Qantas Results and Project Sunrise
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mars
Age: 20
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piece of p*ss for the 777-8X. Advertised range of 8,700nm with 350-375 pax. Reduce that to 300 pax and range is pushing 9,200. Couple of aux tanks get you over 9,500nm. Boeing finds a few % of improvement in weight or aerodynamics, GE gets a few % out of the engine and there's 10,000nm to deal with wind/wx. The extra weight of fuel in aux tanks won't be much of an issue at all since the -8x shares most its structure with the (bigger/heavier) -9x. Not sure but I bet the airbus is pretty close too.
Head wind all the way though old son.
And you're burning gas to carry gas.
As the man in flight planning at NZ said to me... "Bloody Boeing will tell you the damn thing can fly to Pluto and back..."
And you're burning gas to carry gas.
As the man in flight planning at NZ said to me... "Bloody Boeing will tell you the damn thing can fly to Pluto and back..."
Yes. It was VH-OJA, QF's first B747-400. They also had a one off high density fuel load made to order just for that flight. They only had premium pax on board (about 50 from memory). All so that they can get bragging rights that they operated the first non- stop commercial flight from LHR to SYD.
Not sure but I bet the airbus is pretty close too.
A350-900ULR range figure not a revision: Airbus
Airbus A350-900ULR comes with a 9700 NM flight range
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good history on the 1989 flight with lots of technical info: First Non-stop England-Australia Unrefuelled Flight - 1989
Another good source with some interesting info about how they prepared the fuel: The Delivery Flight of Qantas Boeing 747-438 VH-OJA by John McHarg (April / May 2012).
Another good source with some interesting info about how they prepared the fuel: The Delivery Flight of Qantas Boeing 747-438 VH-OJA by John McHarg (April / May 2012).
One afternoon, Peter Brookes took a call from Shell, confirming they had refined the fuel but in two batches, which wouldn’t mix unless agitated. 'What should we do?' said Shell. 'Agitate it!' replied Peter Brookes. The solution to this problem was solved when they tracked down a couple of railway fuel tankers, rinsed them out (it was probably a bit more complicated than that) part filled each of them with pre-determined quantities of the two batches of fuel and shunted them backwards and forwards in a local marshalling yard before decanting them into the waiting road tankers. In passing Shell also mentioned that the fuel they’d produced also showed a startlingly low freezing point - minus 70°C - and would that be OK? Shell said they could probably crank it down a bit lower if necessary.
Nunc est bibendum
Yes but the respective wind profiles are significantly different. Suspect the nautical air miles JFK- SYD will be significant. 40 knot headwind for 20 hours adds 800 nautical air miles to the flight.
Given MEL-LHR distance is almost identical to SYD-LHR what's the chances that Melbourne would get a direct Service from QF as well as Sydeny?
Zero.
Stuff Qantas, the sydeny centric airline. I flew business class via Etihad/KLM/Malaysian to Europe from Melbourne last month and couldn't be happier. We got great deals on the price, the service and punctuality were excellent and there was the added satisfaction of QF not seeing a dollar of our money.
To put that another way, why the heck would anyone want to sit in an economy seat for 18+ hours without a break? Especially with Qantas levels of cabin (non) service? The airframe might do the distance, First and Business class might not mind, but economy?
Zero.
Stuff Qantas, the sydeny centric airline. I flew business class via Etihad/KLM/Malaysian to Europe from Melbourne last month and couldn't be happier. We got great deals on the price, the service and punctuality were excellent and there was the added satisfaction of QF not seeing a dollar of our money.
To put that another way, why the heck would anyone want to sit in an economy seat for 18+ hours without a break? Especially with Qantas levels of cabin (non) service? The airframe might do the distance, First and Business class might not mind, but economy?
what's the chances that Melbourne would get a direct Service from QF as well as Sydeny?
Zero.
Stuff Qantas
Zero.
Stuff Qantas
And given you love mentioning your many *business class* adventures on other airlines and how proud you are to never ever fly Qantas; how the hell would you know what their product was like??
You are oddly obsessed with an airline you hate.
"Flights to Singapore from Melbourne are also being ramped up as part of the overhaul, with Qantas' daily service upgraded from a 235-seat A330 to a 484-seat A380 and its thrice weekly A330 service increased to a daily service." (SMH)
Yeah, stuff Qantas, the sydeny centric airline (sic).
Yeah, stuff Qantas, the sydeny centric airline (sic).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Much laughing and carry on was done when Boeing launched the 747-SP for trans pacific ops. Every one said it would never work long term. I think they got that wrong."
