But didn't the new wingtip design go far to help with the short wing?

IIRC Continental bought the 764 for Hawaii and GUM flights, so the fact that UA now has them doing a myriad of transatlantic runs would indicate they are quite successful, wouldn't you say?

kjeld0d wrote:

Okay, wow, covered alot of new ground here. One question to add, maybe nobody has asked it before, I'm not sure. Why was the 764 not as successful as the 763?

It was too late in the genesis of the 767 and the A330 was already performing the mission better.

LY777 wrote:

With its good capacity and moderate range, why isn't the 764 more successful on TATL flights?

A330 happened.

jagraham wrote:

The 764 has tail tanks. But the FAA was never satisfied with them for some reason, so they remain unused. 500 nm less range. Also, the 764s that were ordered have GE engines (neither DL or CO ordered Pratt) but the engine as delivered came up short on thrust.

The 764 fuel usage is just a little bit over a 763, which was shown from the tanker contest to use 1000 lb / hr less than A332F. So it's highly unlikely that a 764 is less fuel efficient than an A330. Payload is not an issue, the charts show 55 tons (50 metric tons). But range is an issue. The wings are an issue, the 767 optimal cruise is M0.8, versus M0.83 for the A330. And the 764 does not have a real big brother, which the A332 does.

'Tail tanks' as you call them on the 764 ?


Funny that, over a decade flying the aircraft and i've not discovered them, you must be confused with another type.

Was on a MUC-IAH flight a few years back when the Iceland volcano was routing flights well south. We came on to the U.S. coast over North Carolina and the flight on the comfy sCO B764 was 11+15 with a full pax load. No idea what the cargo load was, but 11+15, it has legs.

jagraham wrote:

The 764 fuel usage is just a little bit over a 763, which was shown from the tanker contest to use 1000 lb / hr less than A332F.

764 has 13t higher OEW, 16t higher MZFW. (+ ~18%) you won't get by with "just a little bit over a 763".
As I shew further up the 764 needs ~6% more fuel around MZFW than the A330.
the A330 will fly further (~500nm) due to higher MTOW. for same range the difference will be bigger.

WIederling wrote:

jagraham wrote:

The 764 fuel usage is just a little bit over a 763, which was shown from the tanker contest to use 1000 lb / hr less than A332F.

764 has 13t higher OEW, 16t higher MZFW. (+ ~18%) you won't get by with "just a little bit over a 763".
As I shew further up the 764 needs ~6% more fuel around MZFW than the A330.
the A330 will fly further (~500nm) due to higher MTOW. for same range the difference will be bigger.

764 OEW 227000 lb MZFW 330000 lb MTOW 450000 lb fuel capacity 24140 gal range 5625 nmi
A332 OEW 265000 lb MZFW 375000 lb MTOW 533000 lb fuel capacity 36744 gal range 7250 nmi

A332 is heavier in all regards. OEW 15% MZFW 18.5% MTOW 18.5% Fuel capacity 52% range 29%

Fuel and range for 764 at 5500 nmi is 161700 lb (24140 gal) fuel and 63000 lb payload. At 5500 nmi, A332 has 80000 lb payload, 171000 lb (25611 gal) of fuel
At 4500 nmi, 764 has 83000 lb payload, a 20000 lb gain, while the A332 has 100000 lb payload, also a 20000 lb gain. Which is to be expected, since I am reading the chart with GE engines for the A332.

Max payload 764 = 103000 lb A332 110000 lb (from chart, spec sheet says max payload for A332 is 37 tonnes (81400 lb), so I went with the chart)

The A332 is heavier, but flies farther. Due to more fuel. Not more efficiency.

jagraham wrote:

.....

Lots of words but you did not understand what I wrote. did you actually care?

Hints:
going by payload derate per range extention delta beyond the MTOW corner you get an incling of fuel consumption
at the beginning of the flight per range delta.

The same basic airframe with about 20%++ increased weights will show proportional increase in fuel use.
i.e. the difference between 763 and 764 wil not be "slightly more" more like "quite a bit more".

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/6391173

From a previous thread for Delta airplanes

AMS-DTW
Aircraft — Gallons Burned — Gals/Mile — Seat Count — Fuel Burn/ASM — Fuel/ASM % Difference to 333
333 — 15679 — 4.579 — 293 — 0.0156 — Baseline
764 — 13950 — 4.074 — 246 — 0.0165 — +6% (less seats overall, more J)
332 — 13891 — 4.056 — 234 — 0.0173 — +11% (less seats but still competitive for off-peak times)
744 — 26307 — 7.683 — 376 — 0.0204 — +31% (ouch)

AMS-ATL
Aircraft — Gallons Burned — Gals/Mile — Seat Count — Fuel Burn/ASM — Fuel/ASM % Difference to 738
333 — 17918 — 4.685 — 293 — 0.0160 — Baseline
764 — 16119 — 4.215 — 246 — 0.0171 — +7% (Less fuel burn but fewer seats, would be interesting to see the yield with more J)
744 — 30233 — 7.906 — 376 — 0.0210 — +31%

Delta ordered it to specifically fit into LGA gate spaces because it was replacing L-1011's. I'm sure the wing design has something to do with it's range and altitude 'problems'. It wasn't originally designed to fly JFK-LHR shuttle missions.

777PHX wrote:

afcjets wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Delta uses them TA all the time from JFK

Delta ordered the 764 as a replacement for the L10 (not L15) to use primarily on high density domestic US routes. IIRC it wasn't until several years later that they deployed them on TATL flights.

Correct. It flew mostly Hawaii and Florida flights(maybe some Carribean too?) in a high density configuration before they were retasked to international flying.

MrHMSH wrote:

I'd batten down the hatches: you're in for a real storm! Suggesting the 764 may not be perfect is an extreme opinion to hold on here!

Of all the idiocy I've seen on this website in the past 12 years, the child threatening to sue people for "defamation of character"(!) because they had a critical opinion of the 764 has to take the cake.

Did that last part REALLY happen? There was (is?) a B fanboy so obsessed that he threatened defamation of character to someone who criticized the 764 for being one of the following: a sales disaster?? Range/cargo limited?? Etc etc...

It will be interesting to see if Delta returns the 764's to domestic service after it gets the 339's.