Re: 767 range

Date:         01 Jul 98 02:42:19 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>Why would you quote statute miles?

Because that's what airlines use (even in planning departments, though
not actual flight ops) and what a lot of maps and people commonly use.
Besides, the units don't much matter -- Rio de Janeiro is not closer to
Frankfurt than Miami.  Period.  You could use furlongs and it wouldn't
change the outcome.

>I did not bother to check your numbers, but I suspect they are great
>circle, actual routes are typically a bit longer due to ATC routings.

Yes, they are great circle routes, and of course you are correct about
actual routings.  However, I seriously doubt the ATC routings for
FRA-MIA would add more than the 1077 miles (1733 km, 936 nm, 8616
furlongs, etc.) required to merely match the great circle distance for
FRA-GIG, never mind make FRA-MIA longer than FRA-GIG.

>>At typical westbound cruise speeds, Miami is probably nearly an hour
>>closer than Dallas and Los Angeles is nearly two hours further, not a
>>mere 30 minutes ...

>You are assuming a constant ground speed. Winds are typically lighter at
>higher latitudes. My times were based on both experience and inflight
>estimates by the FMC.

Here is Lufthansa's schedule on these routes, including block time:

LH  462 FRA 1015 MIA 1405 747-200   9:50
LH  450 FRA 1050 LAX 1320 747-400  11:30
LH  452 FRA 1400 LAX 1630 747-400  11:30
LH  438 FRA  940 DFW 1325 A340-300 10:45
LH  500 FRA 2205 GIG 0500 A340-300 11:55

Block time isn't the same as flight time, of course, though for these
flights the ground component of the block time is probably similar.

FRA-LAX is an hour an 40 minutes longer than FRA-MIA, quite a bit less
than the three hours I suggested though significantly more than the 60
minutes you claimed.  That's assuming the 747-200 and 747-400 fly at the
same speed.  The -400 may have a slight advantage, plus it will likely
be able to climb higher, quicker, giving it further advantage, but this
factor is probably not huge.  At best, an "apples to apples" comparison
might have the difference a bit closer to two hours.

The A340 is significantly slower than the 747, so you can't compare all
four routes, but it's pretty clear that GIG is not closer to FRA than
DFW in time any more than it is in distance.  If we can at least agree
that FRA-DFW is further than FRA-MIA, then it's obvious that GIG cannot
be closer to FRA than MIA.

>>>Bye the way, a B767-200ER weighs in at 351,000 and the -300ER at 400,000.
>>
>>351,000 lbs is the MGTOW for a 767-200, not the ER version, which as
>>Malcolm said goes up to 395,000 lbs.  400,000 lbs was the MGTOW for
>>the 767-300(ER) but they bumped it to 412,000 lbs several years ago.
>>A further increase may be in the works, using some parts from the
>>767-400(ER).
>
>Certifications vary depending on customer and engine combination. For
>example the Increase you mentioned for the 300ER was a paperwork item
>only, no modifications required. I stand by the 200 vs. 200ER weights.

You said nothing about "200 vs. 200ER weights" -- you never mentioned
the 200 (non-ER) at all, just the ER versions of both -200 and -300.
When Malcolm compared the E-767 to the 767-200(ER) it's clear enough
that he was referring to the capability of the 767-200(ER) in general
terms, not a specific, possibly restricted example aircraft.  You're
welcome to stand by whatever weights you like, but I suspect most of
us here will prefer to stick with what Boeing says.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney