A380 cruise altitude record
Thread Starter
A380 cruise altitude record
Found this clip in Airbus' A380 news section.
Boy ! They sure have improved the flight envelope for the Emirates aircraft.
" Emirates Airlines is to receive its first Airbus A380 aircraft on July 28th as part of its new fleet of superjumbos.
Emirates is the largest customer for the A380 superjumbo as it has 58 of the aircraft currently on order with Airbus at a reported cost of $18.8 billion (£9.4 billion).
The aircraft will travel from the Airbus facility in Hamburg to a delivery ceremony where the world will get the first look at its interior and facilities.
A380 aircraft can fly up to a 15,000 kilometres altitude, even at full load, thanks to its powerful Engine Alliance GP7200 engines. "
Rod H
Boy ! They sure have improved the flight envelope for the Emirates aircraft.
" Emirates Airlines is to receive its first Airbus A380 aircraft on July 28th as part of its new fleet of superjumbos.
Emirates is the largest customer for the A380 superjumbo as it has 58 of the aircraft currently on order with Airbus at a reported cost of $18.8 billion (£9.4 billion).
The aircraft will travel from the Airbus facility in Hamburg to a delivery ceremony where the world will get the first look at its interior and facilities.
A380 aircraft can fly up to a 15,000 kilometres altitude, even at full load, thanks to its powerful Engine Alliance GP7200 engines. "
Rod H
Last edited by RodH; 23rd Jun 2008 at 01:18. Reason: editorial
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one. But as a non pilot old time flyer, just how high can today's jets sustain cruise in commercial conditions. I remember the early Comet IVs out of Melbourne seemed to fly right on 40,000 feet most of the time perhaps because there was nothing else up there, and it did see 43,000 feet showing on the Qantas 747SPs on the Pacific flights, and more recently I saw 40,000 feet on an Emirates A345.
In fact I've seen 40,000 feet come up on most long range types at least once, but there seems to be some sort of a design or is it commercial barrier to going higher.
I never got to 60,000 feet on Concorde, but I did see it touch 59,000 feet on one flight and 58,000 on another but stay around 55,000 feet much of the time.
In fact I've seen 40,000 feet come up on most long range types at least once, but there seems to be some sort of a design or is it commercial barrier to going higher.
I never got to 60,000 feet on Concorde, but I did see it touch 59,000 feet on one flight and 58,000 on another but stay around 55,000 feet much of the time.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one. But as a non pilot old time flyer, just how high can today's jets sustain cruise in commercial conditions.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North America
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good afternoon passengers, this is your chief flight attendant speaking. Please put your seatbelts back on as we begin to descend from our current altitude of 50 million feet down for landing in Dubai. The current temperature there is 35 degrees, but by the time we get there it'll probably be winter. You will be served dinner in a few minutes and then another 45 meals before we land.
Please choose Emirates again in the future.
Please choose Emirates again in the future.
the spacebus . . . . . . . . . .
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
denabol asked;
The higher you fly, the thinner the air gets and the closer the stall speed and the maximum mach number get to one another until the margin between the two becomes dangerously narrow.
Some aircraft will run out of lift and/or power or have other operational limitations before they get close to this point. If limits weren't set, some aircraft could be flown to a level where they would be literally flying a tightrope between Mmo and stall speed. An extreme example of this was the U2 spy plane. If the autopilot or an engine fails in such circumstances, the consequences can be quite challenging to cope with.
In 1985 a China Airlines 747SP suffered an engine failure whilst flying at FL410. The autopilot did its best to compensate for the reduced and assymetric thrust but the control inputs increased drag and, with reduced thrust available, the airspeed declined. The aircraft began to fly at an unusual attitude as the autopilot tried to maintain altitude and counteract the effects of the engine failure. After a couple of minutes, the pilot disconnected the autopilot, but he couldn't react fast enough to replace the large control inputs that had been being provided by the autopilot. The aircraft departed controlled flight and plunged 10,000ft in twenty seconds and a further 20,000ft in the next two minutes or so. By the time it recovered at about 10,000ft it had pulled up to 5G and suffered considerable damage. The aircraft landed safely at SFO and no-one was killed. The accident report blamed the pilots for not handling the engine failure correctly so the accident wasn't primarily caused by flying too high but it illustrates what can happen when problems aren't handled properly whilst cruising at high altitudes.
