this specific controlled experiment, please do post those results - or email them to me. I am interested in what you find out.-michael

Flight from LSZH-EGLLThis flight obviously being short will measure the adjusted scalar precision on short flights. It is the short flights and the long flights obviously which are susceptible to the most fuel discrepencies.Study the flight plan attatced. ETE: 01:13END: 01:53 MIN FOB: 10.5T ACT FOB: 11.0TTRIP FUEL: 6.5TCRUISE: FL380PLN RES: 3.1TACT RES: 3.5T (+0.5T)As you can see, the fuel loading went wrong, and we ended up with 0.5T more than planned.Normally I would take EXTRA fuel on board on a day like "today" as there are forecast headwinds. However, I shall use these to come to my conclusion on fuel burn deviation at the end of the flight.Weather was used from FSMETEO live feed using "Auto connect and disconnect". T H E F L I G H T We where sat a gate A46 for around 42minutes from entering the cockpit (starting up FS2002) to discuss weather/notams/sig wx, fundamentally the route.10 minutes prior to pushback (when the Weight program showed 10minutes left to loading completed), we requested our IFR clearance, as BAW720:DCT LASUN UT10 TORPA UT40 LUL RLP DIDOR UT420 ALESOWe where giving cleared as filed, and sqwk 3016, with a LASUN3G departure off RWY10.RWY10, being short, we calculated the D-TO to be 46*C with a planned TOW of 120.1T.10 minutes on, the ACARS log for the loadsheet comes through. We get the final ZFW, which is as planned with 237PAX and 10CREW (247POB). This means no delay to our departure, as we don't need to recalculate things. P U S H B A C K Uneventful, tail to the right, two good starts. Off block time 19:27 UTC. FOB checked 11.0 (TOTALIZER AND CALCULATED). T A X I Given clearance to taxi via Echo, and cleared to cross the axis of 16/34 at our discretion but to report when doing so. Holding short of RWY10 there was no delay to our departure and we where given immediate takeoff clearance. T H E T A K E O F F Absolute standard procedures where used. 70% N1, then stabalised, then N1 selected, for a D-TO of 46*C. VR was 129 with a V2 of 140.After rotation, a BA of around 18* stablised the initial climbout at 155KIAS. Acceleration was delayed due to a immediate turn LEFT on the LASUN3G departure. After rollout, around 3,500ft, FLCH was commanded and we where cleared to FL110. The takeoff time was around 19:36. C L I M B/E N R O U T E/D E S C E N T It was obvious above FL100 that we had a headwind for the flight. The fact that I had not added EXTRA fuel (except for the 0.5T fuel, a mistake), means that I was keen to keep on the lookout for suitable alternates enroute, should we need to divert due to LOW FUEL.Established FL380, our current fuel discrepancy is 0.1T. This means that we have burned 0.4T more than the plan, I put this down to the headwind so far, or maybe it could be the adjusted fuel scalar. However, a headwind will no doubt have contributed to the higher fuel burn.Enroute, the wind veered, and we had chance to pick up on the fuel deviation. Study waypoint IXILU. We where just inside LFFF_V_CTR at the time. For this waypoint, out estimated time was 1959. Our actual time over, maybe due to the headwinds we where experiencing (H36 noted in the margin...Headwind of 36Kts), was 2000. 1 minute behind the estimate. The planned FOB at ths point was 6.2. We have 6.4, 0.2T over. Which in the long run means that we have burned 0.3T more than planned. Not bad so far.At TOD I breifed myself yet again on the fuel status*. Can we make it in to Heathrow. With the wind still veered, I contiued to set up the approach for RWY09L, BIG3B arrival. Happy that we would make it to EGLL. *Refer to flight plan for TOD stats. A R R I V A L Uneventful really, not much traffic. We where given FL080 by BIGGIN HILL VOR/DME and to, at that point, slow to speed 220KTS. This speed reduction was probably to sacrifice holding.A right hand downind for 09L, speed 180 as per usual for the LOC intercept, FLAP 5. Perfect intercept, and GS capture. VREF was to be 136 (If I remember, I didn't write it down). Landing roll, used idle reverse, and brakes 1, to get as far down to the other end of the airport as possible using the runway to cut down the time.Landing time was 21:04 UTC. 2 minutes behind sched. C O N C L U S I O N We conlucded the flight by shutting down at D48. Here is the summary:ATE: 1:28TIME VAR: 15 minutes longer than plannedBURN: 8.2T (0.9T more than planned).I can put the 0.9T down to mainly the approach/STAR which wasn't accounted for in the flight plan. Also, the uncountered headwinds which the flight experienced throughout.Therefore, so far, I can say that the fuel scalar adjustment, is working fine so far. Next, I will carry out a flight to either KMCO/MDPP/MMUN to investigate into the fuel deviations on long flights. For these however, I will add fuel for expected winds due to safety over the Atlantic.Thanks.RobPLAN CREATED WITH PM FLIGHT PLANNER, MANY THANKS TO THE TEAM.

bump