787-9 Range LHR-PER

[Doors to Automatic]

The new proposed QF route from LHR to PER is planned to be operated by a 787-9.

According to the figures I have seen the aircraft has a maximum range of 14,100km (presumably less if legal reserves are deducted?)

Yet the GC distance on the route is 14,500km, possibly more like 15,000km in reality.

How will the aircraft be able to make the route? Is there additional fuel tank capacity if payload was restricted for example?

Apologies if this has been asked before.

[DaveReidUK]

How will the aircraft be able to make the route? Is there additional fuel tank capacity if payload was restricted for example?

With the payload limited (probably quite significantly) the B789 doesn't need any more than the standard tankage to perform an 8,000 nm mission. Which is just as well, as the 787 doesn't have any additional fuel options.

[Groundloop]

Also, you have quoted the still-air range. Most of the time LHR-PER would be operated with a tailwind and forecast wind is taken into account on fuel planning on the day. PER-LHR is another matter, though!

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

I have read that PER-LHR is supposed to be routed not on g.c. track, but on a routing which is longer, but also takes advantage of tailwinds. Can't find the article now, but I recall they plan do go waaaay north first and then turn the headwinds into tailwind/x-wind

[Jetjock330]

I have been on the B787-9 almost 3 years now, and this flight would be one tough call. Very little payload and very little fuel remaining for an alternate with Perth.

[pax britanica]

Not sure how going north would help with winds, most Singapore, Kl, India to Uk flights seem to be scheduled longer westbound than east bound and the same for HK-China via Russia .

heading north from PER there are the Equatorial trades which blow from the WNW, they would take you to the horn of Africa so maybe that might work as a sort of zigzag routing but it would add a lot of Kms to the track. An interesting navigational exercise for sure.

But whatever its way too far in Y for me

[rog747]

QF speak is bigging it up of course but reports that payload will be around the 156 pax mark

the WA market simply does not add up and if you want to transit and go on it means a change of planes at PER - checking in again and then a short or mid-haul flight for another 4-5 hours to where you really want to go does not make good marketing sense

also i read that the new variant of the 777 coming along should be more suited to a non-stop kangaroo route from UK/Europe which could include MEL and not just PER

[DaveReidUK]

QF speak is bigging it up of course but reports that payload will be around the 156 pax mark

The 787 payload-range chart suggest that the aircraft would be about 60,000 lb under MZFW, so I think they would be doing well to carry even that number.

[Doors to Automatic]

How much extra fuel capacity does the aircraft have assuming there is no payload on board?

[DaveReidUK]

Assuming you mean how much extra range rather than extra fuel capacity (the latter is fixed), the B789 can fly a mission of around 9,250 nm with zero payload and full tanks.

[underfire]

If you have to take it down to half full with 156 pax to get this to work, what is the use of using this aircraft for the route?

[DaveReidUK]

If you've decided to fly the route regardless, the B787 is probably the least worst choice of equipment. :O

[tdracer]

777-200LR (or in a few years, 777-8)?

[Cough]

Good point tdracer, technically that's a far better solution - but I think it was beaten by the accountants!

So, no 777's in their fleet. So that'd be expensive to start. To fly the route it'd be proportionally heavier and more thirsty to do it. So if they can do it with a 787 which is already in their fleet, that may be the low risk option... Not saying better mind! [annoying brat in the bar mode]But do we bring the A340-500 into the equation?[/mode off!]

ps...Love your input on the various technical stuff around here...Amazing!