Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
772LRs Fuel Tank Options?  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4803 times:

I'm aware that most 772LR orders have been for/with minimal tankage for that derivative...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rajesh Changela
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Parr Yonemoto



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Dunetz-NYCAviation
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Allan Huse


...anyone know of any 77L orders for full or partial optional tankage?

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31243 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4766 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The advantages of the 77L are more for the extra payload it can fly the same distance as a 77E than the extra distance it can fly over a 77E, which is why most folks don't take the extra tanks as it just cuts down on that extra payload volume.

[Edited 2007-09-29 03:07:43]

User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4591 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I heard that some of the later deliveries for Air India have the extra tank option. Any truth to that?

User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4494 times:

What is the range difference/max payload difference between the versions with and without the extra tanks?


Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4435 times:

The 777ER based on fuel volume already has over 8000 miles of range or nearly 18 hours of flying time. The limiting factor is takeoff weight with a full passenger payload. The LR provides more than enough weight to take off with full fuel tanks based on what is on the ER, a full passenger load, 40-50K pounds of cargo, and do it all from a hot airport, where many 8000 mile destinations are located.

The LR is quite simply an absolutely incredible machine. Compare the performance charts between the ER and LR on Boeings website and see for yourself.

I believe the extra tanks can be added relatively easily later on although they aren't designed to be pulled on and off.


User currently offlineMax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4401 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 5):
The LR is quite simply an absolutely incredible machine. Compare the performance charts between the ER and LR on Boeings website and see for yourself.

Boeing's range chart for the LR is for the version with all three optional fuel tanks. What's the performance w/o the tanks?



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The advantages of the 77L are more for the extra payload it can fly the same distance as a 77E than the extra distance it can fly over a 77E, which is why most folks don't take the extra tanks as it just cuts down on that extra payload volume.

Not just that. It can fly MZFW missions on routes that the 77E can only fly max fuel missions. The 77L can fly 7500nm at MZFW, which means it can carry a full payload on routes like YVR/LAX-SYD or ATL-SHA, full cargo, full pax, no restrictions, nearly 365 days a year. This is why DL is buying them. They will compete on these routes by taking more payload than any other carrier in the world (to SHA and to SYD if they decide to start it), as will AC on the YVR route.

As a comparison, UA often has to leave cargo and pax behind on the 744, and that's off of their already restricted planning to SYD. So does QF, though the ERs help a bit.

The downside of course is the 77L uses more fuel per pax, but if it can make up for it in cargo revenue, then it's a good deal.

Quoting Max999 (Reply 6):
Boeing's range chart for the LR is for the version with all three optional fuel tanks. What's the performance w/o the tanks?

It should have the same shape, but the second inflection point is at about 8700nm, not 9400nm. This is because that is the Max Fuel point. Not having the extra tanks doesn't alter the MZFW range, since at MZFW, you can't fill the tanks full and stay under MTOW.

Most people in the know say that each aux tank adds 350nm of range when the added weight of the tank and the fuel is taken into account.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4251 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
I believe the extra tanks can be added relatively easily later on

...thing is, you have to take the aircraft with the optional pipe/duct/pumps for the auxiliary tanks already in place at delivery, even if the tank(s) are not included/installed. If a "base" model 772LR is ordered, it will not have any of the above for the extra tankage, in order to save weight, and it would certainly not be "relatively easy" to install later.

What I'm curious as to, is:
most/all of the 77Ls currently built are aux tankless... but are they pre-ducted? If so, for how many tanks? Interestingly enough, from what I've been told-- Boeing will build the plane with pre-piping/ducting work for either 1 auxiliary tank or 3, but not just two.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3984 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 7):
What I'm curious as to, is:
most/all of the 77Ls currently built are aux tankless... but are they pre-ducted? If so, for how many tanks?

The ducting isn't really tank-dependant. The tanks closest to the center wing box (back of the forward cargo bay and front of the aft cargo bay) get plumbed to the center wing tank. All other aux tanks connect to the tank beside them. In the extreme case (a BBJ), the on-aircraft plumbing is the same for 3 tanks or 9. All the other stuff is just interconnection between tanks.

