Jayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 4 Posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12780 times:
CO is doing it with their 777-200ER non-stop?
Does the aircraft have the range or the airline ie CO has modified it?
Why din't AI use their's to do this route?
thanks!
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14315 posts, RR: 26 Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12785 times:
Quoting Jayeshrulz (Thread starter): Does the aircraft have the range or the airline ie CO has modified it?
As far as I know they are all stock, no belly tanks or anything like that.
According to my quick calculations, EWR-BOM comes in at about 6800 NM. The number given varies, and I don't have the charts in front of me (they have been linked here before and you can probably find them with a search) but the range where it becomes more efficient to use a 77L over a 77E is somewhere between 5000 and 6000 NM so JFK-BOM is definitely a legit route for the LR.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Jayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12764 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
According to my quick calculations, EWR-BOM comes in at about 6800 NM. The number given varies, and I don't have the charts in front of me (they have been linked here before and you can probably find them with a search) but the range where it becomes more efficient to use a 77L over a 77E is somewhere between 5000 and 6000 NM so JFK-BOM is definitely a legit route for the LR.
So how come CO does it with a ER?
that too with no belly tanks?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14315 posts, RR: 26 Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12745 times:
Because that is what they have I suppose. At that distance there would be an advantage to using the LR, but getting new planes just to do that route (and a couple of others) probably cancels out whatever advantage the LR might have.
As you can see, at 6800 NM a 77E can carry about 41,000 lbs or so. A 77L can carry its full payload of just over 50k at that range, so there would be some penalty involved with the 77E, but apparently not enough to justify the acquisition of new planes. Where that ~10,000 lbs comes out of however I don't know, but I would suspect that they carry little if any cargo.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Jayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12724 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): As you can see, at 6800 NM a 77E can carry about 41,000 lbs or so. A 77L can carry its full payload of just over 50k at that range, so there would be some penalty involved with the 77E, but apparently not enough to justify the acquisition of new planes. Where that ~10,000 lbs comes out of however I don't know, but I would suspect that they carry little if any cargo.
thanks,
so u r saying that may load=less range?
so CO only carriers the pax.bags i suppose.
Can a ER do LR when the extra belly tanks are put, i know there are structural diff ie. tail and wings of the 77W, but how much is the advantage of the 77L/77E?
thanks BMI727..
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, RR: 96 Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12663 times:
Quoting Jayeshrulz (Thread starter): Does the aircraft have the range or the airline ie CO has modified it?
The answer is "Yes, but"......
A 6 800Nm sector is likely to require about 7 500Nm air range capability to cope with headwinds etc., particularly westbound
The 772ER's nominal pax only range (305 pax) is about 7 850Nm, and equivalent to about 29 tonnes payload.
At 7 500Nm range, it's payload, according to the chart BMI727 linked, is about 32-33 tonnes (70k-72k lb).
So I'd guess westbound at least, it's flying with at best a full passenger load and 3t-4t cargo, which is a pretty severely limited payload.
It must work for CO though, otherwise they wouldn't do it, I guess.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): As you can see, at 6800 NM a 77E can carry about 41,000 lbs or so
I think that's 41 tonnes (90k lb) actually (although to nitpick I make it 40 tonnes). However, 6 800Nm won't be representative of the real demands of the sector.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): A 77L can carry its full payload of just over 50k at that range
Again, I think that's 51 tonnes (112k lb), and the 772LR, as you say, will carry that all the way to 7 500Nm still-air, which by coincidence is the air distance I suggested as representative of the route above...
51 tonnes for the 772LR compared to 32-33 tonnes for the 772ER on that route....
Thanks for the link BMI727. That's an up-to-date chart too, as it shows the recent gains published on the 773ER's range/payload chart...
Caryjack From United States of America, joined May 2007, 265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12613 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): As you can see, at 6800 NM a 77E can carry about 41,000 lbs or so. A 77L can carry its full payload of just over 50k at that range, so there would be some penalty involved with the 77E
Those Boeing charts flip the Kg/Lb numbers so I think you're looking at 41 Kg for the 77E and 52 Kg for the 77L.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 5): Thanks for the link BMI727. That's an up-to-date chart too, as it shows the recent gains published on the 773ER's range/payload chart...
