Can a 767-300ER with a 4F+16Y+218Y layout do ATQ-YYZ?

Max range at 186 ton MTOW is 5980nm. ATQ-YYZ is longer at 6100nm or so.

How load restricted would such a flight be?

Assuming no wind en route, you could only carry about 40,000 lb of payload. So that's roughly a maximum of 160 passengers with bags. Add some headwinds, or some extra mileage due to ATC routings, both of which are more than likely, and the payload goes down significantly past 6,100 nm. Max range at OEW (meaning no payload) + fuel is only about 7,000 nm.

Not really an efficient frame for such a long route.

Not to mention, very small economic argument for non-stop service.

GF

ATQ for those of us who don't memorize airport identifiers is ??!!

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.

ATQ (Amritsar, India)

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.

This is a route where a 787 would make it a lot more economically feesible. (Would it be feesible enough to launch, meh) The fuel burn delta between the 767 and the payload/range advantage in addition to additional capacity available just adds to the 787's advantage. Air India has been making some indications of their desire to service this route as of late, potentially via BHX, likely on the afore mentioned 787.

I just tried this on JetPan and at first blush it won't work empty today. I'll mess with later on and see what the issue are.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case in point. Thank you.

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.

Oh yes, it really does matter. For a 6100nm mission range, the PW4000 has a 3000kg payload penalty compared to the CF6. That's almost 30 passengers and baggage less.

But you are correct that it doesn't mean, that it would make India-Toronto nonstop. That's because the usual ESAD is roughly 6400nm.
On the other hand, flying an ESAD of 6100nm with +250 passengers and their baggage is no problem.

By the way, just today I've seen a 767-300ER loadsheet with an OEW of 82300kg. That'll allow a payload of 30000kg (285 passengers and baggage) to fly an ESAD of 6100nm.

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 an old UA or DL bird used solely for domestic ops. With a bunch of unnecessary galley equipment removed since it does mostly short hops.

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.

It's a longrange touristic (Europe-Mexico, Europe-Thailand) 767-300ER with a C59 240Y layout. Though I wouldn't call it "C"...

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.

I have never heard, or seen the term Max Empty Operating Weight??? Are you thinking of the MZFW aka, Max Zero Fuel Weight?

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?

I meant to say " highest" published OEW on Boeing public documents. I know airlines can have higher OEWs, but that info is generally not privvy to the public.

Just for the record Boeing uses 95kgs for most EASA pax weights.

I ran this through Navtech and it told me it wasn't possible due to drift down/MORA restrictions, i.e. it's too heavy to make it to an ETOPS divert, but I didn't have time to mess with it at all.

Did the plan actually show the plane was too heavy to meet Grid MORA altitudes on the selected route in the first few hours? I'd guess the terrain might be a problem in the first three hours.

GF

I took a" kick at the cat" using PianoX. It is setup to include winglets, MTOW 186.8t OEW 93.03t. You need to add to the OEW a min. of 3t for catering and crew. Assuming a little less than DEL-YYZ a typical day would be about 14hrs/6200nm. Max payload would be 20.5t or about 155 passengers incl. baggage. The Boeing weight/passenger inc. .baggage is based on a IATA minimum. Most carriers appear to use at least 110kg