AirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1492 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5655 times:
Hello all
I was browsing on AC fleet type and I've notice the range on A330-300 has increased to 6562 from just above 5600. Is this an error or did they really increased the range? I can't see it being an error cause it doesn't make sense if they were upgrading their site. Your comments are appreciate please.
I knew their range was just above 5600 miles but not at 6562miles. Here's the link to AC website fleet for A330-300. http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/a330-300.html
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5442 times:
That's right. Since most flyers don't know what a nautical mile or a knot is, or at least know distances better in st. miles and speeds better in mph.
The km figures should be the same.
And the way they list range down to a precision of single miles is just stupid. Obviously a PR person and not an engineer did that calculation. No one who understands science would calculate the range like that.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Milan320 From Poland, joined Jan 2005, 866 posts, RR: 12 Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5321 times:
Quoting ChrisA330 (Reply 4): The ranges that were listed before were probably Nautical miles, now they've changed it to Statute miles. Just a guess...
Why change from nautical miles to statute miles instead of kilometers? Most of the world, including Canada is metric. That said, wouldn't mind driving an American calibrated car (in miles) in Canada. I'd be going faster than I should
-Milan320
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5309 times:
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5273 times:
Quoting AirCanada014 (Thread starter): I was browsing on AC fleet type and I've notice the range on A330-300 has increased to 6562 from just above 5600.
It is done in Statute Miles
Quoting Milan320 (Reply 6): That said, wouldn't mind driving an American calibrated car (in miles) in Canada. I'd be going faster than I should
Nah, we have kms on the inner ring of the speedometer.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Boysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 888 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5197 times:
Quoting Thepilot (Reply 2): Maybe AC added auxilary fuel tanks to increase their range. Maybe it has to do with the cold conditions of Canada. Just speculation, through
While Canada can be very cold places like YYZ can reach 38C/100F in summer so if this extra range was due to the weather then it certainly wouldn't be year round!
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5041 times:
Quoting Boysteve (Reply 9): While Canada can be very cold places like YYZ can reach 38C/100F in summer so if this extra range was due to the weather then it certainly wouldn't be year round!
Toronto rarely goes above 30C and averages 27C at its highest in July.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
BeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 708 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4400 times:
Those range figures in the AC website were previously given as typical ranges with typical loads, or maximum range with maximum payload (I forget which).
It could very well be that they were changed to give maximum range with full fuel. However that would not be with full payload.
Olympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4185 times:
Quoting Boysteve (Reply 9): While Canada can be very cold places like YYZ can reach 38C/100F in summer so if this extra range was due to the weather then it certainly wouldn't be year round!
The temperature in TO reaches 38 about once every 4 or 5 years. 35C is typically the warmest day of the year. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the range of an aircraft that is cruising at 35 or 40 thousand feet. The temperature at that altitude is affected very little by the ground level temperature. ThePilot, being an A.netter, was obviously aware of this, so his comment in reply #2 was probably a tongue in cheek one
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15999 posts, RR: 59 Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3629 times:
Quoting Sebring (Reply 11): Most days, the temperature was above 30C and I have my electricity bill to prove it.
Toronto usually gets 14 days each summer with temperatives over 30. Last year, we had 41.
This comment is a complete contradiction in terms. The summer period (say June 1st to Sep 15) is about 105 days.....41 days of 105 is not "most".
Anyway, the 333 departures from YYZ are primarily in the 5pm to 10pm period when the temp is usually below 30C on days where it reached 30C. I would bet there were likely no 333 departures from YYZ at >30C.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
ManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1192 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Well I was in Toronto/Montreal last year around Grand Prix time and it was HOT. GP qualifying was recorded at 38c air temp!!
BeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 708 posts, RR: 9 Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 13): The temperature in TO reaches 38 about once every 4 or 5 years. 35C is typically the warmest day of the year. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the range of an aircraft that is cruising at 35 or 40 thousand feet. The temperature at that altitude is affected very little by the ground level temperature. ThePilot, being an A.netter, was obviously aware of this, so his comment in reply #2 was probably a tongue in cheek one
Not so. Range will definitely be affected by surface temperature. As temperature starts to deviate from standard conditions (15C, 29.92" mercury, at sea level, with temp. reduced by the adiabatic lapse rate at higher altitudes), so does aircraft performance begin to deteriorate. At higher density altitudes (an increase in temperature, decrease in atmospheric pressure or increase in altitude), aircraft performance is worse.
In some conditions temperatures can be high enough to reduce takeoff performance for the available runway length, so that an aircraft will have to shed weight to be able to take off. Typically weight is shed in the form of payload, or fuel uplift.
Therefore very hot temperatures, very low atmospheric pressure or very high field elevations, or a combination of these, will either reduce range for a given payload, or reduce payload for a given range. Here's an example of a runway analysis for a DC-10 at Kingston, Jamaica, airport taken from my DC-10 Ops Manual: taking off from runway 29 at 60 deg F and zero wind, the max weight is 404,400 lbs. At 90 F, the permissible weight uplift from the same runway is 392,100 lbs (for a flaps 10 takeoff). So either payload, or fuel, will have to be limited at higher temperatures. If fuel is reduced, range is reduced as well.
The plane DOES have to get off the ground before it gets to cruising altitude.
Incidentally higher than normal temperatures at high altitudes will affect range as well.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Quoting Milan320 (Reply 14): That I know, I've driven in the US many times. Nice thing is that the kms are so small on the inner ring ... could work to my advantage
My car does NOT have that inner ring, and it's a freaking German car! Worse, I picked it up in Germany for the European delivery program, and it had no km markings.
Luckily, the onboard computer can be set to show your speed digitally, and then you can switch that system over to metric, so the cruise control and digital display was in km (and temp in C) while the "analog" dial was reading mph. Luckily, it didn't switch over to metric time, as I would have been too confused. "It's 9:83 on March the 35th."
First MB I've seen that didn't have metric on the dial. I have no clue why they did that.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Olympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2064 times:
Quoting BeechNut (Reply 17): Not so. Range will definitely be affected by surface temperature. As temperature starts to deviate from standard conditions (15C, 29.92" mercury, at sea level, with temp. reduced by the adiabatic lapse rate at higher altitudes), so does aircraft performance begin to deteriorate. At higher density altitudes (an increase in temperature, decrease in atmospheric pressure or increase in altitude), aircraft performance is worse.
I thought about some of that after I posted my message, which was badly constructed anyway. What I should have said was that none of those variables are taken into account in published performance figures, which are based on ISO conditions and that Canada being a cold country (only true in the winter) is irrelevant.
What was in my mind was that above a certain altitude temperature remains constant (I think), but that altitude is probable above where commercial aircraft operate.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1492 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Poland, joined Jan 2005, 866 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 888 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
