Sinapore Airlines completes longest flight ever
 

Singapore Airlines have just completed the longest flight ever made with passengers nonstop.
The A340-500 flew SIN>>EWR nonstop without a glitch. She is heading back to SIN as I write this bang on schedule into EWR and out.
Congratulatoins!!!

The papers were full of blurb yesterday and Time mag had a glossy insert which gave a detailed route map.

So why is the outbound route 2 hours longer than inbound, 'cos it flies up the Japan Sea, or whatever they call that bit of water, giving Asia a miss and makes landfall over Alaska, on the return its a great circle over the Pole.

Must have been a truly "butt-numbing" experience.

Wait for the DVT claims to start......

Congrats, anyway:ok:

Sultan,

I imagine that the route will have been selected to minimise the effects of expected headwinds and to make use of any expected tailwinds. Many long airline routes have significant differences in flight time because of met patterns. Given these patterns, north/south flights are less affected. For example, just looking at the Air France timetable, Paris to LA is 12 hours 50, the return is 10 hours 40. Paris to Jo'burg is 10 hours 25, the return is 10 hours 30.

It's an awfully long time to be sat in an economy seat though. I once went direct from LHR to SYD through BKK sitting down the back.( BA staff travel ,of course) Never again. I'd always get off and break the journey now. Still, you live and learn

In the Times article , it mentions:

"As they cruise at 630mph over the North Pole, passengers can lie back ..."
These A340s are obviously quicker than I thought :D
(PS 630mph = Mach 0.83 at sea level)

Further quote:
"It will not be the longest flight in terms of flying time: that distinction remains with the Singapore Airlines flight to Los Angeles. Although nearly 1,300 nautical miles shorter, the Los Angeles flight takes 45 minutes longer. "
That'll be because it stops in Tokyo, then ... :rolleyes:

Don't think it stops in Tokyo so presumably must be headwinds? :confused:

From the Singair website:

28 June 2004


Singapore Airlines’ (SIA) A340-500 ultra long-haul aircraft will take off today on its inaugural non-stop flight from Singapore to New York.

Flight SQ22 will depart from Singapore Changi Airport at 1205 hours and is scheduled to arrive in New York at 1830 hours local time on the same day. The flight will traverse a distance of close to 9,000 nautical miles (about 16,600km) over the North Pacific, to set a new record for the world’s longest non-stop commercial flight.

The return flight, SQ21, departing from New York’s Newark Airport at 2300 hours local time, will arrive in Singapore two days later at 0535 hours.

The non-stop Singapore to New York service will beat the existing record set on 3 February 2004 with the launch of SIA’s non-stop service between Singapore and Los Angeles.

“The flights will take an average of 18 hours in each direction

No it is not the longest flight made with passengers ever.

Back in the war, Qantas catalinas regularly flew from Perth to Ceylon with mail and fare paying pax (only a few, but paying pax nonetheless).

Nearly 300 of these flights were made in radio silence, and over 28 hours long. They were known as double sunrise flights.

More info here http://atcsl.tripod.com/domestic.htm

The Times claims that at times the aircraft is burning 1 ton of fuel a minute. Is this correct?

Also the flight was only carrying 181 pax. Does anyone know why this was? Was it Business config, or just undersold to be correct weight?

What about the delivery flight of Qantas' first 744?? Heathrow to Sydney nonstop!! 20 hours, and only about 20 pax (Rolls Royce/Boeing/Qantas directors and bigwigs)...

Technically a passenger flight, but I suppose it could be argued it wasn't a 'commercial' flight...

20 hours+... One for the logbook!!

:zzz:

181 is a full load. SQ's 345s have 64 flat beds in first and 117 seats with (I think) 37 in pitch in Y class.

It's not a normal Y class, but a premium service, with a 2-3-2 layout, hence the more generous space.

Incidentally, for those wanting to experience this aircraft (with SQ) without having to fly half way round the world (literally!), they are also operated on the SIN-CGK service.

As to fuel, 1t per minute seems grossly over the top; I'd imagine it would have a fuel burn averaging about 7t/hour, but of course it will be a lot more at the early stage of the flight than towards the end - but still much less than 1t per hour.

One tonne a minute...that's sixty tonnes an hour by eighteen hours. That's over one thousand tonnes

Don't believe anything you read. Even in the times. :rolleyes:

Maybe wrong for a "0" added to quote,
100kgs/min sounds about right...
Any 340 driver can confirm???

Congratulations
 

Now if it had really flat beds - as opposed to slid down the hill flat bed - no problems.

The time difference is actually due for some little part to the earths rotation and is very visible on timetables for east-west and west-east flights above 2 or 3 hours already.

A 747 burns about (very roughly) 180 Tonnes of fuel on a max distance flight if my info is not too far off. Starting with that and assuming that the 340's are more efficient its about 200 tonnes in 18+ hours, or on average 10-12 tonnes an hour - which in my book is very roughly 200kgs a minute. But of course clime needs more than cruise so 100kgs per min in cruise could be about right.

As others have stated the 181 Pax is due to the luxury seating and extra space. Good article for the german readers at
the Spiegel travel site :O

Compressor Stall,

You are right, up to a point, about the Catalina flights. But it only holds true if by "longest" we mean time. If longest refers to distance it's a totally different matter.

There must be very little difference , mileagewise between the Pacific and Atlantic routeing from KEWR to WSSS . Today Maastricht UAC had the SIA021 on that route via the Atlantic -track W and Europe . Flight time was 17hrs 39mins (!) obviously the winds are the deciding factor .

The 757 uses a rule of thumb 60Kg/min, so therefore a 340 would be slightly over double that?
150 ish?? Would make a difference over 18+ hours!!

:8

Just a quick explanation for differing flight times:

As gofer already pointed out, one of the factors that influences flight times is the earth's rotation and its drag effect on the atmosphere and the different layers. The true picture becomes even more complex, because you have to factor in:

1. geodesic paths (shortest route --- remember, the Earth is a sphere and not flat --- cartography distorts the pole regions, hence flight paths over the north pole come close to a geodesic for SIN - EWR)
2. Head/tail winds/Jetstreams
3. Earth's rotation and its effect on general wind directions on the northern and southern hemisphere
4. Allowed flight corridors

The mathematically inclined could solve this complex set of equations using linear programming (which, by the way, is done by the flight computer before the pilot makes the announcement of the estimated flight time after boarding).

Cheers, ;)