Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Revenue Flights - Highest Cruising Altitude  
User currently offlineMEL From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 1098 posts, RR: 13
Posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3685 times:

Just looked at flightaware, and noticed Korean Air 38 Chicago-Seoul flying over Winnipeg at FL430! Boeing 777-200. Flytecomm confirms the same altitude. Very unusual for a 12 hour flight to be up so high only 2 hours into its flight. Has anyone seen any other revenue flights cruising higher than FL410?


NO URLS in signature
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBoeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1025 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

Our 737-823's cruise at FL410 on Transcon flights(or did when we flew them BOS-LAX)

David



Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offlineSuper80DFW From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 1688 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3595 times:

I was on WN flight from DEN to MCi in August and we cruised at FL410. Seemed as if we were at anything FL30+.


"Things change, friends leave, life doesn't stop for anybody." -- EAT'EM UP EAT'EM UP KSU!!
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6796 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3569 times:

Quoting MEL (Thread starter):
Very unusual for a 12 hour flight to be up so high only 2 hours into its flight.

Somebody ought to be able make a fair guess at their minimum weight-- if they do, I'll bet FL430 turns out to be impossible.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3534 times:

Quoting MEL (Thread starter):
Just looked at flightaware, and noticed Korean Air 38 Chicago-Seoul flying over Winnipeg at FL430! Boeing 777-200. Flytecomm confirms the same altitude. Very unusual for a 12 hour flight to be up so high only 2 hours into its flight. Has anyone seen any other revenue flights cruising higher than FL410

The first time a PW powered 744 could make 410 was at 240 T. Going from ORD-ICN, there is no real way he could make that altitude. Assuming a ZFW of 180T and 100 T of fuel remaining (low side overhead CYEG, with no payload you still couldn't make it up to 430.... I'd guess Flightaware is wrong!


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3466 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3504 times:

Quoting MEL (Thread starter):
Has anyone seen any other revenue flights cruising higher than FL410?

I've flown AA 757s to their ceiling of FL425 before AA changed the ceiling to FL420. And AA762s & 763s to their ceiling of FL431 (the last one hundred... not very often).



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3494 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 5):
I've flown AA 757s to their ceiling of FL425 before AA changed the ceiling to FL420.

IIRC the 757 was 45,100.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3466 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 6):
IIRC the 757 was 45,100.

I've never seen that (42.5 was highest I ever saw). From the current AA 757/767 OpMan:
Takeoff, Landing, and Enroute Operational Limits
757
Maximum Operating Altitude............................ 42,000 feet pressure altitude
Maximum Takeoff and Landing Altitude........... 14,500 feet pressure altitude
=TWA=>Maximum Takeoff and Landing Altitude... 8400 feet pressure altitude
767
Maximum Operating Altitude............................ 43,100 feet pressure altitude
Maximum Takeoff and Landing Altitude.............. 8400 feet pressure altitude



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 6):
IIRC the 757 was 45,100.

Last 757 flight was 12 years ago. I stand corrected.


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3431 times:

I've personally flown the L1011-500 at FL430, however at very light weights only.
For the start of a long intercontinental flight, this would not be possible, even if the airplane was devoid of passengers and freight.

Flightware was telling porkie pies.


User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1185 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3409 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
The first time a PW powered 744 could make 410 was at 240 T. Going from ORD-ICN, there is no real way he could make that altitude. Assuming a ZFW of 180T and 100 T of fuel remaining (low side overhead CYEG, with no payload you still couldn't make it up to 430.... I'd guess Flightaware is wrong!

You're most definitely right, flightaware is regularly wrong about the altitude of certain flights; all you have to do to prove that is click on "track log" for some flights and you'll see sometimes that during one minute, the aircraft is climbing through FL310 and during the next minute, suddenly FL360.
I have seen on flightaware some short 744 flights that have reached FL410 or even 430, such as SFO-DEN and LAX-PDX. Of course, I don't know what the payload was, so I wonder if FL430 would be possible even with a high payload since there wouldn't be much fuel onboard for an LAX-PDX or SFO-DEN. IIRC, isn't the 744 theoretically capable of 45,100 ft.? And I think I read somewhere that the 747SP was capable of FL470. PhilSquares, I know you're a 744 captain, so correct me if I'm wrong.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3386 times:

Quoting 747fan (Reply 10):
Of course, I don't know what the payload was, so I wonder if FL430 would be possible even with a high payload since there wouldn't be much fuel onboard for an LAX-PDX or SFO-DEN. IIRC, isn't the 744 theoretically capable of 45,100 ft.? And I think I read somewhere that the 747SP was capable of FL470. PhilSquares, I know you're a 744 captain, so correct me if I'm wrong.