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12217 times:
Continental has GE90 engines with the most powerful version available on an ER. EWR to HKG is longer at almost 16 hours.
EwRkId From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 594 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12198 times:
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 8): Continental has GE90 engines with the most powerful version available on an ER. EWR to HKG is longer at almost 16 hours.
Yep i believe that CO did a good job working with the fleet they had and not acquiring new planes for the job, Btw PVG comes in at 7384 mi and HKG is 8065 so BOM isn't the longest 77E route for CO
Jayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12166 times:
Quoting EwRkId (Reply 9): Yep i believe that CO did a good job working with the fleet they had and not acquiring new planes for the job, Btw PVG comes in at 7384 mi and HKG is 8065 so BOM isn't the longest 77E route for CO
but i want to ask, do they keep extra tanks for these flights??
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12100 times:
Belly fuel tanks are not an option on the 777-200ER from Boeing and I am not aware of any third-party option. Even if there were, CO does not use them.
CO's configuration has 20 less seats than Boeing's, so it's possible that CO's OEW is lower than Boeing's (even accounting for the heavier Business First seat and AVOD) which would give CO some headroom for loading more fuel or payload.
Based on the chart, that's a maximum payload of 25,000kg's. That pretty much covers the 285 passengers on board. (assuming all seats are full). With no additional cargo capacity (much less baggage capacity), how can this route make money?
Thenoflyzone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
Boeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10568 times:
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14315 posts, RR: 26 Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10067 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 5): I think that's 41 tonnes (90k lb) actually (although to nitpick I make it 40 tonnes).
Quoting Caryjack (Reply 6): Those Boeing charts flip the Kg/Lb numbers so I think you're looking at 41 Kg for the 77E and 52 Kg for the 77L
It was late and I wasn't thinking straight.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11): Belly fuel tanks are not an option on the 777-200ER from Boeing and I am not aware of any third-party option. Even if there were, CO does not use them.
I would guess that there wouldn't be any major technical hurdles that would stop someone from installing belly tanks in a 77E. The reason they wouldn't is because of weight. If you get to the point where you fill up all of the other tanks and start to fill the aux. tank then you probably can't carry enough payload to make any money. They would need the MTOW bump from the 77L.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
EwRkId From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 594 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9621 times:
Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 16): EwRkId's post was misleading. Everyone before him was talking in NM, and based on his remarks about PVG and HKG being longer than BOM, i assumed that he was talking in NM, not MI.
Sorry about the mix up, I copied Miles off of the great circle mapper for the HKG and PVG flights, my fault.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3946 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9157 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11): CO's configuration has 20 less seats than Boeing's, so it's possible that CO's OEW is lower than Boeing's (even accounting for the heavier Business First seat and AVOD) which would give CO some headroom for loading more fuel or payloa
Based on his experience Widebodyphotog quoted most 772's setup for 233 to 290 seats as having an in service empty weight in the 320 to 330K pound range. In a number of his charts he used 324900lbs. This is not to say that CO could not be lighter but by how much would be the question.
Caryjack From United States of America, joined May 2007, 265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8809 times:
Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 7): Also how many B772LR have extra tanks. I saw them fitted on an Emirates, but it was disabled. Are they common?
They are not common at all. In fact I understand that only one customer has ordered extra tanks and that those tanks are not being used.
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 8): Continental has GE90 engines with the most powerful version available on an ER. EWR to HKG is longer at almost 16 hours
I understand that the most powerful GE90s available are on the 773ER and possibly the 77L. The difference between the two being software. Does CO fly one of these types or were you refering to the 772ER?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15): It was late and I wasn't thinking straight.
That's fine, the ratios were correct which made your point.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15): I would guess that there wouldn't be any major technical hurdles that would stop someone from installing belly tanks in a 77E. The reason they wouldn't is because of weight.
Sounds about right to me.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15): If you get to the point where you fill up all of the other tanks and start to fill the aux. tank then you probably can't carry enough payload to make any money.
Filling an auxiliary tank essentially converts fuel to payload. Each extra ton of fuel subtracts from the Payload side of those Boeing charts but adds to some degree to the Range side.
The issue as I see it is that MZFW at MTOW , that first break, would remain at the same range but the payload would drop by the amount of extra fuel. That is because the airliner thinks that the extra fuel is beer, at least until latter in the flight .
