737-600 vs HGW version Range -- Weird

[Gabe777 132]

So the typical range of a standard 736 is like 1350 nm with full carg/PAX.

So the 300nm range it advertises is basically meaningless as who flies with zero cargo except delivery.

But I'm finding refs to a HGW version that does double that range !

Sorry but that's impossible.

(Why won't this place let me insert a link to an image !)

 

Anyhow see here.

https://ibb.co/HCwzCYQ

 

 

Edited March 27 by Gabe777

[sd_flyer 6,045]

[Christopher Low 5,354]

I fly my 737-600 with no cargo or passengers

[mobeans10 197]

HGW variants have beefed up structures allowing higher take off weights ( Higher Gross Weight - HGW ). This extra weight is generally allocated to extra fuel tanks and hence the extended range

[Gabe777 132]

9 hours ago, mobeans10 said:

HGW variants have beefed up structures allowing higher take off weights ( Higher Gross Weight - HGW ). This extra weight is generally allocated to extra fuel tanks and hence the extended range

Aha. I see. Thanks ! 👍

[Gabe777 132]

While you guys are here, why does the FMC limit speed to c260 kias at 20,000 feet ?

...Is it a structural thing ?

[mobeans10 197]

There are a couple of things going on. First, even if I maintained True airspeed with altitude, the indicated airspeed would still decrease due to lower air density into the pitot static system.  Secondly, due to the fact that speed of sound decreases with altitude, the upper limit on airspeed ( True, and hence Indicated ) needs to be lowered with altitude to avoid exceeding mach limits. 

Edited March 28 by mobeans10