PDA

View Full Version : How far do you wanna go???


I.R.PIRATE
11th Mar 2005, 12:42
"The first Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner, the world's longest range commercial airplane, Tuesday completed its first flight and began a test program that will lead to its first delivery in January 2006.

The newest 777 took off from Everett, WA, Paine Field at 1000 local time. After approximately three hours, it landed at 1:02 p.m. at Seattle's Boeing Field.



Capts. Suzanna Darcy-Hennemann and Frank Santoni flew the airplane, which carries the distinctive new blue Boeing livery. Darcy-Hennemann is the 777-200LR project pilot and Santoni is the chief 777 program pilot for Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

"The 777-200LR's ability to connect the world is amazing," Darcy-Hennemann said. "Flying the first flight is an honor and a rare opportunity."

The 777-200LR, capable of connecting virtually any two cities in the world nonstop, is the fifth 777 model. It can carry 301 passengers up to 9,420 nautical miles (17,445 kilometers).

During today's flight, Darcy-Hennemann and Santoni took the airplane to an altitude of 15,000 feet (4,572 meters) and an air speed of 270 knots, or about 310 miles (500 kilometers) per hour, customary on a first flight. Typically, the 777's cruise altitude is 35,000 feet (10,668 meters), and its cruise speed is Mach 0.84, about 484 miles (779 kilometers) per hour.

Darcy-Hennemann and Santoni (below) tested some of the airplane's systems and structures, as on-board equipment recorded and transmitted real-time data to a flight-test team at Boeing Field.The flight-test program will involve the airplane flown today and a second one that's being built. Those will prove the airplane's safety, reliability and service-ready condition during 500 flight hours and 300 ground test hours.

"We expect the 777-200LR to perform splendidly during flight test," said Lars Andersen, vice president - program manager, 777 program, Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "This airplane will carry 20 more passengers, offer 12 percent more revenue cargo volume, consume 25 percent less fuel per seat, and fly 600 nautical miles farther than the competition, the A340-500."

Certification by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and Europe's Joint Aviation Authority is expected during the fourth quarter. The first 777-200LR Worldliner is to be delivered to Pakistan International Airlines. EVA Airways is also a launch customer.

Both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER (Extended Range) were launched in February 2002 by Boeing and GE Aircraft Engines at the request of airlines that wanted an airplane with additional flexibility to serve the nonstop routes passengers demand.

GE Aircraft Engines makes the 777-200LR Worldliner's engines.

The 777 family has captured over 60 percent of the market since the airplane's October 1990 launch. More than 38 customers worldwide have ordered more than 680 777s, including 112 Longer-Range 777s (777-300ERs and 777-200LRs). So far, two customers have ordered five 777-200LRs."



WOW ....Imagine having to sit thru one of those non-stoppers......:{

barit1
13th Mar 2005, 00:24
Ohare-Perth (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=ord-ypph&RANGE=9420nm@ORD%0D%0A&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=mi&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=) for example.

Rainboe
13th Mar 2005, 07:52
This is the one that brings even grizzled pilots out into a sweat! (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=egll-akl%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=mi&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=138&ETOPS=330)

It's all very well building a machine that is capable, but the physiological needs of people are unable to match it. With current economy seating and limited ability to move around. this would be a nightmare journey.

It's interesting to start changing the ETOPS parameters.

The African Dude
13th Mar 2005, 08:19
Both of those routes would be out of range for the 200LR, according to the GC Mapper.

Rainboe, do you think (if they operated 777-200LR's in the future) your company would consider fitting them out in the same sort of way that, errm Emirates is it?.. has done for the 340-500 long-range direct? I like the idea, just wondering what your opinion on it would be as I'm sure it varies by airline.

Rainboe
13th Mar 2005, 08:32
I can't see that the economics works for two reasons.
1- to go this far in an economy seat is a nightmare. So it's viable for premium seating only. Long range, premium seating......big fares- are there the passengers for this in large enough numbers?
2- the economics aren't that good. Compare LHR-AKL with say LHR-BKK-AKL. The direct flight has to carry the equivalent of the second sector fuel all the way to BKK. The LHR-BKK equivalent part of the direct flight will be humungously heavier than one actually stopping at BKK, burning up an enormous amount of fuel carrying the final part of the flight's fuel. I think I am correct in saying this will far exceed the fuel burnt doing a climb out of BKK and the costs of the transit of BKK (remember you would have burnt far less fuel just going to BKK only).

I actually think people like getting off at those wonderful airports like BKK, KUL, HKG and especially SIN, in the Far East and stretching their legs and not having to use a smelly aeroplane loo. Many people break the journey for a few days on cheap hotel offers and get to see the Far East. It works.

I see these direct flights working for smaller aeroplanes with premium seats and a stretch the legs room. Very high fares- shrunk down 767 style, or dare one say it....787 shortened ultra long range? I don't think the high fare businessman numbers are there for a 777.

