Boeing 777-200LR record flight info
-
Charliedelta11
- Registered Member
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:46 pm
-
inducedrag
- Registered Member
- Posts: 1231
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:31 am
- Location: n24e57
-
AirBlue
- Registered Member
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:01 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
-
Aer Pakistan
- Registered Member
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: London - UK
-
cheetah
- Registered Member
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:46 am
-
cheetah
- Registered Member
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:46 am
-
piafan
- Registered Member
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 10:09 pm
-
smarties
- Deactivated
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:25 pm
- Location: Where the wild roses grow
piafan wrote:This plan flew only with 35+crew on board. Can this plane complete the same journey with full load that is 100% full passanger+cargo etc..?..Also how about if winds are against the travel direction etc...
Anyone can fly an empty plane longer distance.
any aviation expert like to comment?..
It's highly unlikely that the 777LR can do this journey at this time with full payload because it is still not possible to do Sydney- London with a full load on the 777-200LR. London- Sydney can be done due to strong tail winds on this sector. Qantas are in talks, i hear with boeing for the 777LRs to be fitted with more fuel tanks to enable the Sydney - London flights with full payload. An A330 can fly non-stop Paris- Sydney empty. On of the delivery flight of Qantas' A330 did this.
"Now we're going round in circles, tell me will this deja vu never end?"
-
piafan
- Registered Member
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Whats the big deal about this event if it cannot be achieved on full load?...It is just a marketing gimmick played by Boeing and the world has fallen for it...smarties wrote:piafan wrote:This plan flew only with 35+crew on board. Can this plane complete the same journey with full load that is 100% full passanger+cargo etc..?..Also how about if winds are against the travel direction etc...
Anyone can fly an empty plane longer distance.
any aviation expert like to comment?..
It's highly unlikely that the 777LR can do this journey at this time with full payload because it is still not possible to do Sydney- London with a full load on the 777-200LR. London- Sydney can be done due to strong tail winds on this sector. Qantas are in talks, i hear with boeing for the 777LRs to be fitted with more fuel tanks to enable the Sydney - London flights with full payload. An A330 can fly non-stop Paris- Sydney empty. On of the delivery flight of Qantas' A330 did this.
I am sure Airbus can do this with one of there empty planes fitted with extra fuel tank instead of people's luggage....
How come none of the aviation experts highlight this fallacy?
-
Che
- Registered Member
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:16 pm
-
AP-BGL
- Registered Member
- Posts: 1965
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:08 pm
- Location: Islamabad
Its not the efficiency but the Record breaking flight which is the burning issue, I agree with piafan on the issue that 772LR may cannot be able to complete a non-stop flight on full load and cargo.Che wrote:Thats because Airbus' performance and efficiency leaves a lot to be desired in flying these long distances....
BTW, Is Hong Kong-London distance more than Paris-Sydney?
Adnan
-
smarties
- Deactivated
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:25 pm
- Location: Where the wild roses grow
No, Sydney-Paris is almost double London-Hongkong. As i said b4, Boeing is looking at adding an extra 3 fuel tanks to make a total of 6 tanks in the plane (777LR) to enable that ultra longhaul flight (SYD-LHR).AP-BGL wrote: BTW, Is Hong Kong-London distance more than Paris-Sydney?
piafan, you do come up with some valid points. I'm sure the A345 could do the same route with an empty load and extra fuel tanks. But i'm not sure if it could beat the time record of the 777LR.
"Now we're going round in circles, tell me will this deja vu never end?"
-
Abbas Ali
- Site Admin
- Posts: 52278
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:52 pm
- Location: Pakistan
777 burns a little oil and a lot of cell time
By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Interesting tidbits from a reporter's notebook after last week's record-setting non-stop flight from Hong Kong to London on Boeing's 777-200LR ...
As he ate breakfast Tuesday morning at the Island Shangri-La Hotel in Hong Kong, test pilot Phil Schultz predicted that the two GE90 engines on the 777-200LR would burn no more than three quarts of oil during the record flight that was scheduled to depart for London the next night.
