Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?  
User currently offlineFerroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 249 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4146 times:

Good afternoon,

I have just read on

http://presse.lufthansa.com/en/news-.../2012/october/26/article/2246.html

that LH plans MUC-YVR from May 2013 on 333.

Isn't that stretching the 333 to her limits?

Best,

Ferroviarius

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9116 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4140 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Ferroviarius (Thread starter):

It is quite a long flight for the 333. LH is flying FRA-SEA-FRA with 333 as well and this is pretty much the farthest it can go. MUC-YVR is only 80NM longer, so it should work out.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinejayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4113 times:



The Great circle mapper shows the Range to be about 5200 NM for MUC-YVR sector.

The specifications of A330-300 shows about range of 5850 NM fully loaded, and 6500 NM for fully fuelled.
Considering loads to be about 85%-90% approx, it still should be able to finish the both, inbound-outbound sector comfortably!

Must say A330-300 is quite an impressive bird!  

[Edited 2012-10-26 05:29:24]


Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineFerroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 2):
The Great circle mapper shows the Range to be about 5200 NM for MUC-YVR sector.

The specifications of A330-300 shows about range of 5850 NM fully loaded, and 6500 NM for fully fuelled.
Considering loads to be about 85%-90% approx, it still should be able to finish the both, inbound-outbound sector comfortably!

Must say A330-300 is quite an impressive bird!

Indeed, it is, wilco737 and jayeshrulz. I am chiefly concerned about possible tech stops when going west in winter.

Best,
Ferroviarius


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9116 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4075 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 3):
Indeed, it is, wilco737 and jayeshrulz. I am chiefly concerned about possible tech stops when going west in winter.

Don't need to be. As far as I know the FRA-SEA flight didn't need to do any tech stops on its way. You have a couple of possibilities to get another ton of fuel on board on your flights.
You'll be fine.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 2):
The Great circle mapper shows the Range to be about 5200 NM for MUC-YVR sector.

The specifications of A330-300 shows about range of 5850 NM fully loaded, and 6500 NM for fully fuelled.
Considering loads to be about 85%-90% approx, it still should be able to finish the both, inbound-outbound sector comfortably!

You're confusing statute miles for nautical miles. MUC-YVR is 4500nm on GC mapper and would have a flying time of around 10 hours.

I believe most (all?) of LH A330s have a 233t MTOW which would give them a max payload endurance of about 8 hours. This flight will obviously take a payload hit.

[Edited 2012-10-26 05:40:11 Used your instead of you're]

[Edited 2012-10-26 05:40:59]

User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

I am guessing that LH kind of knows what they are doing. I don't think that they would just put an aircraft on a route that it could not handle.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinejayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 5):
You're confusing statute miles for nautical miles. MUC-YVR is 4500nm on GC mapper and would have a flying time of around 10 hours.

I believe most (all?) of LH A330s have a 233t MTOW which would give them a max payload endurance of about 8 hours. This flight will obviously take a payload hit.

Please elaborate. I just scanned through wiki and Airbus, its written "NM".

Well, still learning  



Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineFerroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3944 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 6):
I am guessing that LH kind of knows what they are doing. I don't think that they would just put an aircraft on a route that it could not handle.

Yes, of course, brilondon, I was just inclined to assume it was a misprint and that they had meant a 343.

Best,
Ferroviarius


User currently offlinestylo777 From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 3021 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3838 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 5):
I believe most (all?) of LH A330s have a 233t MTOW which would give them a max payload endurance of about 8 hours. This flight will obviously take a payload hit.

you are correct, all 333 have a MTOW of 233t; however, for instance the FRA-SEA flight is 10:35 out and 10:10 inbound and believe me it goes out full without any penalty restrictions. so in this case you have to check your numbers again. FRA-DFW is even longer and is also operated by the very same 333.
out of nature this route will take a very Northern route anyway, so they are good.


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 7):
Please elaborate. I just scanned through wiki and Airbus, its written "NM".

The range specs you quoted are for a passenger and baggage load only. Other payload (cargo) is not included.

The A333 has a max payload (passengers and cargo) range of around 3800nm. If you want to fly further, you have to remove payload and trade it for fuel.

Taken from A330 AIRPLANE CHARACTERISTICS FOR AIRPORT PLANNING


User currently offlinedolphinflyer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3764 times:

Fantastic news! And the service lasts through Oktoberfest. Prost!

User currently offlineFerroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 10):
The range specs you quoted are for a passenger and baggage load only. Other payload (cargo) is not included.

The A333 has a max payload (passengers and cargo) range of around 3800nm. If you want to fly further, you have to remove payload and trade it for fuel.

It also depends a little bit - or not so little, however you take it - on the type of engines used. The RRs are, and with a considerable margin so, the most efficient engines for the 333 (and 332) and the graphics you showed, imiakhtar, was for this type of engines. The available engines for the 333 by GE and PW are more inefficient.

Best,
Ferroviarius


User currently offlinetailfin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3662 times:

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 3):
I am chiefly concerned about possible tech stops when going west in winter.

Flight only operates til October anyway.


User currently offlineLH422 From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 422 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3662 times:

Quoting Ferroviarius (Thread starter):
Isn't that stretching the 333 to her limits?