Manufacturers and regulators set a maximum permissable altitude (service ceiling) for each aircraft type. This is intended to give a safe margin between Mmo and stall speed at the service ceiling.
The service ceiling for an A380 is 43,000ft (13,115 metres). 747s can normally go to 43,000ft; 45,000ft is the max. Some biz jets can cruise much higher than this e.g. the service ceiling for a Gulfstream V is 51,000ft.
just how high can today's jets sustain cruise in commercial conditions.
Some aircraft will run out of lift and/or power or have other operational limitations before they get close to this point. If limits weren't set, some aircraft could be flown to a level where they would be literally flying a tightrope between Mmo and stall speed. An extreme example of this was the U2 spy plane. If the autopilot or an engine fails in such circumstances, the consequences can be quite challenging to cope with.
In 1985 a China Airlines 747SP suffered an engine failure whilst flying at FL410. The autopilot did its best to compensate for the reduced and assymetric thrust but the control inputs increased drag and, with reduced thrust available, the airspeed declined. The aircraft began to fly at an unusual attitude as the autopilot tried to maintain altitude and counteract the effects of the engine failure. After a couple of minutes, the pilot disconnected the autopilot, but he couldn't react fast enough to replace the large control inputs that had been being provided by the autopilot. The aircraft departed controlled flight and plunged 10,000ft in twenty seconds and a further 20,000ft in the next two minutes or so. By the time it recovered at about 10,000ft it had pulled up to 5G and suffered considerable damage. The aircraft landed safely at SFO and no-one was killed. The accident report blamed the pilots for not handling the engine failure correctly so the accident wasn't primarily caused by flying too high but it illustrates what can happen when problems aren't handled properly whilst cruising at high altitudes.
Manufacturers and regulators set a maximum permissable altitude (service ceiling) for each aircraft type. This is intended to give a safe margin between Mmo and stall speed at the service ceiling.
The service ceiling for an A380 is 43,000ft (13,115 metres). 747s can normally go to 43,000ft; 45,000ft is the max. Some biz jets can cruise much higher than this e.g. the service ceiling for a Gulfstream V is 51,000ft.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as an add on to all of the above one must also consider the amount of PAX Oxygen carried and how long it takes to get from, say, FL430 or higher, down to air good enough to breath in the event of an explosive decompression and be sure the oxygen doesn't run out too soon.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nairobi
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL510
I think that would topple my gyro's - it must be pretty neat to see the curvature of the earth so clearly defined - but at that height the vertigo would probably sneak up on me !!!.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: At home, occasionally
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cruise climb
Good one. But as a non pilot old time flyer, just how high can today's jets sustain cruise in commercial conditions. I remember the early Comet IVs out of Melbourne seemed to fly right on 40,000 feet most of the time perhaps because there was nothing else up there, and it did see 43,000 feet showing on the Qantas 747SPs on the Pacific flights, and more recently I saw 40,000 feet on an Emirates A345.
____________________________________________________________ __
____________________________________________________________ __
I seem to recall when sitting either the UK CPL or maybe ATPL Flight Planning paper during the early 1960's that cruise-climb based on both the Comet and Britannia performance models was something that, at least in my case, took a certain amount of practice to get up to speed on. As with take-off performance, there were a few fold-out graphs and tables to be tackled. Some questions required working backwards from supplied weight and fuel figures at final cruise Flight level or similar. ( However we had smart Navigators to fly with, and who were specially good at sums. )
My point is that when the skys were generally less cluttered a continuous gradual climb from initial cruise altitude to final cruise altitude was allowed.
Both Turbo-props and pure jet aircraft had their particular periods of advantage in flight levels achievable into less busy skies, as of course Concorde did later on. I remember us still being able to cruise climb Britannias on North Atlantic and sub-Polar routes around 1966, or thereabouts. Pressure pattern navigation ( single heading/Zn formula to those who remember....... but don't ask me to explain ) was still in the Nav manual, but the only time I tried that was when our Chief Navigator cleared it with Shanwick and Gander in order to demonstrate to us that it worked.
I don't think our passengers were necessarily aware that we were creeping up in altitude for hours on end. I'm fairly sure Australian ATC let us do it at higher levels in the 707 days if there was nothing else around.
I suppose now there aren't that many available spaces in the sky for cruise climb, but I think we did it once before this person returned to shorthaul around 1999. Northern Europe to Japan ( 747-400 ) on a day when there was nothing between Northern Greenland and the Aleutians except us....well it passed the time.........
