Qantas PER-LHR and United's LAX-SIN on the 787-9, Technical considerations?
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Aus
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think any -200LR have been delivered recently but I don't see why they couldn't be built if someone wanted.
The -200 length fuselage is still manufactured for the freighter, and the rest of the -200LR is more or less the same as the -300ER
The -200 length fuselage is still manufactured for the freighter, and the rest of the -200LR is more or less the same as the -300ER
Of course it will work fine most days, QF would be insane to think about it at all if that wasnt the case. The problem is two fold
1) Any problem gets highlighted by media-worlds longest flight nearly runs out of fuel etc
2) The destination is LHR where on tiny hiccup can ruin a lot of folks day and a tiny hiccup at the end of 20 hour trip is more of a problem than if the flight started in Berlin or even JFK . LHR imposes its own brand of delays quite often and QF dont have much a a presence in Europe if they are going to divert .
1) Any problem gets highlighted by media-worlds longest flight nearly runs out of fuel etc
2) The destination is LHR where on tiny hiccup can ruin a lot of folks day and a tiny hiccup at the end of 20 hour trip is more of a problem than if the flight started in Berlin or even JFK . LHR imposes its own brand of delays quite often and QF dont have much a a presence in Europe if they are going to divert .
In answer to your original question about technical considerations to help them make the distance;
We are told that Qantas are going to great lengths to look at every item installed on the aircraft to see where they can save weight. Removing unnecessary galley fittings, light weight trolleys, this week they were even talking-up new light weight cutlery and crockery.
Qantas are also in the final stages of work on a completely new flight planning program. They had a university robotics team write the code to optimise the chosen flight path. It's supposed to analyse thousands of different route, level and speed combinations to find the most efficient route. It is far more advanced than the current system in use.
And then there is the fuel policy, ie. not carrying fuel for an alternate. (That's a well worn debate that I don't intend to revisit).
All these measures, and I'm sure many more, will help to make incremental increases to the range achieved by the 787-9.
We are told that Qantas are going to great lengths to look at every item installed on the aircraft to see where they can save weight. Removing unnecessary galley fittings, light weight trolleys, this week they were even talking-up new light weight cutlery and crockery.
Qantas are also in the final stages of work on a completely new flight planning program. They had a university robotics team write the code to optimise the chosen flight path. It's supposed to analyse thousands of different route, level and speed combinations to find the most efficient route. It is far more advanced than the current system in use.
And then there is the fuel policy, ie. not carrying fuel for an alternate. (That's a well worn debate that I don't intend to revisit).
All these measures, and I'm sure many more, will help to make incremental increases to the range achieved by the 787-9.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't get this "thin" bit comment/s
Flight planning is not a guess it is a formula and that formula has built in factors for regulatory requirements.
At the end of the calculation "x" fuel is required or the flight can not happen - X is not a thin number, it is the number that should have you at your intended destination with required reserves.
Should a variable be greater than expected during the flight in the flight plan, then the options considered in the flight planning may need to be used such (as a divert for fuel). That does not make it "thin" it is in the plan not to run out of fuel.
I expect that a divert for fuel would make the profit margin thin, but that is not one of the factors in the flight planning formula.
* It could draw a few punters from the East Coast that have family in Perth but don't want all their holiday there but want to also head to Europe.
Flight planning is not a guess it is a formula and that formula has built in factors for regulatory requirements.
At the end of the calculation "x" fuel is required or the flight can not happen - X is not a thin number, it is the number that should have you at your intended destination with required reserves.
Should a variable be greater than expected during the flight in the flight plan, then the options considered in the flight planning may need to be used such (as a divert for fuel). That does not make it "thin" it is in the plan not to run out of fuel.
I expect that a divert for fuel would make the profit margin thin, but that is not one of the factors in the flight planning formula.
* It could draw a few punters from the East Coast that have family in Perth but don't want all their holiday there but want to also head to Europe.
If u need to manage payload to get to destination its thin
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Fathom
SQ had 5 x A340-500 a/c. 9V-SGD is now operating with the Las Vegas Sands Group. Airbus are stuck with the other 4 a/c which are parked at Lourdes. SQ also operated a short sector SIN-JKT daily with the A340-500 for crew proficiency purposes. Airbus has dropped a bundle of $$$ with the A340-500. There are some new a/c available from Airbus that have never had an owner. E.g Built in 2008 with just 47 flight hours and a small number of cycles.
SQ had 5 x A340-500 a/c. 9V-SGD is now operating with the Las Vegas Sands Group. Airbus are stuck with the other 4 a/c which are parked at Lourdes. SQ also operated a short sector SIN-JKT daily with the A340-500 for crew proficiency purposes. Airbus has dropped a bundle of $$$ with the A340-500. There are some new a/c available from Airbus that have never had an owner. E.g Built in 2008 with just 47 flight hours and a small number of cycles.
If u need to manage payload to get to destination its thin
Actually, you're both a little bit wrong. If you're referring to the original Boeing justification for the 787 - 'long, thin routes'. As it's turned out, you're not far off.
The "thin" is meant to denote a route that couldn't support capacity (777, 380 etc). But the route did require range. A 767 size aircraft that could go anywhere. Think medium sized city. Remember United's first planned route ? IAH - AKL.
It's turned into something entirely different. But that was the original 'thin'.
The "thin" is meant to denote a route that couldn't support capacity (777, 380 etc). But the route did require range. A 767 size aircraft that could go anywhere. Think medium sized city. Remember United's first planned route ? IAH - AKL.
It's turned into something entirely different. But that was the original 'thin'.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, you're both a little bit wrong. If you're referring to the original Boeing justification for the 787 - 'long, thin routes'. As it's turned out, you're not far off.
The "thin" is meant to denote a route that couldn't support capacity (777, 380 etc). But the route did require range. A 767 size aircraft that could go anywhere. Think medium sized city. Remember United's first planned route ? IAH - AKL.
It's turned into something entirely different. But that was the original 'thin'.
The "thin" is meant to denote a route that couldn't support capacity (777, 380 etc). But the route did require range. A 767 size aircraft that could go anywhere. Think medium sized city. Remember United's first planned route ? IAH - AKL.
It's turned into something entirely different. But that was the original 'thin'.
Either way we wait with bated breath
