Michael,These are interesting ideas but you are getting into a whole new area here. One of the things I have taken much joy in is sponsoring the PIC on VATSIM flights. When I do that, I supply FSBuild flight plans with current weather data to everyone participating because not everyone has FSBuild. For those that have FSBuild and want to run their own plan, I include a "LOG" file that can be imported in FSBuild so they get all of the same basic input values for alternate and fuel values. My opinion is that we should stick with what PIC gives us in the way of fuel flow. This way, everyone can directly compare fuel used on a particular flight.For those that do have it and want to fudge their own aircraft performance, I think they might be able to simply adjust the fuel scalar in the aircraft config file but I do not recommend doing it. Then, as stated by Ernie below, you would have to adjust the BIAS settings. BIAS is simply the percent variance. Right now, the CRZ bias is set to -10.3%. If you change the fuel scalar in PIC and can achieve a 2% increase in fuel flow (I do not recommend this), I suspect you could simply change the FSBuild BIAS to -8.3% and see how that works.As to VATSIM statistics, you can search for the callsigns you use for PIC and do the math on hours flown. Our database people would really need some arm twisting to make the modifications required for you to search by (member + aircraft type) and apply some factor against it to produce a performance variance.Another spin on this is that real world aircraft are flown many times more hours that most of us fly the sim. Also consider the fact that PIC is three years old and compared to real world aircraft, which are flown for many years, PIC is still fairly new. All of that being said, now consider that increased fuel requirements come with age over many years of flight. So here we are in year 3 with an aircraft that has a couple thousand hours on it. My "guess" is that performance (real world) is still within about 1 percent of the delivery values.From another perspective, I think there would need to be a wide base of support (read demand) for derogating performance in flight sim aircraft in order to get any organized effort going to achieve what you are looking to do.

Hi Mike,Once again you are right on all points. The best I can say is that I was interested in discussing an issue which had not been seriously considered by aircraft/panel designers until today, that is aging of aircrafts and engines and its impact on fuel consumption.As you said it is not worth the efforts and most probably only a very small fraction of simmers would be interested.You started your kind reply with the words "These are interesting ideas" and it will remain so in a closed drawer.ThanksMichael