For a short flight such as SFO-DEN the 400 would have no problems getting up to 430-450. However, that always doesn't mean that's the optimum FL for that flight. It might be more fuel efficient to cruise at a lower altitude due to winds and other factors. But the 400 would have no problem getting up to those FLs on a short flight.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6346 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Wasn't the 747SP a pretty high flyer? I seem to recall that Pan Am routinely flew them around at FL450 back in the day...

Also, don't forget Concorde: FL600 at the end of her flight (and the reason that, in the USA, Class A airspace ends at 60,000 feet  Smile ).



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1185 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 12):
Wasn't the 747SP a pretty high flyer? I seem to recall that Pan Am routinely flew them around at FL450 back in the day...

Yes, I believe it had a certified altitude of FL470, 2K ft. higher than any other 747. All 747's excluding the SP, including the -400, are certified for FL450. But its very rare for the 747 to go any higher than FL430 as the Queen (it will always be the Queen, despite the A380) is not efficient up there (FL450). IIRC, the 747 has a pretty low margin of error up there; for example, the speed range for the plane up there is very narrow. I'm guessing the 747SP didn't have this problem up at FL450 as I do believe that it was routinely flown at that height, correct me if I'm wrong.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Quoting 747fan (Reply 13):
I'm guessing the 747SP didn't have this problem up at FL450 as I do believe that it was routinely flown at that height, correct me if I'm wrong.

Well the SP did have a bigger tail and with it having a smaller body but same wings etc it should have effectively had more % control surface area than other 747s



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3126 times:

Quoting 747fan (Reply 13):
Yes, I believe it had a certified altitude of FL470, 2K ft. higher than any other 747. All 747's excluding the SP, including the -400, are certified for FL450. But its very rare for the 747 to go any higher than FL430 as the Queen (it will always be the Queen, despite the A380) is not efficient up there (FL450). IIRC, the 747 has a pretty low margin of error up there; for example, the speed range for the plane up there is very narrow. I'm guessing the 747SP didn't have this problem up at FL450 as I do believe that it was routinely flown at that height, correct me if I'm wrong.

The SP was certified just like every other 747, that's up to 45100. Generally speaking the SP could make 390 right after a max weight takeoff while the 100/200 would be hard pressed to get up to 310.

The "margin of error" isn't that big of a problem. Mainly because at the gross weights you are at you have plenty of margin at high cruise altitudes.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 14):
Well the SP did have a bigger tail and with it having a smaller body but same wings etc it should have effectively had more % control surface area than other 747s

The larger tail was to compensate for the shorter fuselage during engine out situations.


User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3115 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MEL (Thread starter):
Very unusual for a 12 hour flight to be up so high only 2 hours into its flight.



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 12):
Wasn't the 747SP a pretty high flyer?

I flew jumpseat on a SAA 747SP JNB-DUR once and we went to FL410, the flight duration was about 50 minutes.



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlinePagophilus From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3104 times:

I've been in an Ansett Australia 747-300 back in 1998 from SYD-KIX that reported on Airshow to be at 42500ft. I assume it was actually at 43000.

User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2710 times:

Unless I am proved wrong the revenue flights highest cruising altitude was Concorde at more or less 60,000.  Smile


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Revenue Flights - Highest Cruising Altitude
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...
Cruising Altitude During Long Haul Flights posted Thu Oct 21 2004 23:34:53 by Horus
Cruising Altitude From Airline Of Aircraft? posted Wed Sep 5 2001 15:33:29 by B777-200ER
Cruising Levels For Very Short Flights? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 02:12:47 by Mozart
High Altitude Cruising posted Wed May 18 2005 10:10:33 by Ar1300
Hey Pilots: What's Your Highest Altitude posted Fri Oct 31 2003 21:13:24 by Lehpron
Highest Altitude In A C-172? posted Fri Apr 11 2003 17:23:51 by NiteRider30
Airliners Cruising At Low Altitude posted Tue Mar 25 2003 13:18:37 by Il75
Question About Aircraft At Cruising Alttitude posted Wed Sep 26 2007 04:27:44 by Mike89406
Landing Lights On At Cruise Altitude posted Sun Sep 16 2007 09:14:10 by Thai744
High Altitude Modifications? posted Sat Sep 15 2007 20:31:38 by Cubsrule

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format