The African Dude
13th Mar 2005, 08:38
Interesting, thanks for that. Understandably though that would be 100% right if BKK was under the direct routing, but how do you think it would work with the diversionary routing to land?

I think a stop-off livens up a trip for bored pax, for the sake of an hour or two on the schedule - which over these distances shouldn't be too much hassle.

Andy

Rainboe
13th Mar 2005, 08:49
Effectively, these stop offs en route work best with about a 90 minute transit. If you add on the fact that you have dropped out of cruising altitude and reduced speed in the descent/climb as well- another 15+ minutes, then taken a less than optimum routing to get to that transit station and it probably costs 2-3 hours on a direct flight- ie 1/6 or 1/7 of journey time. Only for high premium passengers in a fantastic hurry willing to take an increased risk of DVT!

I have the impression Boeing have produced a product well capable of reducing journey times and getting people to their destinations more rapidly, at higher cost. Now where have we seen that before....I know......Conc......no- I can't say it. It showed the limited market at such high fares there was, luxurious though it was. They should have waited for the right product for this- the smaller 787. But it is more to do with matching the Airbus 340-500 with whatever they had available now. Like the 747SP, it has no future.

Globaliser
13th Mar 2005, 14:06
If someone will do a LHR-SYD non-stop, I'll be on it.

That aside, SQ's 345 that has the premium economy seats but no traditional economy is only like that because the 345 is performing less well than promised, and is payload limited. The premium economy is there to make a virtue out of a necessity. This 777 looks likely to do better than expected, and I hear regular rumours that SQ will ditch the 345 in favour of the new 777 when it's available. I wouldn't myself be optimistic about the seating density if/when they do.

Jerricho
13th Mar 2005, 15:12
If someone will do a LHR-SYD non-stop, I'll be on it.

No way in hell I would be on it. That sort of distance in one go, strapped into an artifical environment of recirculated air, germs and alike would screw one's body up real quick. Any drivers thoughts on what it would be like for them?

acbus1
13th Mar 2005, 15:28
Any drivers thoughts on what it would be like for them?The two sector days would be a bit tedious.

:rolleyes:

The African Dude
13th Mar 2005, 15:29
Jerricho,

I used to agree with that in principle until I read several reports of independant tests, results of which showing that cabin air quality is far less contaminated by germs than normal outside air. You've got more chance of getting ill inside the Terminal!! :D

Jerricho
13th Mar 2005, 16:30
Really AD? Never knew that.

Unfortunately, I was more referring to the person I always seem to get stuck next to (not my wife ;) ) who is coughing and spluttering all over the place.

Oh and wouldn't the DVT crowd love that as well.

Globaliser
13th Mar 2005, 16:57
Jerricho: Really AD? Never knew that.To be fair, the research is pretty new.

This (http://www.travelbiz.com.au/articles/ee/0c02dbee.asp) is what I've seen:-Diseases not spread on flights, study claim

A new study has found that recycled air in aircraft cabins does not help spread the flu and other respiratory diseases among passengers.

UK medial journal The Lancet will release a study stating that fears relating to diseases spreading in aircraft are largely unfounded.

In fact, the study argues that the environment control system used in commercial aircraft seems to restrict the spread of airborne pathogens.

“The perceived risk in greater than the actual risk,” the study said.

The study suggested modern airlines are no greater source of contagion than other confined spaces, including offices.

On most commercial aircraft in service, 50 per cent of the air in the passenger cabin is recirculated, partly to save on fuel costs.

The air passes through particulate filters that claim to remove 99.97 of dust, vapours, bacteria and fungi.

It also captures viral particles, as these are usually spread in droplets, like a cough or sneeze.

March 11, 2005But as for the DVT, I agree that I'd have to wake up and move around a bit, instead of waking up for the commercial break at SIN or BKK as I do now. :D

Jerricho
13th Mar 2005, 17:51
Thanks for the link Global :ok:

crazypilot
13th Mar 2005, 21:14
Flew back from Tokyo a week ago NRT-AMS in Business Class and then AMS-BHX, that was enough flying for me. Any more time in the air and I would have gone mad, so cannot really imagine people wanting to fly such long flights as has been suggested with the new aircraft. People flying Europe-Australia/NZ like the Asian pitstop.

On the same topic (well sort of), rumour is that EK are seriously not happy with A345/6 perfomance and thinking of getting rid of them already. hmmmmm

CP

Vlamgat
15th Mar 2005, 04:08
As far as I understood, soon smoking on flights will be allowed again in certain sections of passenger aircraft. Some people started asking questions of why DVT suddenly became such a big issue after they banned smoking on aircraft!!

So the boys did some research and came u with some astonishing results!! Thinning in thee blood of passengers smoking or not, higher beatcount on the ol' bloodpump, and they were not sitting in the smoking section of the plane. Thus thinner blood less clotting DVT gone, no more problem, so the question is do you want to die or just inhale some second hand smoke for a couple of hours??

:) :E :ok:

Aginnintonnixadaykeepsadoctaaway!