Obviously real world airlines are trying to be as efficient as possible (especially low-cost carrier). As I see it in-game BGW models are without winglets while HGW models are available with winglet models.
How come all HGW models have a higher fuel usage even with Winglets? Why do choose most airlines the HGW Winglet variants when they could use the BGW version more efficiently on shorter routes?
An Airline like Ryan Air looking extremly to save costs (look at all their low fuel emergencies). They have a fleet of all 737-800 HGW with Winglets. Why when they could use the 737-800 BGW more efficiently on shorter routes?
Will try to answer your quesion ..... I am not sure what BGW stands for but HGW stands for Higher Gross Weight. As you can see from the Performance data the -800BGW is almost 9 tonnes lighter then the -800HGW with winglets. The Lowcost Carriers putting more people in the Plane then most of the common Airlines. By doing so they are carrying higher loads with them. The HGW Versions have a Landing Gear that is Certified for this higher weight and more powerful engines to match the performance for the higher weight. In general it makes the Aircraft more heavy, heavy means higher fuel burn , not reaching as quickly higher crusing levels so have to fly lower......so burning more fuel. The winglet reduces that higher Fuelburn a little ...... otherwise without the winglet the fuelburn would be even higher.
The Lowcost Carriers putting more people in the Plane then most of the common Airlines. By doing so they are carrying higher loads with them.
Thats what I thought too but the BGW variants can carry just as much just not as far as the HGW variants. There seems to be no payload penalty (up to a certain distance) except for the 737-900ER BGW.
If you want to fill up the 737-900ER you have to use HGW and use more fuel. That makes sense because of the higher weight. But what about the other models?
Of course I'm talking in-game values only but I assume they are realistic and accurate.
Ryanair ( and most LCC) order a huge amount of Planes .... so they are getting big discounts .... as said the HGW are more robust the BGW/HGW are different you have different Engines, Landing Gear, Brakes etc .... they are saving a lot by having not both types but only one type in the Fleet.
Actually, this is one of the not so realistic parts of the simulation...while there are HGW/BGW versions in real life, in most cases (not in all, but for the common aircrafts) the aircrafts are the same from a structural point of view(i.e. same empty weight). The aircraft can be certified for different MTOW, depending on the need of the airline. The main reason for restricting the MTOW is to save fees(airway fees, landing fees - these are usually based on the MTOW), when the higher MTOW is not needed for the routes of the airline. So the fuel burn shouldn't be different. Actually, in the airline I am working at we have a few aircraft (some A320s, but not the whole fleet) where it is possible to change the MTOW by a simple signature from a authorized person (i.e. maintenance) and the change of a placard on the panel. In the limitations section of the FCOM it says "Dual MTOW certified" and then lists all certified MTOWs which can be applied (for the mentioned aircraft their are actually 4 different MTOWs which can be used depending on the flight...).
But as this is just a simulation, maybe it adds some challenge if you have to choose the best weight variant for your airline...but just wanted to explain how it is done in real life...
The "BGW"/"HGW" stuff is mostly about MTOW restrictions as duoflyer already said.
Attached is Boeing's official perfomance chart for the 737-800. As you can see, they suggest three basic variants.
Pay attention to MTOW, that's about the only thing that's really different (again, see duoflyer's explanation)
For the first two, OEW, payload, landing weight and fuel capacity are the same. Only the variant to the right has a slight plus overall.
So a "BGW" just has reduced certified MTOW, limiting either payload or range.
Consequently, "BGWs" are not payload-restricted per se.
The -900ER "BGW" is a different thing. Here it's mostly about FAA exit limits. Airlines not needing the high 200+ capacity usually opt for the "BGW" variant with its deactivated type II exits aft of the wings.
"BGW" or "HGW" usually is not related to the use of winglets.
So are we suggesting, rather that choosing HGW & BGW, players should have an option to choose the engines, which dictate the performance of the aircraft.
Anyway, the above explanatory did brought me insights in how do things really work in real life :)
So are we suggesting, rather that choosing HGW & BGW, players should have an option to choose the engines, which dictate the performance of the aircraft.
Anyway, the above explanatory did brought me insights in how do things really work in real life
Supposedly they are working on this with the performance system.