Tom.


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2702 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3825 times:

Obviously, the 772LR has a greater payload and range than the 772ER. It has something like 17% more thrust.

Some have stated in previous threads that the 772LR is more efficient as well. This doesn't seem to make sense as the LR is 26,000 lbs heavier. Ikramaerica states that the 772LR costs more fuel per passenger, which makes sense to me. However, if the older thread was correct in that the LR was more efficient, would it not be the newer wing design and why are they not available for new 772ER models or retrofit?

Do all the airlines fly the 772ER/LR at mach .84 as stated in the charts and what range increase can be made with a slower speed?


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5142 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

There is much useful "stuff" particularly by Widebodyphotog at this link>

RE: AC Re-confirms 777, 787 Order (by ZK-NBT Nov 11 2005 in Civil Aviation)

Also there is a link in one of WBP's postings on that topic to a 77L versus a 772 payload/range chart.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2917 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):
Ikramaerica states that the 772LR costs more fuel per passenger

IINM, he wasn't comparing it to the 772ER

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):
newer wing design

...there is none

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):
why are they not available for new 772ER models or retrofit?

...because APB doesn't have/cannot use the design patent


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2854 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):
Ikramaerica states that the 772LR costs more fuel per passenger, which makes sense to me.

I was comparing to the 744. The 772LR uses more fuel per pax than a 744. But on a 6700nm route, the 772LR can take a 100% load factor plus full gross weight of cargo, should the airline want, flying southwest to Australia, while the 744 would be carrying maximum fuel and be cargo limited.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 11):
...because APB doesn't have/cannot use the design patent

Actually, APB is looking at doing a 77E winglet, but the 767 had more demand so they are certifying that first. They also looked at the 744, replacing the winglet with a 20 foot tall blended job, but there was not a lot of interest, IIRC. But there are airlines like AA and CO and NZ and JL and NH with newer 772s that are going to want to use them for a while, so winglets may end up coming within the next 5 years.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8703 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
But there are airlines like AA and CO and NZ and JL and NH with newer 772s that are going to want to use them for a while, so winglets may end up coming within the next 5 years.

I'd say there would be a lot of interest in 777-200ER winglets. The fuel savings alone (at 5%) would be very worthwhile.

Then, you've got cargo and range benefits for CO and DL and others who push the 772ER to the limits.

Winglets would extend the 772ER's life in the face of not only the 77L, but the A350.

We have already seen that DL and AA believe the B763-winglet can compete against the B788. They'll be flying those till nearly 2018 or so...


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5142 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
I'd say there would be a lot of interest in 777-200ER winglets. The fuel savings alone (at 5%) would be very worthwhile.

But can this be done without strengthening the wing and adding weight? I don't think so. I believe there is a thread on this topic in the archives somewhere.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2342 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
Actually, APB is looking at doing a 77E winglet,

Which, I might add, has very little to do with my statement other than the fact that they do not have what it'd take to install raked wingtips on any aircraft.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
but the 767 had more demand so they are certifying that first.

Probably because......

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):

I'd say there would be a lot of interest in 777-200ER winglets.

.....there was practically zilch, which is why they went to the 767, which did have quite a bit.

The 777 is the in-service wing par excellence, and the efficiency-increase:cost ratio will be significantly thinner than any such project before it, if even realistically plausible at all. I'm hoping that hasn't changed, thereby increasing the likelihood that..........

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
so winglets may end up coming

.....never happens.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 15):
Which, I might add, has very little to do with my statement other than the fact that they do not have what it'd take to install raked wingtips on any aircraft.

Who's talking about raked wingtips? APB installs blended vertical wingtips.

The demand for 777 wingtips will come as more efficient planes enter service. Right now, the 777 is one of the more efficient birds out there, but as the 787s and A350s enter service, that extra 3-5% fuel savings to extend the life of the 777 looks more desirable. Right now, they would only be about saving cash in the abstract, but in the future, they would be a way for newer 777s to stay competitive on routes where other carriers are flying more modern planes.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 15):
.....never happens.