The difference in payload between the two (std MZFW and extra fuel MZFW - XFMZFW?? ) would show up as the cost of hauling fuel to burn fuel.
On the Range side that second break, Max fuel at MTOW, would certainly be much farther out but the entire curve, 3 lines actually, would be lower and flatter.
At the end of the day you would haul less payload and burn more, expensive fuel to do it.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15): They would need the MTOW bump from the 77L.
This gets my vote but like you said, CO will fly the airliner they have.
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2166 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8733 times:
Quoting Caryjack (Reply 19): I understand that the most powerful GE90s available are on the 773ER and possibly the 77L. The difference between the two being software. Does CO fly one of these types or were you refering to the 772ER?
CO operates the GE90-94B, which is the most powerful engine available for the 777-200ER.
The GE90-110B1/115B is available only on the 777-200LR/777-300ER. 777 Freighter only uses the 110B1 engine.
KingFriday013 From United States of America, joined exactly 6 years ago today! , 1277 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8507 times:
The 777-200ER can do NYC-BOM without issue. DL 16 used to be ATL-JFK-BOM and was operated with the Rolls Royce-powered -232ER (Delta's version). I flew the ATL-JFK leg once; the flight was absolutely packed. The -200LR was introduced on that route, then IIRC flew ATL-BOM non-stop (the JFK stop was taken out).
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9 Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8488 times:
Delta used to fly the BOM-JFK route with the 777-200ER before their LRs were delivered.
Delta did have to take some weight restrictions westbound, especially when the headwinds were strong.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14315 posts, RR: 26 Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8172 times:
Quoting Caryjack (Reply 19): They are not common at all. In fact I understand that only one customer has ordered extra tanks and that those tanks are not being used.
Up to 3 can be installed but to my knowledge EK is the only airline to have them at all and they only have 1. And that may not even be their entire fleet.
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 20): The GE90-110B1/115B is available only on the 777-200LR/777-300ER.
Just to further clarify, all 77W use the -115B but the LR can use either the -110B1 or -115B. But the only consideration is operational, not really maintenance. For example, I don't think that an airline would realize any savings by getting LRs with the -115B to match their 77W fleet. As others have pointed out, the only difference is software.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6465 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7387 times:
Couple years ago, when AI or whoever it was were first contemplating 777 nonstops betw India and the US, people here seemed to think twins couldn't fly over the Himalayas. As I recall some people thought the Himalayas ruled out a nonstop twin to the US. Do flights detour around them?
PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6908 times:
Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 7): I have never seen a B772ER with extra belly tanks. Can they be fitted? Has anyone done it?
Pretty much pointless unless the airline plans to fly the aircraft empty, or on a really lightly loaded BBJ. According to the chart, above 15 tonnes the plane is weight limited, not fuel volume limited. 15 tonnes is only enough for ~140 pax.
Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
25 TristarSteve: Yes of course, now you say that I remember that BA operated a B772ER from Brussels to Melbourne non stop on a charter for Tony Blair. It was fuelled
26 Astuteman: Like the A330-200, the 772ER does have a pretty long ferry range - almost 9 500Nm (in fact that's even similar to the A330-200's ferry range ) Rgds
27 SunriseValley: In the FWIW department , according to FlightAware, CO 's flight times EWR-HKG for Dec 2 through 5 have been 15hrs 20min, 15.15, 14.01 and 14.52 . BOM-
28 DTWLAX: They do not have to fly over the Himalayas to get to BOM. I guess it is the same for DEL.
29 Flighty: In some cases a twin cannot maintain +22,000 feet on only one engine. So, that would make the Himalayas region very dangerous when you lost one. You w
30 Readytotaxi: Can I ask a question pls, as I don't understand. If it is a B777 why can you not put any T777 engine on it? The aircraft shape is the same, why does
31 DLPMMM: The connecting parts are not the same. Try putting a Range Rover engine into a Mercedes. Even though the horsepower might be the same, the various en
32 Tdscanuck: From a purely technical point of view, you can, with a lot of work. One of the very early 777's was re-engined prior to delivery to Cathay. However,
