UK - Oz non stop
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
Here's Great Circle Mapper. Have fun.
Some aircraft, with the right loads, can do it today. But the law of diminishing returns also comes into play. In order to carry the fuel necessary you have to burn a lot of fuel getting it up to 40K feet. Economics 101 dictate that it will be a few more years before we see regular scheduled flights. I'd say at least 10, but that's a guess.
Some aircraft, with the right loads, can do it today. But the law of diminishing returns also comes into play. In order to carry the fuel necessary you have to burn a lot of fuel getting it up to 40K feet. Economics 101 dictate that it will be a few more years before we see regular scheduled flights. I'd say at least 10, but that's a guess.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
From: Earth
When? How long? And why not yet?
As ExXB pointed out, it can be done today, but not in a manner that makes money for the business. And we all know what happens to a business that doesn't make money...
Last edited by mixture; 9th September 2013 at 19:49.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,113
Likes: 2
From: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
It's about 10,500 lhr-syd. SIA do a non stop from Sin-Newark which is just under 10,000. Not a lot of difference really. I've often wondered about a non stop to Oz, would you really take it? 13 half hours to Sin is bad enough, I'm glad to get off the bloody aeroplane after that amount of time no matter what class you're travelling.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 472
Likes: 1
From: Potomac Heights
EWR-SIN is about 9500 miles -- or 1000 miles less than LHR-SYD and a polar route allowing some of the prevailing winds to be avoided. Further, SQ is giving up the route this fall. Just couldn't make it pay, even though the plane was 100% business class. So while LHR-SYD may be feasible, it will likely be a lot longer before SYD-LHR is.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,423
Likes: 1
From: world
You may have hit it on the nail thing. For sure there are pax out there willing to endure the (very) long hours, but I fancy that the majority are not. I, like you, prefer to break such a long trip even when in C class (I would never contemplate it in Y anyway).
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 190
Likes: 12
From: Geneva
Qantas looked at doing this with modified 777-200LR
I vaguely remember reading a few years ago that Qantas was talking to Boeing about the feasibility of using the (then newly-introduced) 777-200LR, with additional fuel tanks, to fly LHR-SYD non-stop. I may be wrong, but I think the main reason the idea didn't fly (so to speak) was that while LHR-SYD was OK, the prevailing winds in the other direction meant that it was just not reliably within range, at least with an economic payload.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,423
Likes: 1
From: world
parabellum, also done non commercially (delivery flight) by Airbus, but I can't remember if it was an A330 or A340. Hang on, I'll google it. Yep, here it is:
VH-EBQ Airbus A330
VH-EBQ Airbus A330
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,691
Likes: 24
From: Blighty
Regardless of prevailing winds, to fly the last 8 hours of LHR-SYD requires fuel which is by its nature heavy thus requiring more fuel to carry the fuel for the first 12 hours until it's needed.
How much more fuel is needed (roughly) to do LHR-SYD non-stop compared to (for example) LHR-SIN-SYD ?
How much more fuel is needed (roughly) to do LHR-SYD non-stop compared to (for example) LHR-SIN-SYD ?
Joined: Feb 2002
Aviation Qualifications: AME
Posts: 4,175
Likes: 1,101
From: UK
According to Wiki
Pinch of salt required.
A350-900[edit source | editbeta]The A350-900 is the first A350 model and seats 314 passengers in a 3-class cabin 9-abreast layout. It has a standard design range target of 15,000 km (8,100 nmi). Airbus says that the A350-900 will have a decrease of 16% MWE per seat, a 30% decrease in block fuel per seat and 25% better cash operating cost than the Boeing 777-200ER.[117]
The -900R and -900F variants also have been proposed but not yet launched. These are to feature the higher engine thrust, strengthened structure and undercarriage of the -1000.[118] Range of the "standard" A350-900R was estimated to 17,600 km (9,500 nmi), which would be boosted to about 19,100 km (10,315 nmi) by these design improvements to compete with the Boeing 777-200LR and be capable of non-stop flight from London-Heathrow to Auckland. The -900 is designed to compete with the Boeing 777-200ER and replace the Airbus A340-300. The -900R is expected to enter service in 2016.[119]
The -900R and -900F variants also have been proposed but not yet launched. These are to feature the higher engine thrust, strengthened structure and undercarriage of the -1000.[118] Range of the "standard" A350-900R was estimated to 17,600 km (9,500 nmi), which would be boosted to about 19,100 km (10,315 nmi) by these design improvements to compete with the Boeing 777-200LR and be capable of non-stop flight from London-Heathrow to Auckland. The -900 is designed to compete with the Boeing 777-200ER and replace the Airbus A340-300. The -900R is expected to enter service in 2016.[119]
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,701
Likes: 2,046
From: Reading, UK
How much more fuel is needed (roughly) to do LHR-SYD non-stop compared to (for example) LHR-SIN-SYD ?
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,056
Likes: 2
From: London
I think back in the '80's BA looked at London - Oz non-stop and Perth was the only place that looked doeable at the time
As for the SLF if someone comes up with a plane they can fill the passengers will put up with it if the price is the same - you'd save a couple of hours for a start
As for the SLF if someone comes up with a plane they can fill the passengers will put up with it if the price is the same - you'd save a couple of hours for a start
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,113
Likes: 2
From: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
They can fill it without me then; 20 hours on a jet is surely cruel and unusual punishment.
I suppose there comes a point when the fuel carried is merely there to carry fuel if you get my point, the law of diminishing returns. The F18 can carry five external tanks in theory; it never does because the fuel in one of the tanks in a five tank fit is burned just to carry the weight of the five tanks...
Edit: ExXB I see your point for a businessman, I only go their for leisure, I'm happy to take a stop and a stretch.
I suppose there comes a point when the fuel carried is merely there to carry fuel if you get my point, the law of diminishing returns. The F18 can carry five external tanks in theory; it never does because the fuel in one of the tanks in a five tank fit is burned just to carry the weight of the five tanks...
Edit: ExXB I see your point for a businessman, I only go their for leisure, I'm happy to take a stop and a stretch.
Last edited by thing; 10th September 2013 at 16:29.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
I've done the Europe-OZ transit more times than I care to count. I've stopped enroute, and flow straight through. If a nonstop was available I would take it. My experience is that stopping does not make it easier. These trips were (mostly) for business and any stop was at my expense (time and money).
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
A couple of enquiries here about extra fuel burn/tankering.
The 'Traditional' figure used is around 4% per hour per extra fuel. I'm not sure how this migrates to a longer trip (I suspect it is far from linear due to cruise altitude/route issues) but taken at face value, a flight of OVER 25 hours lands with less fuel than it would if it had not 'tanked'
Based on those figures, every tonne you carry for 25 hours burns ---- a tonne to carry it.
Your move?
The 'Traditional' figure used is around 4% per hour per extra fuel. I'm not sure how this migrates to a longer trip (I suspect it is far from linear due to cruise altitude/route issues) but taken at face value, a flight of OVER 25 hours lands with less fuel than it would if it had not 'tanked'
Based on those figures, every tonne you carry for 25 hours burns ---- a tonne to carry it.
Your move?