How does 767-200F burn more fuel than 767-300F?

English Boards General
1

KJA-HKG:

767-200F:  (it is an older plane, but I thought the only thing that mattered with regards to age was maintenance cost)

Flight-related Costs Fuel 24,614 AS$

767-300F:

Flight-related Costs Fuel 20,732 AS$

According to the Aircraft Eval tool, fuel cost does not change between a brand new 767 and a 24 year old one and that the 767-200 has a slightly lower fuel cost which makes sense since the MTOW of both aircraft is basically the same.

I know the 767-200 is a crappy A/C compared to a similar 767-300, but there are some old 767-200s available that cost basically nothing in leasing costs....that being said I think the 767-200F fuel calculation is busted.

Aircraft comparison Aircraft type Flights per week Available seats Fuel Aircraft Handling ATC Landing Fees Maintenance Capital cost Crew Fixed costs total per seat 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Boeing 767-200ER remove.png 26.00 238 15,947 369 1,621 998 14,286 0 862 34,082 143 AS$ -9,092 (-35%) -4,262 (-14%) 778 (2%) 5,818 (14%) 10,858 (23%) 15,898 (30%)

Boeing 767-300ER remove.png 24.00 294 16,060 485 1,652 1,032 16,128 0 1,009 36,366 124 AS$ -5,496 (-17%) 594 (2%) 6,684 (15%) 12,984 (25%) 19,074 (33%) 25,374 (39%)

2

Maybe B762F burns more fuel because it has not very efficient engines? It’s nothing about the fuel cost it’s about the efficiency of the engines. You said that you’ve bought an old one so maybe it means it has old engines. I can be wrong though!

3

Maybe B762F burns more fuel because it has not very efficient engines? It's nothing about the fuel cost it's about the efficiency of the engines. You said that you've bought an old one so maybe it means it has old engines. I can be wrong though!

They have the same engines on the ER versions made after 1982 which is what all 767-200Fs are (oldest being 31 years old).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW4000

Also the ERs have the same fuel capacity and range while the 767-200ER has a slightly lower weight ergo by physics the 767-200ER should have the same fuel costs as a 767-300ER (which is one of the reasons the 200 sold so f'n poorly after the 300ER came out, lol)

Specifications by model   767-200 767-200ER 767-300 767-300ER 767-300F 767-400ER Cockpit crew Two Seating capacity,

typical 181 (3-class)

255; optional 290 (1-class) 218 (3-class)

290; optional 350 (1-class) N/A 245 (3-class)

30 LD2s 15,469 ft³ (438 m³)

38 LD2s Length 159 ft 2 in

(48.5 m) 180 ft 3 in

(54.9 m) 201 ft 4 in

Maximum fuel

24,140 US gal (91,400 L) 24,140 US gal (91,400 L)

Operating

empty weight

 

(80,130 kg) 181,610 lb

(90,010 kg) 190,000 lb

 

Maximum

takeoff weight 

(142,880 kg) 395,000 lb

(186,880 kg) 412,000 lb

Maximum range

at MTOW

3,850 nmi (4,430 mi; 7,130 km) 

3,255 nmi (3,746 mi; 6,028 km)

GE CF6-80C2 Thrust (x2) GE: 50,000 lbf (222 kN) PW: 63,300 lb (282 kN)

GE: 62,100 lbf (276 kN) PW: 50,000 lbf (220 kN) PW: 63,300 lbf (282 kN)

GE: 62,100 lbf (276 kN)

RR: 59,500 lbf (265 kN) PW: 63,300 lbf (282 kN)

GE: 63,500 lbf (282 kN)

4

This has beend discussed several times before. The current aircraft performance system does not work with fuel consumption. The fuel consumption is calculated by several weight data - which sometimes lead to unrealistic results. We do have a new aircraft performance calculation in development, but this may need some more weeks to go before we can start first tests and gather data.

5

This has beend discussed several times before. The current aircraft performance system does not work with fuel consumption. The fuel consumption is calculated by several weight data - which sometimes lead to unrealistic results. We do have a new aircraft performance calculation in development, but this may need some more weeks to go before we can start first tests and gather data.

Thank you SK! I appreciate your working on this to develop a more realisitic picture. They still make me money when full, so I will keep them.

Dmitri