Ultra Long Range A350
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 hours, that was illegal under my old contract. The maximum duty time was about 16 or 17 hours, and that's not flight time, that's from check-in to sign off.
A flight that length can be massively fatiguing for crew, esp. when you don't get any sleep due to turbulence, noise or whatever.
A flight that length can be massively fatiguing for crew, esp. when you don't get any sleep due to turbulence, noise or whatever.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the aircraft had to be equipped with adjusted fuel cut-off probes in the tanks, to reach a total fuel load of 165,000 litres (standard is 141,000l)"
If you adjust the probes to fill the tank a little more, there are two apparent traps. First the overflow valves must be less trigger happy because i suspect that any shaking, banking, pitching would otherwise have them release too much of that precious superfill. This in itself could pose some problems with trapped gases. Second, it will be interesting to experience hot weather fuelling and subsequent mass vs. range problems. The tanks of the ME ULR aircraft pose some max fuelling problems above 36 degrees already, in the order of 2 to 5%, which leads right back to problem no1.
I know Singapore rarely gets over 33 degrees, but the targeted other big buyers airports for this new Wunderbus actually do.
As a second problem i see the MTOW. With two 4-wheel MLG there is no more increase possible (tires). The payload is already very small and thus not expandable, just as no additional aux tank. The much berated 777-200LR at least would have a comfortable margin to increase its MTOW, just as the newly offered 777X ULR.
I believe that the 350ULR will prove a tad inflexibel in daily ops when pushed to the desired range.
At the end of the day are there really enough ULR routes in the world that make these sort of 19-20 hour sectors viable. Maybe for Qantas because LHR and JFK are at the end of them but Australias not a very big place people wise and pretty insignificant globally . same with SIN-JFK, I mean Singapore the country isnt much bigger than JFK the airport.
If you have to upgrade Y -more pitch etc it means the aircraft is even more niche . So yes it means nowhere in the world is unreachable but how many really big city pairs are there longer than 12 hours ?
If you have to upgrade Y -more pitch etc it means the aircraft is even more niche . So yes it means nowhere in the world is unreachable but how many really big city pairs are there longer than 12 hours ?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Alan Cobham's inspiration for AAR was the idea of civilians flights around The Empire, not the military use to which it has been enthusiastically used.
By taking a view about the proportion of that traffic willing to pay a premium for direct, non-stop service on those routes, it's possible to derive the potential market for a ULR aircraft of a given size.
Of course whether that market is big enough to support one or two new types/variants remains to be seen.
That sounds too good to be true. One possibility is that AB initially installed lousy cut-off probes. I however think that they try to sell another blunder with huge promises.
If you adjust the probes to fill the tank a little more, there are two apparent traps. First the overflow valves must be less trigger happy because i suspect that any shaking, banking, pitching would otherwise have them release too much of that precious superfill. This in itself could pose some problems with trapped gases. Second, it will be interesting to experience hot weather fuelling and subsequent mass vs. range problems. The tanks of the ME ULR aircraft pose some max fuelling problems above 36 degrees already, in the order of 2 to 5%, which leads right back to problem no1.
I know Singapore rarely gets over 33 degrees, but the targeted other big buyers airports for this new Wunderbus actually do.
As a second problem i see the MTOW. With two 4-wheel MLG there is no more increase possible (tires). The payload is already very small and thus not expandable, just as no additional aux tank. The much berated 777-200LR at least would have a comfortable margin to increase its MTOW, just as the newly offered 777X ULR.
I believe that the 350ULR will prove a tad inflexibel in daily ops when pushed to the desired range.
If you adjust the probes to fill the tank a little more, there are two apparent traps. First the overflow valves must be less trigger happy because i suspect that any shaking, banking, pitching would otherwise have them release too much of that precious superfill. This in itself could pose some problems with trapped gases. Second, it will be interesting to experience hot weather fuelling and subsequent mass vs. range problems. The tanks of the ME ULR aircraft pose some max fuelling problems above 36 degrees already, in the order of 2 to 5%, which leads right back to problem no1.
I know Singapore rarely gets over 33 degrees, but the targeted other big buyers airports for this new Wunderbus actually do.
As a second problem i see the MTOW. With two 4-wheel MLG there is no more increase possible (tires). The payload is already very small and thus not expandable, just as no additional aux tank. The much berated 777-200LR at least would have a comfortable margin to increase its MTOW, just as the newly offered 777X ULR.
I believe that the 350ULR will prove a tad inflexibel in daily ops when pushed to the desired range.
Maybe sent them a email to ask the difference in the probes and their source & design of surge tanks - as I don't know or claim to.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't be surprised if Airbus run a couple of demonstration flights LHR-SYD (and maybe back again, which is the challenge) with this aircraft just prior to delivery to SQ.
The A340-500 is not economical to operate in the niche role. The idea behind this A350ULR is that there are no huge differences to a standard A350. Let's assume the cabin is no different. The aircraft can be used on any route without penalty.
If you think there aren't enough routes for this to succeed, think about this. A small regional airport in the UK operates 3 A380s, 2 B777s and 2 787s to the Gulf, every day. That's about 3000 passengers. Others take a trip to LHR, CDG or AMS. A significant number are transiting to Australia. Given the choice, how many would take a non-stop and avoid all that messing about in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Doha, Dubai or Abu Dhabi?
