trijetsonly wrote:Whatever ATQ is, according to the Payload-Range Chart of the 767-3ER with CF6 engines, it can do 6100nm with a ZFW of 112.000kg, which is probably 250 passengers, baggage and a full fuel load.
Thenoflyzone wrote:trijetsonly wrote:Whatever ATQ is, according to the Payload-Range Chart of the 767-3ER with CF6 engines, it can do 6100nm with a ZFW of 112.000kg, which is probably 250 passengers, baggage and a full fuel load.
Yeah...you need to brush up on you math! What are you using as weight for a passenger? 50 kg? lol. Max passenger count is around 160 passengers for such a long flight, at best.
I used the PW4062 engine chart, and used 250 lb per passenger (so 200 lb passenger weight + 50 lb bag). At 6,100 nm, you can only carry around 40,000 lb of payload, which gives you 160 passengers with that weight.
trijetsonly wrote:Thenoflyzone wrote:trijetsonly wrote:Whatever ATQ is, according to the Payload-Range Chart of the 767-3ER with CF6 engines, it can do 6100nm with a ZFW of 112.000kg, which is probably 250 passengers, baggage and a full fuel load.
Yeah...you need to brush up on you math! What are you using as weight for a passenger? 50 kg? lol. Max passenger count is around 160 passengers for such a long flight, at best.
I used the PW4062 engine chart, and used 250 lb per passenger (so 200 lb passenger weight + 50 lb bag). At 6,100 nm, you can only carry around 40,000 lb of payload, which gives you 160 passengers with that weight.
You shouldn't use the PW chart, as the PW engines are almost as efficient as historical steam engines.
With CF6 and an OEW of 85000kg I get 26700kg of payload, which is 254 passengers, assuming 85kg human mass, 5kg hand baggage and 15kg hold baggage.
trijetsonly wrote:
You shouldn't use the PW chart, as the PW engines are almost as efficient as historical steam engines.
With CF6 and an OEW of 85000kg I get 26700kg of payload,
Natflyer wrote:trijetsonly wrote:
You shouldn't use the PW chart, as the PW engines are almost as efficient as historical steam engines.
With CF6 and an OEW of 85000kg I get 26700kg of payload,
Where on Earth would you find a 767-300 with 85000kg OEW? Ours (with Winglets) are in the region of 92-93,500kg...
In a "real-life" scenario, this route would not work unless with less than 200pax. Limitation is probably not MTOW, but MAX FUEL whereas you need to reduce payload to increase range.
The payload-range charts from the ACAPs are really not useful in real-life calculations.
Thenoflyzone wrote:trijetsonly wrote:Thenoflyzone wrote:
Yeah...you need to brush up on you math! What are you using as weight for a passenger? 50 kg? lol. Max passenger count is around 160 passengers for such a long flight, at best.
I used the PW4062 engine chart, and used 250 lb per passenger (so 200 lb passenger weight + 50 lb bag). At 6,100 nm, you can only carry around 40,000 lb of payload, which gives you 160 passengers with that weight.
You shouldn't use the PW chart, as the PW engines are almost as efficient as historical steam engines.
With CF6 and an OEW of 85000kg I get 26700kg of payload, which is 254 passengers, assuming 85kg human mass, 5kg hand baggage and 15kg hold baggage.
Wrong.
First of all, the Max OEW for the B763ER is 90,011 kg. So there goes 5 tonnes of payload right there.
Second, it doesn't really matter wich engine you use. Both engine charts have similar weights. And no way in hell you're going to be able to carry 250+ passengers from India to Toronto on a B763. You do realize that right? You're not factoring winds aloft and indirect routing in your calculations.
trijetsonly wrote:
By the way, just today I've seen a 767-300ER loadsheet with an OEW of 82300kg.
Thenoflyzone wrote:trijetsonly wrote:
By the way, just today I've seen a 767-300ER loadsheet with an OEW of 82300kg.
You sure it wasn't just a 763 (non-ER)? Either way, sounds like a UA or DL bird used solely for domestic ops. With a bunch of unnecessary equipment removed since it does mostly short hops.
Thenoflyzone wrote:trijetsonly wrote:Thenoflyzone wrote:
Yeah...you need to brush up on you math! What are you using as weight for a passenger? 50 kg? lol. Max passenger count is around 160 passengers for such a long flight, at best.
I used the PW4062 engine chart, and used 250 lb per passenger (so 200 lb passenger weight + 50 lb bag). At 6,100 nm, you can only carry around 40,000 lb of payload, which gives you 160 passengers with that weight.
You shouldn't use the PW chart, as the PW engines are almost as efficient as historical steam engines.
With CF6 and an OEW of 85000kg I get 26700kg of payload, which is 254 passengers, assuming 85kg human mass, 5kg hand baggage and 15kg hold baggage.
Wrong.
First of all, the Max OEW for the B763ER is 90,011 kg. So there goes 5 tonnes of payload right there.
Second, in reality, the OEW of a 3 class B763 (as the OP refers to) is probably even greater than 90 tonnes, as the fancy business class or First class products of today weight a lot and take away from payload capacity.
Third, it doesn't really matter which engine you use. Both engines have similar payload charts. And no way in hell you're going to be able to carry 250+ passengers from India to Toronto on a B763. You do realize that right? Factor in everything i've said above, plus winds aloft and indirect ATC routings, and it's obvious.
BravoOne wrote:
I have never heard, or seen the term Max Empty Operating Weight??? Are you thinking of the MZFW aka, Max Zero Fuel Weight?