The 772-ER is only a 10 year old airframe. The 763ER is 20 years old, and only now is there a winglet being developed for it. Give the 777 5 more years, and demand will come.

Never say never. The "lack of interest" is nothing more than sorting the order for the products. Highest demand was the 737, then the 757, then the 767, followed by the 777. Since APB has limited resources and design/test capacity, they can't just do them all at once.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2702 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2247 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Right now, they would only be about saving cash in the abstract, but in the future, they would be a way for newer 777s to stay competitive on routes where other carriers are flying more modern planes.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Airlines would love to save 3-5% on any aircraft and with the 772ER such savings would translate into fuel savings, payload increases, increased range or a combination of the three. Several airlines flying the 772ER near its range on routes like EWR-DEL, EWR-BOM, EWR-HKG, EWR-PVG would undoubtedly want such an improvement and why would they lose 3 years of savings just because the 787 hasn't been delivered. Te savingws would be real, not abstract.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 11):
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):
newer wing design

...there is none

The Boeing website show the 772LR with a 212 ft wingspan and the 772ER at 199 ft. I believe this is the ranked wingtips that I alluded to in Reply 9, stating that the 772LR must have a better wing design for ULH operations to carry that 26,000 lbs. extra empty operating weight of the 772LR. Would it make sense that the upgraded GE engines at a higher thrust would be more economical than the 94,000 lb version.
So, my point is that many airlines would love those 3-5% savings if available with raked wingtips or winglets. Could it be that there's not enough airframes to convert vs. the 73F/738 fleets?


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):
Some have stated in previous threads that the 772LR is more efficient as well.

It's aerodynamically more efficient, which isn't the same as less fuel burn per passenger.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 11):
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):
newer wing design

...there is none

It is slightly different.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
But there are airlines like AA and CO and NZ and JL and NH with newer 772s that are going to want to use them for a while, so winglets may end up coming within the next 5 years.

I'd say there would be a lot of interest in 777-200ER winglets. The fuel savings alone (at 5%) would be very worthwhile.

It's very unlikely you could get 5% fuel savings with a 777 winglet.

Winglets only work well if the wing has positive margin of safety already (i.e. it's overdesigned). The 777 wing is very very well designed, which is another way of saying that it's margin of safety is very very close to zero. That puts a severe dent in the amount of economy you can get from a winglet. Given that a 777 is rarely span-constrained, raked wingtips would probably more productive as a retrofit anyway.

Tom.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2176 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):

Who's talking about raked wingtips?

I was, if you'd pay attention

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
that extra 3-5% fuel savings

How do you figure on this number? Doubtful it'd be anywhere near that amount for the 777

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
and demand will come.

Again, why do you assume that what minuscule savings could be gained from a 777 blended winglet, would be worth the cost to the carriers?

Remember, routes such as EWR-HKG, CAN-LAX, etc were already in service for years when last this was proposed to the airlines, and they weren't interested.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 18):
It is slightly different.

with fortification to the original design being the overwhelming factor of difference, not to much a deviation from said design


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 772LRs Fuel Tank Options?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fuel Tank Explosions posted Fri Jul 14 2006 17:05:55 by UTwriter
Wing/Fuel Tank Question posted Tue May 2 2006 16:16:47 by 777DadandJr
Fuel Tank Air Vents posted Wed Aug 24 2005 20:59:02 by FutureUApilot
A330 & A340 Fuel Tank Configurations posted Sat Jul 9 2005 05:22:40 by KBGRbillT
B737 Fuel Tank Water Drain Frequency posted Sat Feb 19 2005 19:08:56 by CaptainChaos
L1011 Fuel Tank posted Wed Nov 3 2004 23:44:42 by Baw2198
Gas/Fuel Tank Size Of The 763ER posted Mon Oct 4 2004 15:20:33 by Imonti
What Airlines Do Fuel Tank Mtc Inhouse? posted Sun Jun 20 2004 00:45:38 by Dl757md
Fuel Tank Designs posted Sun Aug 10 2003 07:55:55 by Cancidas
Got Any Good Fuel Tank Stories? posted Fri Jun 6 2003 16:21:38 by 737doctor

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format