I know my answer.
Bring it on !
If you think there aren't enough routes for this to succeed, think about this. A small regional airport in the UK operates 3 A380s, 2 B777s and 2 787s to the Gulf, every day. That's about 3000 passengers. Others take a trip to LHR, CDG or AMS. A significant number are transiting to Australia. Given the choice, how many would take a non-stop and avoid all that messing about in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Doha, Dubai or Abu Dhabi?
I know my answer.
Bring it on !
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 150 Likes
on
93 Posts
Turin
I did the SIN - Newark once with SQ back in the day on the 340, and it was a long trip even when A/C as has been said was stripped to Business Class only. Not sure I would do it again unless really necessary, and as I recall there was a price premium. Also who ever said the world was getting smaller never did that hop, it seemed to go on for ever, and I have done a lot of flying in my time ! Will look forward to seeing fleet of ambulances meeting these ULH Economy passengers when they try to walk after 20hrs. I spoke with an EK cabin crew a while back about their experiences of LH economy, and they all claimed that they do have a number of people who do not move from their seat on the trips down to Aus /Nz and struggle to walk off .
Kind regards
Mr Mac
I did the SIN - Newark once with SQ back in the day on the 340, and it was a long trip even when A/C as has been said was stripped to Business Class only. Not sure I would do it again unless really necessary, and as I recall there was a price premium. Also who ever said the world was getting smaller never did that hop, it seemed to go on for ever, and I have done a lot of flying in my time ! Will look forward to seeing fleet of ambulances meeting these ULH Economy passengers when they try to walk after 20hrs. I spoke with an EK cabin crew a while back about their experiences of LH economy, and they all claimed that they do have a number of people who do not move from their seat on the trips down to Aus /Nz and struggle to walk off .
Kind regards
Mr Mac
Last edited by Mr Mac; 27th Apr 2018 at 11:43. Reason: Forgot it was Newark not JFK that we went into - only time I have been there !
Years ago did the flight Singapore - Newark direct. Lot faster than multiple legs on other routes...LONG flight as we ran into some headwinds...however great service and the seating was great even in steerage..they later changed it to all business class I believe.. There was a massive storm in Eastern Canada /USA and it took me 3 days to get home from Newark via Boston..Toronto and eventualy Montreal....an adventure for sure with some high comedy and a 2 night stay in a Hilton in Boston along with other "Orphans of the Storm".
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's 2018 and everything flying commercial is well sub-sonic. 12 hours in any ally tube is at least 8 hours too long for anybody. Is this a Big Bubba/Airslush strategy to keep more tubes in the air for longer, justifying higher prices and forcing people to upscale in comfort levels in order to avoid DVT or worse. (Think how many ambulances will be required to attend after pax have been incarcerated for 20 hours) Current aircraft are just all so last century. (Concorde excepted). I predict than the first manufacturer to get an economical SST to market will kill off the rest of the competition.
"Just stating the bleeding obvious but I feel better now"
"Just stating the bleeding obvious but I feel better now"
One a month dies from DVT at Heathrow | Daily Mail Onlinel
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ur-flight.html
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are dozens of DVT cases every year following long hauls. Nobody seemingly thinks seriously about it / wont happen to them....
One a month dies from DVT at Heathrow Daily Mail Onlinel
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ur-flight.html
One a month dies from DVT at Heathrow Daily Mail Onlinel
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ur-flight.html
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/american-airlines-passenger-died-flight-182636107.htm
About 10 years ago, I had a friend die from a DVT about 12 hours after getting off one of the non-stop Singapore - NYC flights. He was 42. I always book an aisle seat, and get up at least every 2 hours. People who sit through an entire 6+hour flight are asking for trouble.
wiedehopf
I think ImageGear is "deadly" serious - skin cancer is a much higher risk for pilots than ground based workers.
"The Risk of Melanoma in Pilots and Cabin Crew: UV Measurements in Flying Airplanes"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476387/
Location .........................Carcinogenic Effective Irradiance, mW/m .........Time to Receive the UV-A Dose of a Tanning Bed Session, 2940 J/m, minutes
Inside tanning bed ................................2.45 ............................................................ .....................20.00
In pilot seat at 30 000 ft ........................0.87 ............................................................ .....................56.60
While not claiming to be definitive research, it would seem that every roughly every hour of flight time is the equivalent of a 20 minute tanning bed session - which are banned in most states in Australia due to their cancer inducing outcomes.
.
If I was a pilot, I would using sunscreen, sunglasses and a cap (even for short haul)
regards
layman
I think ImageGear is "deadly" serious - skin cancer is a much higher risk for pilots than ground based workers.
"The Risk of Melanoma in Pilots and Cabin Crew: UV Measurements in Flying Airplanes"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476387/
Location .........................Carcinogenic Effective Irradiance, mW/m .........Time to Receive the UV-A Dose of a Tanning Bed Session, 2940 J/m, minutes
Inside tanning bed ................................2.45 ............................................................ .....................20.00
In pilot seat at 30 000 ft ........................0.87 ............................................................ .....................56.60
While not claiming to be definitive research, it would seem that every roughly every hour of flight time is the equivalent of a 20 minute tanning bed session - which are banned in most states in Australia due to their cancer inducing outcomes.
.
If I was a pilot, I would using sunscreen, sunglasses and a cap (even for short haul)
regards
layman