787-9 Range LHR-PER
Thread Starter

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 1,238
Likes: 69
From: EGNX
787-9 Range LHR-PER
The new proposed QF route from LHR to PER is planned to be operated by a 787-9.
According to the figures I have seen the aircraft has a maximum range of 14,100km (presumably less if legal reserves are deducted?)
Yet the GC distance on the route is 14,500km, possibly more like 15,000km in reality.
How will the aircraft be able to make the route? Is there additional fuel tank capacity if payload was restricted for example?
Apologies if this has been asked before.
According to the figures I have seen the aircraft has a maximum range of 14,100km (presumably less if legal reserves are deducted?)
Yet the GC distance on the route is 14,500km, possibly more like 15,000km in reality.
How will the aircraft be able to make the route? Is there additional fuel tank capacity if payload was restricted for example?
Apologies if this has been asked before.
Last edited by Doors to Automatic; 14th September 2017 at 16:45.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,733
Likes: 2,106
From: Reading, UK
With the payload limited (probably quite significantly) the B789 doesn't need any more than the standard tankage to perform an 8,000 nm mission. Which is just as well, as the 787 doesn't have any additional fuel options.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 2,033
Likes: 14
From: London, UK
Also, you have quoted the still-air range. Most of the time LHR-PER would be operated with a tailwind and forecast wind is taken into account on fuel planning on the day. PER-LHR is another matter, though!

Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 346
Likes: 1
From: Mordor
I have read that PER-LHR is supposed to be routed not on g.c. track, but on a routing which is longer, but also takes advantage of tailwinds. Can't find the article now, but I recall they plan do go waaaay north first and then turn the headwinds into tailwind/x-wind

Joined: Aug 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,829
Likes: 165
From: se england
Not sure how going north would help with winds, most Singapore, Kl, India to Uk flights seem to be scheduled longer westbound than east bound and the same for HK-China via Russia .
heading north from PER there are the Equatorial trades which blow from the WNW, they would take you to the horn of Africa so maybe that might work as a sort of zigzag routing but it would add a lot of Kms to the track. An interesting navigational exercise for sure.
But whatever its way too far in Y for me
heading north from PER there are the Equatorial trades which blow from the WNW, they would take you to the horn of Africa so maybe that might work as a sort of zigzag routing but it would add a lot of Kms to the track. An interesting navigational exercise for sure.
But whatever its way too far in Y for me

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 881
Likes: 68
From: UK
QF speak is bigging it up of course but reports that payload will be around the 156 pax mark
the WA market simply does not add up and if you want to transit and go on it means a change of planes at PER - checking in again and then a short or mid-haul flight for another 4-5 hours to where you really want to go does not make good marketing sense
also i read that the new variant of the 777 coming along should be more suited to a non-stop kangaroo route from UK/Europe which could include MEL and not just PER
the WA market simply does not add up and if you want to transit and go on it means a change of planes at PER - checking in again and then a short or mid-haul flight for another 4-5 hours to where you really want to go does not make good marketing sense
also i read that the new variant of the 777 coming along should be more suited to a non-stop kangaroo route from UK/Europe which could include MEL and not just PER

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,733
Likes: 2,106
From: Reading, UK

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,061
Likes: 20
From: My views - Not my employer!
Good point tdracer, technically that's a far better solution - but I think it was beaten by the accountants!
So, no 777's in their fleet. So that'd be expensive to start. To fly the route it'd be proportionally heavier and more thirsty to do it. So if they can do it with a 787 which is already in their fleet, that may be the low risk option... Not saying better mind! [annoying brat in the bar mode]But do we bring the A340-500 into the equation?[/mode off!]
ps...Love your input on the various technical stuff around here...Amazing!
So, no 777's in their fleet. So that'd be expensive to start. To fly the route it'd be proportionally heavier and more thirsty to do it. So if they can do it with a 787 which is already in their fleet, that may be the low risk option... Not saying better mind! [annoying brat in the bar mode]But do we bring the A340-500 into the equation?[/mode off!]
ps...Love your input on the various technical stuff around here...Amazing!