Maybe when oil hits $??? a barrel, cruise climb may once again be possible. Could save a bit of the precious fluid, as long as people can still afford to drive to the airport...........
____________________________________________________________ __
____________________________________________________________ __
I seem to recall when sitting either the UK CPL or maybe ATPL Flight Planning paper during the early 1960's that cruise-climb based on both the Comet and Britannia performance models was something that, at least in my case, took a certain amount of practice to get up to speed on. As with take-off performance, there were a few fold-out graphs and tables to be tackled. Some questions required working backwards from supplied weight and fuel figures at final cruise Flight level or similar. ( However we had smart Navigators to fly with, and who were specially good at sums. )
My point is that when the skys were generally less cluttered a continuous gradual climb from initial cruise altitude to final cruise altitude was allowed.
Both Turbo-props and pure jet aircraft had their particular periods of advantage in flight levels achievable into less busy skies, as of course Concorde did later on. I remember us still being able to cruise climb Britannias on North Atlantic and sub-Polar routes around 1966, or thereabouts. Pressure pattern navigation ( single heading/Zn formula to those who remember....... but don't ask me to explain ) was still in the Nav manual, but the only time I tried that was when our Chief Navigator cleared it with Shanwick and Gander in order to demonstrate to us that it worked.
I don't think our passengers were necessarily aware that we were creeping up in altitude for hours on end. I'm fairly sure Australian ATC let us do it at higher levels in the 707 days if there was nothing else around.
I suppose now there aren't that many available spaces in the sky for cruise climb, but I think we did it once before this person returned to shorthaul around 1999. Northern Europe to Japan ( 747-400 ) on a day when there was nothing between Northern Greenland and the Aleutians except us....well it passed the time.........
Maybe when oil hits $??? a barrel, cruise climb may once again be possible. Could save a bit of the precious fluid, as long as people can still afford to drive to the airport...........
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 31
Posts: 500
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC : " Emirates 1234, you are cleared for re-entry "
LOL
LOL
ISS is only 340.5 km (183.86 nmi) up.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 initial cruise
Thanks for the informative and very interesting replies to my question.
Since it began coming to Sydney I've flown their A380 each way to Singapore. Very 'soft' and quiet sort of jet, seemed to get off the deck in very little time and at a modest speed, but I followed the flight display at we were at 39,000 feet coming back from Changi straight off, and 38,000 feet leaving Sydney. Coming back we did also show 41,000 feet when breakfast came around while we were still somewhere south of Broken Hill. I understand that one of the big one's better habits is being able to avoid low level clutter at around 29,000 feet on heavy departures on older jets. I'm looking forward to seeing what their 787-9s do when they come on line since reading articles saying they would be used on comparatively shorter regional routes. Out of Canberra would be good but probably in my dreams, since I can get there maybe a bit easier than Sydney. Of course sub-orbital flight would be the real buzz. I'd love to see the earth from out there, but even if I could afford a joy flight in the thrill machine Virgin is offering passing the medical might be a problem. The silly old 'fart might die of a heart attack is probably what they'd say.
Since it began coming to Sydney I've flown their A380 each way to Singapore. Very 'soft' and quiet sort of jet, seemed to get off the deck in very little time and at a modest speed, but I followed the flight display at we were at 39,000 feet coming back from Changi straight off, and 38,000 feet leaving Sydney. Coming back we did also show 41,000 feet when breakfast came around while we were still somewhere south of Broken Hill. I understand that one of the big one's better habits is being able to avoid low level clutter at around 29,000 feet on heavy departures on older jets. I'm looking forward to seeing what their 787-9s do when they come on line since reading articles saying they would be used on comparatively shorter regional routes. Out of Canberra would be good but probably in my dreams, since I can get there maybe a bit easier than Sydney. Of course sub-orbital flight would be the real buzz. I'd love to see the earth from out there, but even if I could afford a joy flight in the thrill machine Virgin is offering passing the medical might be a problem. The silly old 'fart might die of a heart attack is probably what they'd say.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ONE GREEN AND HOPING asked;
Here are some examples that I found from various sources including Boeing's web site;
Boeing 367-80 = 43,000ft
Boeing 707-120 = 42,000ft
Boeing 707-320B = 36,000ft
Boeing 707-338C = 39,000ft
Boeing 727 = 40,000ft
Boeing 737-100/200 = 35,000ft
Boeing 737 200adv/300/400/500 = 37,000ft
Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 = 41,000ft
Boeing 747 = 45,000ft
Boeing 757 = 42,000ft
Boeing 767 = 39,000ft (except 767-300ER which is 43,100ft and 767-400 which is 43,300ft)
Boeing 777 = 43,000ft
VC10 Type 1101/1151/1154 = 38,000ft
VC10 Type 1102/1103 = 43,000ft (greater wing area than Type 1101)
Comet 1 = 42,000ft
Comet 4 = 40,000ft
Comet 4B = 38,000ft
Comet 4C = 39,000ft
Convair 880 = 40,000ft
L1011 = 42,000ft
DC10 = 42,000ft
DC9 = 37,000ft
MD80 = 40,000ft
A310 = 40,000ft
A340 = 39,000ft
A318/319/320/321 = 39,000ft
A330 = 39,000ft (max ceiling = 41,000ft)
A380 = 43,000ft
If you're interested in any others, search the internet for "[aircraft name]" + "service ceiling".