I believe the longest A330-300 flight right now is TK 67 SIN-IST at 4,682 nm, so 165 nm further. I think there also used to be a D7 flight CHC-KUL at 4,692 nm.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8650 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 3):
Indeed, it is, wilco737 and jayeshrulz. I am chiefly concerned about possible tech stops when going west in winter.

Not an issue. If you look at the GC map, the route far enough to the Norh that it avoids the strong head winds. FRA-SEa is roughly the same amount of time as SEA-FRA. Now compare that with FRA-NYC which is 1 hour longer than NYC-FRA, due to the winds.


User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 6):

I am guessing that LH kind of knows what they are doing. I don't think that they would just put an aircraft on a route that it could not handle.

I'd certainly hope so, as I guess the alternative would mean maybe they'd learn to check the aircraft performance figures once they've lost a couple of frames in the Arctic?


User currently onlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4870 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3581 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 12):
It also depends a little bit - or not so little, however you take it - on the type of engines used. The RRs are, and with a considerable margin so, the most efficient engines for the 333 (and 332) and the graphics you showed, imiakhtar, was for this type of engines. The available engines for the 333 by GE and PW are more inefficient.

If you look at the same acap graphs you will see the differences in range between the three engine types are actually minimal, rollers do have slightly higher payload.
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...h_data/AC/Airbus-AC_A330_Dec11.pdf @page 110.


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2682 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

Quick calculations....

MUC-YVR is 4517 nm,

now. Add the headwind, (which for SEA and YVR, shouldn't be much, but let's assume there is) and it gives us roughly an ESAD of 5000 nm. Add IFR fuel reserves, and the distance goes up to 5500 NM, more or less.

Based on the graph, at a range of 5500nm with RR engines, you can carry 67,000 lbs of payload.

LH has 221 seats + 2 pilots (maybe 3) and (let's say..) 12 f/a on their A330s. Assume an average weight of 170 lbs per passenger and 50 lbs of bags, that brings us to a passenger & baggage load of 51,700 lbs.

meaning you have roughly 15,300 lbs left for cargo. And this is assuming all 220 seats are taken and that there is a decent headwind adding 1 hour to the flight, which often isn't the case.

So routes such as MUC-YVR, FRA-DFW and FRA-SEA should be able to do full passenger loads + some cargo without much difficulty.

FRA-DFW might be impacted more by the headwind, since it takes a more southern routing across the Atlantic, but in any case, this demonstrates that the A333 can run these legs without much difficulty.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2012-10-26 10:50:08]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9810 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2924 times:

When it comes to longest routes, SEA-ICN on the Asiana A330-300 is typically the longest filed route. Although great circle mapper puts SIN-IST as further, SEA-ICN is filed as a longer route because the flight has to stay out of North Korean Air space. It typically averages around 11:30 air time versus the shorter 10 hours for FRA-SEA. SEA-ICN is almost identical in length to YVR-MUC, but has far less favorable westbound winds, and longer than direct routes because of requirements to avoid North Korean airspace.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineN809FR From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 182 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2918 times:

Does anyone know whether it would be possible for LH to run DEN-MUC on a 333? I wish we hadn't lost the route, though I imagine it wasn't doing too well.

User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2682 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

Quoting N809FR (Reply 20):

Does anyone know whether it would be possible for LH to run DEN-MUC on a 333? I wish we hadn't lost the route, though I imagine it wasn't doing too well.

MUC-DEN is 4540 nm. so yes, it would be possible with an A333. Wether it is likely to happen, that i don't know.

thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 43
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

AC's A330-300s with a 230,000 kg MTOW, flew LHR-YVR for years. When that was queried on here, I pulled up a couple flight plans, and noticed that with a full load, a SEA alternate, plus normal reserves, plus route reserves and ETOPS reserves and 7000 kgs of cargo, there was still about 5000 kgs open weight.

I am guessing therefore, MUC-YVR with a 233,000 MTOW is well within the capability of the aircraft, even at about 400 nms further.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?
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...
Large Antenna On LH Wide Body Aircraft posted Fri Oct 9 2009 07:42:55 by KrisYYZ
APU On The Dreamlifter? posted Sun Oct 21 2012 22:25:05 by seahawks7757
Engines Under Wing Or On Fuselage posted Thu Oct 18 2012 08:02:59 by Extra300
Intermittent Flashing Red Beacon On Aircraft posted Thu Oct 18 2012 07:26:10 by AviRaider
'Plane Crash' On Channel 4 posted Mon Oct 15 2012 13:27:25 by ferengi80
Sunscreen Or HUD On This A380? posted Sun Oct 14 2012 04:59:22 by windshear
Question On Biman DC10 posted Wed Oct 3 2012 14:45:55 by Max Q
Jumbo Jet RB211-22B Backyard Run On Youtube posted Wed Oct 3 2012 14:40:54 by CaptainKramer
What's That Streak On The Belly Of This A333 posted Tue Oct 2 2012 23:12:38 by PRFlyer
Altitude Restrictions On STARS/arrival Procedures posted Mon Sep 24 2012 11:07:03 by smartt1982

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format