The GE90-115B engines on the 777-200LR and the bigger 777-300ER are the most powerful ever made, able to deliver up to 115,000 pounds of thrust each. They are derated to 110,000 pounds of thrust for the 777-200LR.
Schultz knows a lot about those engines. As manager of flight operations and chief test pilot for GE, he flew the company's 747 "flying test bed" that was used to test the big engine.
Before the development of today's high-bypass jet engine, Schultz said, a limiting factor in setting aviation distance records was not how much fuel the plane could carry, but how much oil. Engines burned a lot of oil.
Each GE90 engine on the 777-200LR has 26 quarts of oil.
In setting a non-stop distance record of 13,422 miles, the 777-200LR flew for 22 hours and 42 minutes. Of the 360,700 pounds, or 53,835 gallons, of fuel before the start of the flight, the two engines burned 342,000 pounds during the flight to London.
And the oil?
Only one quart was burned -- for both engines.
Schultz said he and the GE team on the plane won a bet -- for lunch -- made with Boeing test pilot Suzanna Darcy-Hennemann, Boeing's chief 777-200LR test pilot and leader of the record flight attempt. She bet that more than three quarts of oil would be burned, Schultz said.
Not only did the plane burn little oil on its record flight, but it landed in London with no pilot write-ups or maintenance issues. Not one problem or anomaly was detected during the long flight.
Darcy-Hennemann said that was not unusual for Blue Baby 2, the name the Boeing test pilots have given the plane during the test flight program that began last March. It is one of two 777-200LRs used for the demanding tests. Blue Baby 2 has gone as long as 70 days without a single squawk.
In pilot jargon, problems that crop up on test flights are called squawks. Blue Baby 2 and Blue Baby 1 have had so few during the test flight program that the pilots like to say they have been "Squawkless in Seattle."
Test pilots are very picky, Darcy-Hennemann explained, which is a testament to just how well the two 777-200LR flight test planes have performed. They have been the most problem-free to pass through Boeing's flight test center, she said.
With the 777-200LR test flight program nearly over, the two planes will be returned to like-new condition and delivered early next year to Pakistan International Airlines. They will then go into regular passenger service on long non-stop routes between Pakistan and the United States.
PHONE HOME FROM 38,000 FEET. The 777-200LR used for the record flight was equipped with a wireless base station, known as a picocell, that enabled cell phone calls.
The night before the flight in Hong Kong, a representative from Motorola provided reporters with state-of-the art cell phones for use on the plane, including a prototype known as the SLVR L7, which will hit the market later this year. (The Motorola phones had to be returned when the flight was over, but the calls were free.)
What happened on the record flight may have been a preview of what's to come.
Next year, two European airlines -- TAP Air Portugal and the British carrier bmi -- will allow passengers to use their cell phones on commercial flights after the plane reaches 10,000 feet. It's part of a trial by OnAir, a joint venture with Airbus that is scheduled for general airline release in 2007. The surcharge for an in-flight call will be competitive with international roaming rates, at about $2.30 to $2.50 a minute. To send or receive a text message will cost about 50 cents.
Mobile phone use on jetliners is currently prohibited during flight.
The ongoing debate about in-flight use of cell phones has more to do with social issues than concerns about interference with a plane's electronic systems. Earlier this year, the U.S.-based Association of Flight Attendants, which is against the use of cell phones in flight, said polls show that most Americans don't want to be on planes where their fellow passengers are yapping away on calls.
But a survey of 1,200 international passengers conducted at London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports found nearly half said they would prefer to fly on airlines that allowed cell phones in flight.
If what happened on the record flight last week was any indication, cell phone use on planes will be high if permitted.
Not all 35 passengers and crew on the 777-200LR had or used cell phones during the nearly 23-hour non-stop flight from Hong Kong to London, but those who did made 270 calls totaling just over 11 hours.
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Interesting tidbits from a reporter's notebook after last week's record-setting non-stop flight from Hong Kong to London on Boeing's 777-200LR ...
