View Single Post
  #45  
Old May 17th 04, 03:02 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

sameolesid wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
sameolesid wrote:

snip

Just had a look at AFPAM 10-1403, which among other things lists military and CRAF
a/c types for various roles and missions. Fuel burn for generic planning purposes
of a KC-135R is listed as 10,921 lbs./hr. A CRAF B-767 (sub-type unstated) is
listed as
10,552 lb./hr. A tanker version would have more drag (boom, receptacle and various
fairings, never mind wing pods), so fuel burn of the two types appears to be
essentially equal.

Real world fuel burn for a 767-200 planned for a transatlantic this
afternoon (15May) is 10,450 lbs per hour. Of course thats without pods
or a boom.


Which engines?

Guy


CF6's. The higher burns (11,000) also due to payload/much longer
stagelength differences. The 767-200 is optimized for the
transatlantic market.


Thanks. I take it these are -200s and not -200ERs? It's not real critical, as I think we've established that fuel burn's a
wash, but do you happen to know which CF6 model they're fitted with? There are a few options, depending on the MTOW of the
particular a/c.

Guy