Real range benefit B767-300 ER with Winglets
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Paris
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real range benefit B767-300 ER with Winglets
Hi everybody,
I was wondering according to your experiences what is the real gain of range between a B767-300ER and a B767-300ERW (equiped with winglets) at MTOW and same meteorological conditions.
I see from APB to various press articles numbers from 5% to 19% in terms of fuel savings so I'm curious to see the results in terms of range in reality.
Thanks for your feedbacks
I was wondering according to your experiences what is the real gain of range between a B767-300ER and a B767-300ERW (equiped with winglets) at MTOW and same meteorological conditions.
I see from APB to various press articles numbers from 5% to 19% in terms of fuel savings so I'm curious to see the results in terms of range in reality.
Thanks for your feedbacks
a RR powered 300ER cannot have winglets fitted can it
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Some hotel
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Range
Hello A380,
Cannot give you a max range figure at MTOM, because that would depend "heavily" upon the load that you carry.
Say, MTOM is approximately 184 tons, max fuel load approx 72 tons, max ZFM approx 132 tons.
So, if absolute max range is your desire, load max fuel and limit yourself on payload. On the other hand, if you carry max payload, you cannot upload full fuel anymore, so you will restrict your range.
Possible ranges include western or northern Europe to Japan, or to Thailand, or to western Mexico (PVR) with a sensible load of passengers (approx 270).
Cannot give you a max range figure at MTOM, because that would depend "heavily" upon the load that you carry.
Say, MTOM is approximately 184 tons, max fuel load approx 72 tons, max ZFM approx 132 tons.
So, if absolute max range is your desire, load max fuel and limit yourself on payload. On the other hand, if you carry max payload, you cannot upload full fuel anymore, so you will restrict your range.
Possible ranges include western or northern Europe to Japan, or to Thailand, or to western Mexico (PVR) with a sensible load of passengers (approx 270).
Note also there is a significant weight impact - over a ton - to add winglets. Obviously the fuel burn more than makes up for it on a long flight, but they're not well suited to short hop.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On our outfit (freight) we can take the max payload, around 55t, on a MTOW departure for a 8 to 9 hours flight, tops. Above this flight time you start to trade payload for fuel.
Off course, passenger ops, either scheduled or charter, have much lower payloads and thus longer flights, on a MTOW departure, can be achieved.
Off course, passenger ops, either scheduled or charter, have much lower payloads and thus longer flights, on a MTOW departure, can be achieved.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Paris
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok thanks for your feedbacks. And to go deeper with the numbers, does the following route is doable whatever the season (winds etc) :
Paris - Bangkok : 5108 NM
290 pax
B767-300ERW
No fret / only pax luggages
Paris - Bangkok : 5108 NM
290 pax
B767-300ERW
No fret / only pax luggages
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does the following route is doable ... Paris - Bangkok ... with 290 pax ?
Otherwise would hazard a guess that it is just not possible, even with Winglets. To many Pax. If you go down to 260 pax ... it might work.
Naturally the main challenge is coming back where you are going against the wind.
The longest sectors I have done were Beijing to Kiev, and Kiev to JFK. 250 seats, no winglets. It was around 9.5 to 10 hours.
As the previous poster mentioned, after 8 or 9 hours you have to start trade payload for fuel.
Some "ball park" numbers:
Aircraft Empty = 90 tons
MTOW = 185 Tons
290 Paxs = 30 Tons (being conservative)
Fuel = 65 Tons
65 Tons of Fuel is good for around 11 hours (being conservative). Bangkok to Paris is likely to be longer than 11 hours ...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would Engine type fitted to a B767-300ER have any influence on whether or not winglets could be fitted? Could it be that the RR has a better SFC that the GE or P&W powerplants and it is not cost effective to mod the airframe if fitted with RR's?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Paris
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your feedback.
I've found out a practical case of this question :
Condor is flying 763ERW with 296 seats. During Summertime they do FRA - LAX wich is according to GCM 5046 NM (Great Circle Mapper)
Would be interesting to know if they fly with limitation or not on that route.