As he ate breakfast Tuesday morning at the Island Shangri-La Hotel in Hong Kong, test pilot Phil Schultz predicted that the two GE90 engines on the 777-200LR would burn no more than three quarts of oil during the record flight that was scheduled to depart for London the next night.
The GE90-115B engines on the 777-200LR and the bigger 777-300ER are the most powerful ever made, able to deliver up to 115,000 pounds of thrust each. They are derated to 110,000 pounds of thrust for the 777-200LR.
Schultz knows a lot about those engines. As manager of flight operations and chief test pilot for GE, he flew the company's 747 "flying test bed" that was used to test the big engine.
Before the development of today's high-bypass jet engine, Schultz said, a limiting factor in setting aviation distance records was not how much fuel the plane could carry, but how much oil. Engines burned a lot of oil.
Each GE90 engine on the 777-200LR has 26 quarts of oil.
In setting a non-stop distance record of 13,422 miles, the 777-200LR flew for 22 hours and 42 minutes. Of the 360,700 pounds, or 53,835 gallons, of fuel before the start of the flight, the two engines burned 342,000 pounds during the flight to London.
And the oil?
Only one quart was burned -- for both engines.
Schultz said he and the GE team on the plane won a bet -- for lunch -- made with Boeing test pilot Suzanna Darcy-Hennemann, Boeing's chief 777-200LR test pilot and leader of the record flight attempt. She bet that more than three quarts of oil would be burned, Schultz said.
Not only did the plane burn little oil on its record flight, but it landed in London with no pilot write-ups or maintenance issues. Not one problem or anomaly was detected during the long flight.
Darcy-Hennemann said that was not unusual for Blue Baby 2, the name the Boeing test pilots have given the plane during the test flight program that began last March. It is one of two 777-200LRs used for the demanding tests. Blue Baby 2 has gone as long as 70 days without a single squawk.
In pilot jargon, problems that crop up on test flights are called squawks. Blue Baby 2 and Blue Baby 1 have had so few during the test flight program that the pilots like to say they have been "Squawkless in Seattle."
Test pilots are very picky, Darcy-Hennemann explained, which is a testament to just how well the two 777-200LR flight test planes have performed. They have been the most problem-free to pass through Boeing's flight test center, she said.
With the 777-200LR test flight program nearly over, the two planes will be returned to like-new condition and delivered early next year to Pakistan International Airlines. They will then go into regular passenger service on long non-stop routes between Pakistan and the United States.
PHONE HOME FROM 38,000 FEET. The 777-200LR used for the record flight was equipped with a wireless base station, known as a picocell, that enabled cell phone calls.
The night before the flight in Hong Kong, a representative from Motorola provided reporters with state-of-the art cell phones for use on the plane, including a prototype known as the SLVR L7, which will hit the market later this year. (The Motorola phones had to be returned when the flight was over, but the calls were free.)
What happened on the record flight may have been a preview of what's to come.
Next year, two European airlines -- TAP Air Portugal and the British carrier bmi -- will allow passengers to use their cell phones on commercial flights after the plane reaches 10,000 feet. It's part of a trial by OnAir, a joint venture with Airbus that is scheduled for general airline release in 2007. The surcharge for an in-flight call will be competitive with international roaming rates, at about $2.30 to $2.50 a minute. To send or receive a text message will cost about 50 cents.
Mobile phone use on jetliners is currently prohibited during flight.
The ongoing debate about in-flight use of cell phones has more to do with social issues than concerns about interference with a plane's electronic systems. Earlier this year, the U.S.-based Association of Flight Attendants, which is against the use of cell phones in flight, said polls show that most Americans don't want to be on planes where their fellow passengers are yapping away on calls.
But a survey of 1,200 international passengers conducted at London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports found nearly half said they would prefer to fly on airlines that allowed cell phones in flight.
If what happened on the record flight last week was any indication, cell phone use on planes will be high if permitted.
Not all 35 passengers and crew on the 777-200LR had or used cell phones during the nearly 23-hour non-stop flight from Hong Kong to London, but those who did made 270 calls totaling just over 11 hours.
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Dil Dil Pakistan... Jaan Jaan Pakistan
See you at:
See you at: