Aviation Appreciation Station

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Phil1111

Thats nice.

Whats most amazing about commercial aircraft like the the 737 and up is that they are designed to haul a full load of passengers and baggage to their maximum range.

That is 100% false.

The 737-700 WestJet sends to Liberia must block off seats to be able to make it; the fact that an airplane burns more fuel at higher weights is a fundamental principle that remains unchanged. A Boeing 787-8 such as Air Canada's can take exactly zero payload if it were to take full fuel. All 777 variants are the same, ditto on A330 and A350. There's some oddities like the stupid Embraer 190 that doesn't have big enough tanks so it leaves weight open at MTOW with full fuel, but the majority of airliners trade payload for fuel/range or vice versa at higher weights.

[Phil1111]

Originally Posted by Acey

That is 100% false.

The 737-700 WestJet sends to Liberia must block off seats to be able to make it; the fact that an airplane burns more fuel at higher weights is a fundamental principle that remains unchanged. A Boeing 787-8 such as Air Canada's can take exactly zero payload if it were to take full fuel. All 777 variants are the same, ditto on A330 and A350. There's some oddities like the stupid Embraer 190 that doesn't have big enough tanks so it leaves weight open at MTOW with full fuel, but the majority of airliners trade payload for fuel/range or vice versa at higher weights.

http://www.aircraftmonitor.com/paylo...passenger.html

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3f0...34da3334a9.pdf

The entire representation that I made was range vr payload for smaller aircraft as compared to commercial passenger jets.

[Acey]

Except A -700 cannot fly 3,275 nm at anything resembling a max payload, which is what you stated. It cannot even reliably fly 2,800 nm with max payload. Good thing the actual airplanes I work with aren't using charts off the internet. Boeing revised down all their design ranges for this very reason, so the chart is entirely useless anyway.

The point remains that 737 and 319 are making the same tradeoffs... ask the Rouge guys whose 319 to Halifax regularly leaves payload behind in favour of fuel, despite being well within range as per your chart.

[driveway]

Just flew Qatar airways for the first time. Damn that’s a nice airline, and Doha seems a pretty well laid out airport. Would definitely fly Qatar again.

[Phil1111]

Originally Posted by Acey

Except A -700 cannot fly 3,275 nm at anything resembling a max payload, which is what you stated. It cannot even reliably fly 2,800 nm with max payload. Good thing the actual airplanes I work with aren't using charts off the internet. Boeing revised down all their design ranges for this very reason, so the chart is entirely useless anyway.

The point remains that 737 and 319 are making the same tradeoffs... ask the Rouge guys whose 319 to Halifax regularly leaves payload behind in favour of fuel, despite being well within range as per your chart.

Page 10 and 11 of the second link address your semantics. I personally have the full set of flight manuals for 737 and 787 AC. But you don't need 1500 pages to point out that yes there is a range vr. passenger load trade-off for most every aircraft. That airlines usually don't put larger capacity AC on a thin route where seat mile costs don't generate returns.

Don't confuse MTOW with passenger payload range, with the only other factor(s) weather and reserves.

Have a nice day.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Phil1111

Have a nice day.

In your original post, you meant to say "design range" or whatever term a manufacturer use to cite range with a typical payload instead of "maximum range", which is an arbitrary term that one can only assume to mean the maximum distance the airplane can fly, which would obviously not be achievable while carrying anything resembling a decent payload. The word "typical" nor "design" were nowhere in the post to which I responded, and now you're backtracking to make me look dumb.

But at the same time, you concede there is a tradeoff... so you haven't exactly negated my point which is merely that airlines are demonstrably making this tradeoff with narrowbodies to the extent that it would be erroneous to claim a 737 or 319 can fly a typical payload to its max range.

[stazzy33]

Originally Posted by Phil1111

Page 10 and 11 of the second link address your semantics. I personally have the full set of flight manuals for 737 and 787 AC. But you don't need 1500 pages to point out that yes there is a range vr. passenger load trade-off for most every aircraft. That airlines usually don't put larger capacity AC on a thin route where seat mile costs don't generate returns.

Don't confuse MTOW with passenger payload range, with the only other factor(s) weather and reserves.

Have a nice day.

[Bigtime]

Hey guys stop fighting, this aviation isn't going to appreciate itself.

[Phil1111]

Originally Posted by Acey

In your original post, you meant to say "design range" or whatever term a manufacturer use to cite range with a typical payload instead of "maximum range", which is an arbitrary term that one can only assume to mean the maximum distance the airplane can fly, which would obviously not be achievable while carrying anything resembling a decent payload. The word "typical" nor "design" were nowhere in the post to which I responded, and now you're backtracking to make me look dumb.

But at the same time, you concede there is a tradeoff... so you haven't exactly negated my point which is merely that airlines are demonstrably making this tradeoff with narrowbodies to the extent that it would be erroneous to claim a 737 or 319 can fly a typical payload to its max range.

I apologize if clarifying my post made you look_____!

I again apologize if your schooling and cognitive reasoning substituted "design range", whatever that is. For the general parameters of commercial AC design. For which "narrowbodies" have nothing to do with this discussion.

This is the full post from which you chose to quote a part thereof:
"Whats most amazing about commercial aircraft like the the 737 and up is that they are designed to haul a full load of passengers and baggage to their maximum range. With smaller AC you typically can have full seats, or full range, but few can do both.