I've found out a practical case of this question :
Condor is flying 763ERW with 296 seats. During Summertime they do FRA - LAX wich is according to GCM 5046 NM (Great Circle Mapper)
Would be interesting to know if they fly with limitation or not on that route.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tried to make a booking on Condor FRA-LAX.
Looks like that the flight is not direct. There 1 stop either in Seatle, or Portland, or Vancouver. From there onward you go with another airline with whom they happen to have an agreement.
In any case had a look at how long is the sector from FRA to Seatle or Portland. If I got it correct, FRA to Portland is advertised as being 10:55 flight. Still, have to say that if they doing that with 296 Pax, then there is a remarkable benefit from the Winglets.
Happy research!
Looks like that the flight is not direct. There 1 stop either in Seatle, or Portland, or Vancouver. From there onward you go with another airline with whom they happen to have an agreement.
In any case had a look at how long is the sector from FRA to Seatle or Portland. If I got it correct, FRA to Portland is advertised as being 10:55 flight. Still, have to say that if they doing that with 296 Pax, then there is a remarkable benefit from the Winglets.
Happy research!
RR 767-300 no winglets
- a pal at BA told me
AV8 767-300ER MAN and DUB to CPT
... if you stop somewhere midway to refuel
Otherwise would hazard a guess that it is just not possible, even with Winglets. To many Pax. If you go down to 260 pax ... it might work.
Naturally the main challenge is coming back where you are going against the wind.
The longest sectors I have done were Beijing to Kiev, and Kiev to JFK. 250 seats, no winglets. It was around 9.5 to 10 hours.
As the previous poster mentioned, after 8 or 9 hours you have to start trade payload for fuel.
Some "ball park" numbers:
Aircraft Empty = 90 tons
MTOW = 185 Tons
290 Paxs = 30 Tons (being conservative)
Fuel = 65 Tons
65 Tons of Fuel is good for around 11 hours (being conservative). Bangkok to Paris is likely to be longer than 11 hours ...
Otherwise would hazard a guess that it is just not possible, even with Winglets. To many Pax. If you go down to 260 pax ... it might work.
Naturally the main challenge is coming back where you are going against the wind.
The longest sectors I have done were Beijing to Kiev, and Kiev to JFK. 250 seats, no winglets. It was around 9.5 to 10 hours.
As the previous poster mentioned, after 8 or 9 hours you have to start trade payload for fuel.
Some "ball park" numbers:
Aircraft Empty = 90 tons
MTOW = 185 Tons
290 Paxs = 30 Tons (being conservative)
Fuel = 65 Tons
65 Tons of Fuel is good for around 11 hours (being conservative). Bangkok to Paris is likely to be longer than 11 hours ...
no wing lets fitted to the leased Icelandic 763
MAN-CPT is around 5350nm
the operation went bust within a year
It seems the flight did operate non-stop to CPT from Both MAN and DUB on most occasions and the return flights often dropped in to Palma or LPA for fuel
Last edited by rog747; 31st Jul 2017 at 10:31.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relative weights.
No, its all about the heavier Rolls Royce RB211 524G/H engine and wing loading effect which if with W/L added on causes a structural load issue and is not an economical fix or not even a feasible fix - hence BA cannot offload their fleet as resale value is poor due no retrofit possibility
- a pal at BA told me
- a pal at BA told me
RB211-524H-T - dry weight 9,470 lb
PW4060 - dry weight 9,213 lb
CF6-80C2B6 - dry weight 9,670 lb
It's a small fleet. Less than 30 aircraft.
The R&D costs would be too great and due to the nature of the internal wing/pylon structure being different to the GE & PW fit, the cost benefits are not as great.
The R&D costs would be too great and due to the nature of the internal wing/pylon structure being different to the GE & PW fit, the cost benefits are not as great.
Now sorry i dont have a link to that info but that would suggest its likely as BA cannot or did not offload their fleet except to the boneyard and a few went off to QF some 17 years ago who also did not retrofit them with WL.
so I guess there is some Tech issue with Rolls engines on a 763 and having WL fitted otherwise BA would have done it surely ?
Last edited by rog747; 31st Jul 2017 at 10:48.
yes i heard it was the pylon issue too and R&D for a different mod for a small fleet would not add up