"While in service, the 747SP set several aeronautical performance records, but sales did not meet the expected 200 units, and production ultimately totaled 45 aircraft"
I flew a couple trans-Pacific - SFO - HK IIRC - it was a grim experience even in First TBH (in those days First was roughly equivalent to Enhanced Economy these days...............)
I thnk the main benefit was for SAA who had to fly UK - South Africa round the bulge as they couldn't overfly any African country in those days
"While in service, the 747SP set several aeronautical performance records, but sales did not meet the expected 200 units, and production ultimately totaled 45 aircraft"
I flew a couple trans-Pacific - SFO - HK IIRC - it was a grim experience even in First TBH (in those days First was roughly equivalent to Enhanced Economy these days...............)
I thnk the main benefit was for SAA who had to fly UK - South Africa round the bulge as they couldn't overfly any African country in those days
Beer Baron
Spent over $12000 from memory Qantas Business class return to LAX circa 2005.
A spoiler actuator failed at pushback at MEL and no, there wasn't a spare. Offloaded, transit to sydeny reloaded. Shocking cabin service both ways. The cabin crew seemed absorbed in their own little world that didn't include pax. Late arrival at LAX, broken connections and a rotten way to start a business trip. No apologies, no service, nothing.
You think I'm stupid enough to spend another ten grand just to see if anythings changed?
Qantas; how the hell would you know what their product was like??
A spoiler actuator failed at pushback at MEL and no, there wasn't a spare. Offloaded, transit to sydeny reloaded. Shocking cabin service both ways. The cabin crew seemed absorbed in their own little world that didn't include pax. Late arrival at LAX, broken connections and a rotten way to start a business trip. No apologies, no service, nothing.
You think I'm stupid enough to spend another ten grand just to see if anythings changed?
You should; they just reset that stuff now no worries
So for 12 years you've spent your time on an anonymous forum ripping into QF. Why? If our aim is to steer people clear of the evil ship of Qantas, sorry mate, it ain't workin'. You need help dude. Honestly, see someone.
Ken, QANTAS claims to be "Australia's national airline". It isn't. it's NSW airline. Ever since at least as early as 1972, Qantas has favoured Sydney as its preferred destination for inbound overseas arrivals. This has had a catastrophic effect on inbound overseas investment for Brisbane and Melbourne, let alone poor Adelaide.
Sydney got the lions share of foreign banking and IT overseas investment during the 1970's and 1980's as a result of Qantas being a willing tool of the Sydney "push". There were #@#! all direct flights from BNE and MEL to LHR and LAX. Everything had to transit through Sydney either inbound or outbound. The result was that Melbourne and Brisbane were perceived by potential overseas investors as being at least three hours further from London and New York than Sydney.
The direct result of this bias was skewed overseas investment in Sydney's favour. When I proposed breaking Sydneys stranglehold on the B747 TFC and line maintenance monopoly circa 1979, which we (Ansett) could have done with minimal further investment (as we were tooling up for the B767), I was instructed at a meeting with John Bibo, very firmly, to drop the subject as "abeles will have our guts for garters if we break that Qantas monopoly". Such is the role of direct flights in securing inbound international investment.
Nothing has changed my view that Qantas is a willing tool of the NSW government, no matter what political persuasion. It will do nothing that politically disadvantages its host. You can bet that if the non stop service eventuates it will again be marketed as Sydney is three hours closer to london and new york, blah, blah.
Qantas ain't a national airline. it's just a bunch of sydney crooks doing what they've been doing since the rum rebellion.
Sydney got the lions share of foreign banking and IT overseas investment during the 1970's and 1980's as a result of Qantas being a willing tool of the Sydney "push". There were #@#! all direct flights from BNE and MEL to LHR and LAX. Everything had to transit through Sydney either inbound or outbound. The result was that Melbourne and Brisbane were perceived by potential overseas investors as being at least three hours further from London and New York than Sydney.
The direct result of this bias was skewed overseas investment in Sydney's favour. When I proposed breaking Sydneys stranglehold on the B747 TFC and line maintenance monopoly circa 1979, which we (Ansett) could have done with minimal further investment (as we were tooling up for the B767), I was instructed at a meeting with John Bibo, very firmly, to drop the subject as "abeles will have our guts for garters if we break that Qantas monopoly". Such is the role of direct flights in securing inbound international investment.
Nothing has changed my view that Qantas is a willing tool of the NSW government, no matter what political persuasion. It will do nothing that politically disadvantages its host. You can bet that if the non stop service eventuates it will again be marketed as Sydney is three hours closer to london and new york, blah, blah.
Qantas ain't a national airline. it's just a bunch of sydney crooks doing what they've been doing since the rum rebellion.