About Qantas' Project Sunrise and 787-9's range...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About Qantas' Project Sunrise and 787-9's range...
Hi guys its my first time posting and I really wanna know the answer to this:
So Qantas are now doing this Project Sunrise which is basically having direct flights between SYD and JFK/LHR. They just completed their trial flight from JFK to SYD two days ago with 787-9. So I googled the distance from JFK to SYD, which is 16,003 km. But the problem is the range for a 787-9 is 14,800 km??? How is the flight possible then??
Thank you so much for whoever that can answer me this. Much appreciated
So Qantas are now doing this Project Sunrise which is basically having direct flights between SYD and JFK/LHR. They just completed their trial flight from JFK to SYD two days ago with 787-9. So I googled the distance from JFK to SYD, which is 16,003 km. But the problem is the range for a 787-9 is 14,800 km??? How is the flight possible then??
Thank you so much for whoever that can answer me this. Much appreciated
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The effective range of the aircraft depends on the amount of fuel loaded, vs the total mass of the aircraft. For this flight the mass of freight (human bodies plus baggage) was limited. A very large amount of fuel was loaded, comprising a larger proportion of the take off weight.
I read that all the passengers were accommodated in business class, which is at the front of the aircraft. So I wondered if their baggage was loaded to the rear of the cargo hold, to keep the center of gravity in the optimum location. The high fuel load would affect CofG as well.
Having an optimum CofG would presumably make the aircraft more efficient, by requiring less trim elevator input, so maybe there was some juggling of mass distribution as well.
I read that all the passengers were accommodated in business class, which is at the front of the aircraft. So I wondered if their baggage was loaded to the rear of the cargo hold, to keep the center of gravity in the optimum location. The high fuel load would affect CofG as well.
Having an optimum CofG would presumably make the aircraft more efficient, by requiring less trim elevator input, so maybe there was some juggling of mass distribution as well.
I guess the stated 14,800km range is based on filling most of the 280 seats with passengers.
The Qantas flight took only 50 passengers, and so could take more fuel to squeeze out more range.
The Qantas flight took only 50 passengers, and so could take more fuel to squeeze out more range.
That is why it was capped at 49 passengers and the pilots spent the flight ‘changing routes and levels’ to optimise fuel burn. That is according to the press release, I seem to remember about 15 years ago BA did a direct Sydney - LHR just to show they could, I think it had a couple of Royals onboard.
Last edited by Ollie Onion; 23rd Oct 2019 at 03:26. Reason: add link
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OR..........VH-XFE Airbus A330-243
VH-XFE Toulouse to Melbourne 20 hours and 35 minutes. on 18 June 2012
Distance from London to Sydney 16,983 km
Distance from Toulouse to Melbourne 16,889 km
Distance from Brussels to Melbourne 16,605 km
Distance from New York to Sydney 15,979 km
VH-XFE Toulouse to Melbourne 20 hours and 35 minutes. on 18 June 2012
Distance from London to Sydney 16,983 km
Distance from Toulouse to Melbourne 16,889 km
Distance from Brussels to Melbourne 16,605 km
Distance from New York to Sydney 15,979 km
Last edited by ad-astra; 23rd Oct 2019 at 22:52.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hiding..... in one hemisphere or another
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How soon we forget.......
OJA - London to Sydney in August 1989 for a total flight time of 20hrs and 9 minutes at a total flight distance of 18,012km
...................... or are we still not allowed to mention 1989
OJA - London to Sydney in August 1989 for a total flight time of 20hrs and 9 minutes at a total flight distance of 18,012km
...................... or are we still not allowed to mention 1989
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 1,408
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
From the HARs site regarding VH-OAJ
Is that stall speed correct?
Stall Speed (clean, max takeoff weight): 205 kt
Typical Climbout Speed: 180 to 190 kt
Cruising speed: Mach 0.84 to 0.86 – about 500 kt / 933 km/h (at optimum cruise altitude)
Typical Landing Speed: 140 kt
Typical Climbout Speed: 180 to 190 kt
Cruising speed: Mach 0.84 to 0.86 – about 500 kt / 933 km/h (at optimum cruise altitude)
Typical Landing Speed: 140 kt
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 359
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 601
From the HARs site regarding VH-OAJ
Is that stall speed correct?
Is that stall speed correct?
JFK-SYD is well over the Boeing website range for the 789. 8,646 nm vs. 7530 nm. Is the max range they give based on MTOW?
What airframe could Boeing offer to deliver consistently reliable Syd-JFK and return operability with a commercial load? The 777-8 range is quoted by Boeing at 8,750 nm which is just over the Great Circle distance, but what are the air miles flown? Surely you'd need more range than just the Great Circle distance? And that's on paper anyway - fuel consumption might be worse with a plastic rather than paper aeroplane.
AB is quoting 8,700 nm range for the A350-1000. A strategically-chosen number?
What airframe could Boeing offer to deliver consistently reliable Syd-JFK and return operability with a commercial load? The 777-8 range is quoted by Boeing at 8,750 nm which is just over the Great Circle distance, but what are the air miles flown? Surely you'd need more range than just the Great Circle distance? And that's on paper anyway - fuel consumption might be worse with a plastic rather than paper aeroplane.
AB is quoting 8,700 nm range for the A350-1000. A strategically-chosen number?
Originally Posted by ad-astra
OR..........VH-XFE Airbus A330-243
VH-XFE Toulouse to Melbourne 20 hours and 35 minutes. on 18 June 2012
VH-XFE Toulouse to Melbourne 20 hours and 35 minutes. on 18 June 2012