Some airliners run out of lift/power or create too much drag at high altitude (due to higher AoA because of thinner air), some have pressurisation limits (e.g. 737-100/200), some are limited by the closing gap between Mmo and stall speed and some might be limited by other factors. All of these are then affected by the aircraft's weight at any particular time during a flight, air density and temperature, cruise speed and other factors.
I suspect that the 747's ceiling is highest because its wing was optimised for a higher mach number than any of the other aircraft I've listed. This will allow the safe margin between Mmo and stall speed to be maintained until a higher altitude.
Comparing the Comet 4, 4B and 4C illustrates how wing size and all-up weight can affect the service ceiling of an aircraft. The engines on all three versions produced the same thrust. The Comet 4B was designed for European routes whereas the Comet 4 was optimised for long range routes. The Comet 4B was therefore given a shorter, lighter wing than the Comet 4, and a longer fuselage that could carry more passengers. Even though the Comet 4B's MTOW was less than the Comet 4, and the engines had the same thrust, it couldn't cruise as high as the 4 because of the shorter wing span. Nevertheless the 4B was a better compromise for the shorter routes it flew. The long range 4C had same wing span and MTOW as the Comet 4 but had the lengthened fuselage of the 4B. As a result, the 4C's service ceiling was less than the 4 but more than the 4B.
After a heavy take-off, most aircraft, especially long range ones, won't be able to climb straight to their service ceiling. As fuel is burned off, the optimum cruise altitude will increase and, subject to ATC permissions, the aircraft will climb in a series of steps. A very long wingspan and decent power to weight ratio tend to allow higher altitudes to be reached sooner, hence the reason why the A380 and A330 tend to perform quite well in this area compared to, say, the 747-200.
I'm not sure how binding service ceilings are on operators. I remember flying in an Eastern Provincial Airways 737-200adv and reaching 41,000ft on a flight between Halifax and Toronto. We had been cruising at 37,000ft (which is the official service ceiling for this variant) when we encountered a region of massive cumulonimbus clouds. We weaved our way between the tops for a while, which was a lot of fun, but we couldn't easily fly around all of them. The pilot announced that we were going to try to climb over the tops. A while later he said we'd reached 41,000ft but the tops ahead were still higher than us. He warned us that it was about to get very bumpy as there was a build-up we couldn't avoid. He wasn't joking! The aircraft was only about one third full which will certainly have helped with reaching that altitude. As far as I know, the service ceiling on the 737-200adv is limited by the cabin pressurisation so presumably the risk of taking it to 41,000ft was more to do with the effect of the thinner air on the passengers rather than other limitations of the aircraft. I'm not sure how close the Mmo and stall speed on a 737-200adv are at that altitude but the margin between the two will be less than at 37,000ft. I had the impression that our AoA was higher at 41,000ft which it probably was due to the thinner air. I suspect that 41,000ft wasn't a very efficient altitude for a 737-200adv to fly at as higher AoA = more drag = more power = higher fuel consumption. When we'd passed the worst of the CuNims we descended (presumably back to 37,000ft but the pilot didn't say).
just how high can today's jets sustain cruise in commercial conditions.