33 DLPMMM: I thought something looked funny when I typed that. Yup, that's what I meant.
34 Gigneil: Just to be sure we are clear here - no. That doesn't somehow magically create extra fuel for more range. The -115B and -110B1 are larger, heavier eng
35 Jayeshrulz: In my cousin's previous flight, the CO website showed full packed, but when he got in , there was 20-24 seats empty in economy.When he asked the FA, s
36 Gigneil: The more payload, the less fuel. Less fuel is less range. The plane can carry a finite amount of weight. NS
37 Lightsaber: To others, it is very important to not neglect wind and diversions (e.g., around weather). There is no flying both ways on 'still air fuel.' Readytot
38 Astuteman: I don't think they've been published yet. Just move the current 233t A330-200's chart 350Nm to the right.. Hang on - better not forget the SFC improv
39 SunriseValley: go to : http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec3.pdf pages 6 and ff.
40 SunriseValley: I haven't checked them yet, but they probably need to be used with caution since they are probably based on "generic" OEW's. Need to add something cl
41 COEWR787: DEL non-stop from EWR flies over the vicinity of Tashkent then across the Hindu Kush and then over Kabul to enter Pakistan over Waziristan . It then
42 Jayeshrulz: I think the 77L has the same fuselage of 772, only the wings n tail is of 77W. So how come 77L carries more payload than 772ER?
43 SunriseValley: probably a beefed up structure which contributes in part to the higher OEW.
44 Traindoc: The answer is unequivocally YES! This topic has been brought up before. I flew EWR-DEL-EWR on CO last year and used my GPS to track the flight, from t
45 Stitch: As SunriseValley noted, the structure and undercarriage have been reinforced to accept higher TOWs. The 777-200 was designed for significantly higher
46 Pink77W: So how come 77L carries more payload than 772ER 772ER=90,000 Lbs of thrust 77L = 115,000 Lbs of thrust i think this might have something to do with it
47 Stitch: The engine thrust difference is to account for the difference in Take-Off Weights. A 77E can depart with a TOW up to 50 tons higher than a 772. And a
48 Jayeshrulz: U know alot about T7's.lol One more thing as you said,About the A333. As you said,if i run a airline company and want to do a BOM-LHR-JFK route, will
49 Trex8: there are lots of other costs you need to take into account besides the actual direct operating costs of the plane, while one may burn less fuel and
50 SunriseValley: The 77L has no increase in physical space over the 777E, seating ( +- 2-passengers) and cargo space is the same. So for identical loads the 77L has n
51 CALPSAFltSkeds: Regarding fuel burn, those 772L wings must be much more efficient wing as the 772L weighs 11,000 lbs. more than the 772E. Plus, on a equal payload fl
52 Stitch: Yes, design studies have been undertaken to do so with the 772 and 77E by at least Aviation Partners.
53 BMI727: The 77L and 77W have raked wingtips as standard equipment. Add 11,000 lbs. of structural weight to allow for another 100,000 lbs. of MTOW and the 77L
54 The Coachman: I don't want to appear rude or condescending or anything but... I remember a post from Jayeshrulz once stating that he was about to qualify as a pilot
55 BMI727: His profile says that he is 16-20 years old and an "aspiring pilot." He's gonna have to learn this stuff eventually so we might as well help him out
56 SunriseValley: Thanks BMI727, I should have included this point in my statement in reply 50.
57 Jayeshrulz: 1)I'm 17...in junior college.And yes i want to be a pilot. Secondly i know most of the stuff about airplanes. I have not at all started my training y
58 CALPSAFltSkeds: OK, I've done just a bit of checking and estimate that winglets, if achieving 3 to 4% fuel efficiency, would save a max range 772ER flight between 70
59 Trex8: does that assume no weight penalty from the new wingtips?
60 BMI727: I'm pretty sure that only winglets would work. According to another thread, the raked wingtips will, of course, provide a lifting force while winglet
61 The Coachman: My concern lies in the fact that you represented yourself previously as being on the cusp of becoming a pilot who had done some flight training. If th
62 Jayeshrulz: i have flown them, but not as a part of training.it was with my friend who is a pilot And dont worry about the pax..............if i fly now,then u m
Sponsor Message: 
From India, joined Apr 2007, 1000 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14315 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, 
Printed and filed. 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3687 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1963 posts, 
.
) would show up as the cost of hauling fuel to burn fuel. 
, 1277 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
