Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Qantas Fleet Order Speculation

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Qantas Fleet Order Speculation

Old 21st Jun 2015, 05:46
  #461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 13
Posts: 1,517
Yes, the B787-8 has great range (more than JQ will ever need)
Lucky they ordered the first 4 or so with the low rated engine pylons so they can't get the full range in case they ever needed it.

blueloo is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 05:52
  #462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 284
"I can't see any more 787 for JQ."

Yep, I'll qualify that by saying no more than the current flying plan/confirmed order book has listed and the boss has justified to the board. Apparently on a plane by plane basis. I doubt they could be deferred or cancelled, not much market for 8 over 9 I believe.

As far as additional aircraft goes, I very much doubt it.

Source outside exec management for Q or J. But probably no more reliable than either.

Watch this space.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 06:28
  #463 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,978
Lucky they ordered the first 4 or so with the low rated engine pylons so they can't get the full range in case they ever needed it.

Thought they removed the crew rest as well
swh is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 06:50
  #464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 113
Waiting for the new financial year to be delivered to Jetstar.
Keep dreaming boys
toolish is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 12:31
  #465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 73
Posts: 1,351
A recent Boeing presentation given to me shows the -9 fuel tank capacity is 133 kgs greater than the -8. I assume the additional 450 nm range of the -9 is due to the lower SFC of the -9 engines.

What has me tossed is the -8 EOW is 28 tonnes heavier than the B767-300ER.
B772 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 14:36
  #466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
The 787's pylons are able to handle all GEnX thrust ratings. There is no option to buy specific thrust-limited pylons.

This rumour is just like the heavy landing one. A heady combination of rubbish and wishful thinking.
flyingins is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2015, 23:56
  #467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,898
I would have thought the -8 had the legs for LA to Melbourne.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 00:29
  #468 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,309
Thumbs up

It does. According to the stuff on top of page 11 it can do MEL- YVR.
Keg is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 01:43
  #469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NSW
Posts: 65
Some figures to wet your appetite. I know firsthand the JQ 787s all weigh about 114ton empty they will carry 335pax and 10 ton of freight at Mach.85 with an average fuel burn over 9hrs of 4750kg hr. They will easy do Syd -Lax. They have the cargo room downstairs to accommodate 335pax and baggage with enough room for 20 ton of freight. All with the baby 64k ibs thrust engines. Just makes you wonder what QF will be able to do with a -9 with big engines.
Jet Jockey is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 02:20
  #470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 284
QF 9's are planned for less than 300 pax config. hopefully they will have proper galleys and sufficient lavs (unlike JQ, join then queue) plus crew rest for pilots and cc. So they will have to be proportionally heavier.


JJ's figures look pretty good though.

Last edited by Iron Bar; 23rd Jun 2015 at 05:35.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 08:37
  #471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orstraylia
Posts: 285
Explained to me by a type rated CX engineer in MEL handling UA 789, greater range of the 9 over the 8 comes from Aerodynamic Slots on the vertical and hori stabs that improve boundary layer flow over the rudder and elevators respectively and hence aerodynamic efficiency.

No magic tricks other than that and as previously mentioned fuel capacity relatively unchanged.

No research on my behalf whatsoever.
I'll leave that to my pending type course.
Bumpfoh is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 11:06
  #472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 347
Explained to me by a type rated CX engineer in MEL handling UA 789, greater range of the 9 over the 8 comes from Aerodynamic Slots on the vertical and hori stabs that improve boundary layer flow over the rudder and elevators respectively and hence aerodynamic efficiency.
Thats actually very cool... Manipulating Airflow on the 777X
OneDotLow is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 00:54
  #473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 898
Aerodynamic noise...

Further to the above, an anecdotal observation:

When I first flew the (very quiet) A330 I was amazed to discover that we could hear opposite direction aircraft pass 1000' above or below our altitude in exactly the whooshing sound that you'd imagine a cruising airliner would make. That's true of other 330s, 777s and the ever less common 747s. But its very subtle on the 787s that we (horizontally,at least) joust with, to the point that its perhaps more imagined than real. I have no trouble at all believing that a 787s passage is profoundly and audibly less traumatic to the air, and hence less wasteful of energy.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 02:20
  #474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 462
Regarding the increased range of the 787-9 over the -8, it looks like it has very little to do with the engines.

There is the hybrid laminar flow control system discussed above and some airframe weight savings (although the empty -9 is still heavier than -8), but the biggest enabler of the range increase looks to be the higher MTOW. This is made possible by increasing the gauge and strength of key structural components.
So I guess in theory the max range of the -8 would be greater but with a full load of passengers the higher MTOW of the -9 gives it it's greater range.

There is a great article about it in Flightglobal: ANALYSIS: Why Boeing?s 787-9 is more than just a stretch - 7/10/2014 - Flight Global

And the graphic below shows the different range profile at the different MTOW options:
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2015, 07:48
  #475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Or maybe its the greater fuel capacity
moa999 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2015, 04:49
  #476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,203
Management are " reasonably confident" that OQD would be available Monday. My experience of contaminated hydraulic systems is limited to cars. Can someone with some knowledge expand. Would you have to replace all or some of the following? Actuators, pumps and flexible lines? Thanks.
dragon man is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2015, 12:14
  #477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 462
moa999, perhaps you missed this post from B772:
A recent Boeing presentation given to me shows the -9 fuel tank capacity is 133 kgs greater than the -8
I'd be pretty impressed if you could get 450Nm more range from an extra 133kg of fuel!!
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 10:46
  #478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 259
133 kg would give me about 2000km in the Cortina!
illusion is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 16:04
  #479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,742
Management are " reasonably confident" that OQD would be available Monday. My experience of contaminated hydraulic systems is limited to cars. Can someone with some knowledge expand. Would you have to replace all or some of the following? Actuators, pumps and flexible lines? Thanks.
I can't verify the accuracy report but an engineer told me that OQD's problems stem from a certain overseas maintenance facility which used the wrong fluid in the hydraulic systems. A lot of work is required to change pumps, filters, actuators and flush the lines.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2015, 21:02
  #480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,925
Current GEnx-1B engines have ~2% better fuel burn than the EIS engines. But the GEnx-1B engines going on the 787-9 are the exact same engines as those going on the 787-8 today (aside from perhaps the rating plug), and PIP improvements made since EIS are a available for retrofit to the original GEnx engines.
tdracer is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.