Some very expensive, i.e. $1,000,000 light and medium AC can fly maximum range with only 2-4 passengers. Including many light jets."

It clearly makes reference to a cabin/passenger payload to maximum possible range with a reduced number of seats filled. Generally speaking most AC with price tags of a million and light jets have substantially more than 2-4 seats.I should have been clearer in that reference.

I hope my apologies make you feel better. I try to avoid pissing contests, but if you need it here is the relief tube

[Acey]

Umm the point remains that... the 737 nor anything bigger cannot haul a full payload to max range. I don't know a single person in this industry aside from you that would deem your first statement (without clarification) to be correct.

The "few can do both" portion further affirms the implied notion that the larger jets are in fact those that can "do both". You've since clarified the point and insisted that you know everything, but most would logically follow my interpretation of that first statement and it's hilarious that you feel the need to insult me for it.

[Phil1111]

Originally Posted by Acey

Umm the point remains that... the 737 nor anything bigger cannot haul a full payload to max range. I don't know a single person in this industry aside from you that would deem your first statement (without clarification) to be correct.

The "few can do both" portion further affirms the implied notion that the larger jets are in fact those that can "do both". You've since clarified the point and insisted that you know everything, but most would logically follow my interpretation of that first statement and it's hilarious that you feel the need to insult me for it.

The second paragraph, of the first statement, seems to completely escape your cognitive process. You're the one who seems to know everything. There are AC that can do both. i.e. fill every seat and fly with full tanks without exceeding gross. As specified by the manufacturer.

The isle configuration of a AC has nothing to do with MTOW or any range consideration. Aircraft are ordered and assigned the seating configuration for specific routes and pricing considerations of the intended passenger profiles.

Don't let Transport Canada Aviation Enforcement test you.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Phil1111

There are AC that can do both. i.e. fill every seat and fly with full tanks without exceeding gross. As specified by the manufacturer.

Of course there are planes that can do that, but full seats ≠ full payload, nor did I ever claim that, nor is that of any relevance to the discussion given that we're discussing said AC's ability to carry said payload to "max range".

Originally Posted by Phil1111

The isle configuration of a AC has nothing to do with MTOW or any range consideration. Aircraft are ordered and assigned the seating configuration for specific routes and pricing considerations of the intended passenger profiles.

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

You know I was referring to MZFW, which is why I've consistently said "payload" and not "seats"... and MZFW is obviously a weight at which an airliner likely would not reach its max range, i.e. a tradeoff of range vs rev payload.

You've devised the implausible scenario of a full flight of pax with zero bags or cargo to somehow negate the statement that an airliner doesn't trade range for payload at higher weights, which is all I've claimed? Are you the AC guy in Concourse C that always just randomly yells at people? Or are you just writing text so that the insult at the end of each post is better concealed?

[BlackArcher101]

I'm so confused, how can someone call the range of a plane at full payload to be max range? That's impossible as the more weight you shed, the more the max range increases.... Actually, max range never increases, you just happen to get closer to it when lighter

[Acey]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I'm so confused, how can someone call the range of a plane at full payload to be max range? That's impossible as the more weight you shed, the more the max range increases.... Actually, max range never increases, you just happen to get closer to it when lighter

Well yeah, which is why we've now revised "full payload" to mean full seats with no other payload, an almost impossible scenario.

[BurningYears]

Originally Posted by Acey

Well yeah, which is why we've now revised "full payload" to mean full seats with no other payload, an almost impossible scenario.

100% impossible with peoples "carry on"

[Bigtime]

TO/GA Party! How Go-Arounds Work

http://aerosavvy.com/go-around/

[Phil1111]

I realize there are some Westjet and aviation enthusiasts here.

As a matter of reference. I bought my first charter AC in 1975 when I was 20 years old. A Cessna 182. I hired a instructor and leaned to fly in that AC.

I paid my way through university flying charters over northern Canada.

I've flown everything from the 300 series Otter on down.

Likely before Acey knew what "the industry was.

The day you log your 5000th hour PIC.

Comment again. MOD EDIT: Removed

[Acey]

I'll comment again and say a 737 can't fly a full payload to max range.

[stazzy33]

Originally Posted by Phil1111

I realize there are some Westjet and aviation enthusiasts here.

As a matter of reference. I bought my first charter AC in 1975 when I was 20 years old. A Cessna 182. I hired a instructor and leaned to fly in that AC.

I paid my way through university flying charters over northern Canada.

I've flown everything from the 300 series Otter on down.

Likely before Acey knew what "the industry was.

The day you log your 5000th hour PIC.

Comment again. MOD EDIT: Removed

Phil, you obviously have some knowledge, but this is getting out of hand. This thread is a bunch of av geeks talking about aviation and the things they love, not arguing with each other about max payload. Acey is one of the most knowledgeable contributors to this thread and has been around for a while, you on the other hand joined on September 24, 2017 and just recently started posting here.

Please take this conversation to the PM function of this board. Also you last little quip after "Comment again." is completely unnecessary.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Phil1111

I realize there are some Westjet and aviation enthusiasts here.

As a matter of reference. I bought my first charter AC in 1975 when I was 20 years old. A Cessna 182. I hired a instructor and leaned to fly in that AC.

I paid my way through university flying charters over northern Canada.

I've flown everything from the 300 series Otter on down.

Likely before Acey knew what "the industry was.

The day you log your 5000th hour PIC.

Comment again. MOD EDIT: Removed

.....well know we all are so impressed.