What do you prefer?

RE: What do you prefer?

??????????????????????????

mines a large scotch

Dave

RE: What do you prefer?

Oops, I’ve just noted an error in my posting. It should read that MZFW is the maximum an aircraft can weigh before the fuel (not payload) is added (i.e. ZFW=APS weight + payload weight).

RE: What do you prefer?

Perfectly clear .Thanks

RE: What do you prefer?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 02-10-02 AT 10:41 PM (GMT)]The difference between an aircrafts APS (aircraft prepared for service) weight and the more limiting of Max Take Off Weight or Max Landing Weight leaves a certain weight that is available to carry passengers/baggage and fuel. A high density seating capacity can therefore carry less fuel than a low density one before reaching the weight limit. This is how some manufacturers claim to be able to fly their product from London to Sydney. The problem is that as soon as they put passengers on they can’t!
Let me give you an example. Our 757-200’s have a typical Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) of 112 tonnes. The Max Landing Weight (MLW) is typically about 95 tonnes. The Max Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW) is about 83 tonnes. MZFW is the maximum the aeroplane can weigh before adding payload and is a limit because the bending load limit on the wing is reached. Lets say we are carrying a full payload (235 passengers and baggage in my company’s fit) and the actual ZFM is at the max (83 tonnes). So long as there is no performance limitation (due to short runway, terrain, etc which further limits MTOW) we can carry 112-83=29 tonnes of fuel before reaching MTOW. The maximum fuel capacity on the 200 series 757 is about 34 tonnes. If we had less seats on board we may have only had an actual ZFW of perhaps 78 tonnes in which case we could fill the tanks (112-78=34). Bearing in mind that we must not plan to land at more than 95 tonnes (MLW) we need to have burned 112-95=17 tonnes en route. If we were only doing a short flight we would be limited to depart at MLW (95 tonnes) plus the amount of fuel to be burnt on that flight.
In a nut shell – no passengers means loads of fuel carrying capacity, loads of passengers leaves little fuel capacity available. As a point of interest, due to good old Boeing performance excess. you generally have greater margins on Boeing products than equivalent Airbus ones!

I wish I could make the explanation simpler but I haven’t even mentioned tanking fuel and the effects of high altitude cold soaked wings yet!

RE: What do you prefer?

No, there’s also drag… You’ll tell me “wrong forum” 😉 but, look at fighters with external fuel tanks: o big part of the fuel in these tanks are burnt by compensating the drag. Last year, Skyhawks were ferried back from Israel to the US for training purposes. They had 3 big tanks. Due to the drag, these tanks didn’t add any range, they were just carried because the fuel consumed was cheaper than ferrying them in a cargo plane…

And I think weight has also something to do…

RE: What do you prefer?

From a technical point of view , is range just a matter of fuel tank capacity?

I read that 717 delivery for Hawaian need extra tanks in order to be able to fly from LGB to Hawai

RE: What do you prefer?

I think the 737 is only capable of crossing the atlantic if you trade payload (passengers) for fuel. This is why the BBJ can fly long distances.

RE: What do you prefer?

personally I think a 737 transatlantic flight would be a nightmare…

And as for doing it in a low cost configuration cabin… noooooooooooo!!!

RE: What do you prefer?

LOL I have this good story about a guy on a ryan air fligth I was on. Really funy but due to my swearing when i tell the story I shouldnt post so if u on messenger ill tell u!!

I think it would be fun on an easyjet flight from Belfast -> New York as it is in range and would be a world record for the 737 family. But I would make a point of booking the front row by the exit purly for legroom. Well sicne easyJet dont let u reserve seats id bring a small child and it parents and say i was with them then onbaord sit in my seat!

RE: What do you prefer?

For service and comfort scheduled flights everytime, especially with pre-booked seats, low cost(I’ve flown often with easyjet and Ryanair)is everyman for himself when it comes to getting a seat, and I’ve heard arguments between two supposedly respectable people about who got to a certain seat first,i cant do with all that, it just adds to the stress of flying, I like to be able to relax.

mines a large scotch

Dave

RE: What do you prefer?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-09-02 AT 04:13 PM (GMT)]Nothing beats a schedule airline.Full service and no children screaming!

RE: What do you prefer?

The one which gives me cheap, unrestrictive fares.