Ferroviarius
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:22 pm

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
 
wilco737
Posts: 7279
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:21 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:24 pm

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
  
 
jayeshrulz
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:36 pm

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:28 pm



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!
 
Ferroviarius
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:30 pm

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
 
wilco737
Posts: 7279
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:21 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:33 pm

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
  
 
imiakhtar
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:35 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:36 pm

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]
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?
 
brilondon
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:36 pm

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!!
 
jayeshrulz
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:36 pm

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:51 pm

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!
 
Ferroviarius
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:52 pm

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
 
stylo777
Posts: 1996
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:06 pm

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.
 
imiakhtar
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:35 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:12 pm

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
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?
 
dolphinflyer
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 9:57 pm

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:19 pm

Fantastic news! And the service lasts through Oktoberfest. Prost!
 
Ferroviarius
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:21 pm

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
 
tailfin
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:04 pm

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:36 pm

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

Flight only operates til October anyway.
 
LH422
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:21 pm

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:37 pm

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.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6875
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:40 pm

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.
 
neveragain
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:59 pm

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:40 pm

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?
 
trex8
Posts: 4605
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:50 pm

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.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:39 pm

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 !!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:04 am

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!
 
N809FR
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:10 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:22 am

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.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:25 pm

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 avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4950
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: LH MUC-YVR Nonstop On 333?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:39 pm

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.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], ro1960 and 28 guests