Boeing 367-80 = 43,000ft
Boeing 707-120 = 42,000ft
Boeing 707-320B = 36,000ft
Boeing 707-338C = 39,000ft
Boeing 727 = 40,000ft
Boeing 737-100/200 = 35,000ft
Boeing 737 200adv/300/400/500 = 37,000ft
Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 = 41,000ft
Boeing 747 = 45,000ft
Boeing 757 = 42,000ft
Boeing 767 = 39,000ft (except 767-300ER which is 43,100ft and 767-400 which is 43,300ft)
Boeing 777 = 43,000ft
VC10 Type 1101/1151/1154 = 38,000ft
VC10 Type 1102/1103 = 43,000ft (greater wing area than Type 1101)
Comet 1 = 42,000ft
Comet 4 = 40,000ft
Comet 4B = 38,000ft
Comet 4C = 39,000ft
Convair 880 = 40,000ft
L1011 = 42,000ft
DC10 = 42,000ft
DC9 = 37,000ft
MD80 = 40,000ft
A310 = 40,000ft
A340 = 39,000ft
A318/319/320/321 = 39,000ft
A330 = 39,000ft (max ceiling = 41,000ft)
A380 = 43,000ft
If you're interested in any others, search the internet for "[aircraft name]" + "service ceiling".
Some airliners run out of lift/power or create too much drag at high altitude (due to higher AoA because of thinner air), some have pressurisation limits (e.g. 737-100/200), some are limited by the closing gap between Mmo and stall speed and some might be limited by other factors. All of these are then affected by the aircraft's weight at any particular time during a flight, air density and temperature, cruise speed and other factors.
I suspect that the 747's ceiling is highest because its wing was optimised for a higher mach number than any of the other aircraft I've listed. This will allow the safe margin between Mmo and stall speed to be maintained until a higher altitude.
Comparing the Comet 4, 4B and 4C illustrates how wing size and all-up weight can affect the service ceiling of an aircraft. The engines on all three versions produced the same thrust. The Comet 4B was designed for European routes whereas the Comet 4 was optimised for long range routes. The Comet 4B was therefore given a shorter, lighter wing than the Comet 4, and a longer fuselage that could carry more passengers. Even though the Comet 4B's MTOW was less than the Comet 4, and the engines had the same thrust, it couldn't cruise as high as the 4 because of the shorter wing span. Nevertheless the 4B was a better compromise for the shorter routes it flew. The long range 4C had same wing span and MTOW as the Comet 4 but had the lengthened fuselage of the 4B. As a result, the 4C's service ceiling was less than the 4 but more than the 4B.
After a heavy take-off, most aircraft, especially long range ones, won't be able to climb straight to their service ceiling. As fuel is burned off, the optimum cruise altitude will increase and, subject to ATC permissions, the aircraft will climb in a series of steps. A very long wingspan and decent power to weight ratio tend to allow higher altitudes to be reached sooner, hence the reason why the A380 and A330 tend to perform quite well in this area compared to, say, the 747-200.
I'm not sure how binding service ceilings are on operators. I remember flying in an Eastern Provincial Airways 737-200adv and reaching 41,000ft on a flight between Halifax and Toronto. We had been cruising at 37,000ft (which is the official service ceiling for this variant) when we encountered a region of massive cumulonimbus clouds. We weaved our way between the tops for a while, which was a lot of fun, but we couldn't easily fly around all of them. The pilot announced that we were going to try to climb over the tops. A while later he said we'd reached 41,000ft but the tops ahead were still higher than us. He warned us that it was about to get very bumpy as there was a build-up we couldn't avoid. He wasn't joking! The aircraft was only about one third full which will certainly have helped with reaching that altitude. As far as I know, the service ceiling on the 737-200adv is limited by the cabin pressurisation so presumably the risk of taking it to 41,000ft was more to do with the effect of the thinner air on the passengers rather than other limitations of the aircraft. I'm not sure how close the Mmo and stall speed on a 737-200adv are at that altitude but the margin between the two will be less than at 37,000ft. I had the impression that our AoA was higher at 41,000ft which it probably was due to the thinner air. I suspect that 41,000ft wasn't a very efficient altitude for a 737-200adv to fly at as higher AoA = more drag = more power = higher fuel consumption. When we'd passed the worst of the CuNims we descended (presumably back to 37,000ft but the pilot didn't say).
Last edited by Porrohman; 8th Jul 2008 at 14:45. Reason: Updated date regarding 767 variants