ARNPEK
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:26 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:30 am

Info in the post was already stated upthread. Withdrawn
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:35 am

777-8 having the same MTOW as 777-9 is essentially the "shrink" version of later. The long range fuel economy performance of 777-9 is little ahead of A35K. While A35K is more efficient than 777-8 by a not insignicant amount, assuming a 8000 nm still air mission.

On a 8500nm mission, A35K needs trade passenger for fuel. So 777-8 will be more efficient.

Both need cargo fuel tank to fly Project Sunrise, having a great cicle of 9200 nm. A35K is expected to be more efficient than 778.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:48 am

SQ32 wrote:
777-8 having the same MTOW as 777-9 is essentially the "shrink" version of later. The long range fuel economy performance of 777-9 is little ahead of A35K. While A35K is more efficient than 777-8 by a not insignicant amount, assuming a 8000 nm still air mission.

On a 8500nm mission, A35K needs trade passenger for fuel. So 777-8 will be more efficient.

Both need cargo fuel tank to fly Project Sunrise, having a great cicle of 9200 nm. A35K is expected to be more efficient than 778.

The 777-8 does not need cargo fuel tanks. It has 197,977litres or 158T of fuel. It will comfortably be able to do the route with 25T of payload.

The 777-8 burns less fuel than the 777-9. It is lighter and has less fuselage drag.

The A350-1000 only has 158,000litres or 124T of fuel. It will need 15-20T of extra fuel in the cargo hold to make the trip. It will also need a significantly MTOW bump to match the 777-8.
 
tealnz
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:58 am

Issue is that the 778 is not getting orders and even the current 53 orders – all from ME3 – are starting to look dodgy. NZ wasn’t tempted. QF could go either way – from a whole-of-network perspective the lighter A350 could prove more attractive. And the industry generally seems to be taking a cautious view of future growth prospects.
 
tealnz
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:04 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The 777-8 does not need cargo fuel tanks. It has 197,977litres or 158T of fuel. It will comfortably be able to do the route with 25T of payload.

The 777-8 burns less fuel than the 777-9. It is lighter and has less fuselage drag.

The A350-1000 only has 158,000litres or 124T of fuel. It will need 15-20T of extra fuel in the cargo hold to make the trip. It will also need a significantly MTOW bump to match the 777-8.

We don’t yet have an answer on integral fuel capacity of the Sunrise version of the A35K. You’d expect it to at least take the 165,000 litres of the 359ULR. We don’t know whether that’s the physical limit. Or whether it will require a belly tank.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:18 am

tealnz wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The 777-8 does not need cargo fuel tanks. It has 197,977litres or 158T of fuel. It will comfortably be able to do the route with 25T of payload.

The 777-8 burns less fuel than the 777-9. It is lighter and has less fuselage drag.

The A350-1000 only has 158,000litres or 124T of fuel. It will need 15-20T of extra fuel in the cargo hold to make the trip. It will also need a significantly MTOW bump to match the 777-8.

We don’t yet have an answer on integral fuel capacity of the Sunrise version of the A35K. You’d expect it to at least take the 165,000 litres of the 359ULR. We don’t know whether that’s the physical limit. Or whether it will require a belly tank.

Agreed, the mods are already in place to make the A359 in to the ULR, my understanding is that while the external geometry of the A359 wing is different to the A510 however the geometry of the wingbox is the same (save for additional thickness) so the mods to the fuel systems would be almost identical and take very little certification.

Incidentally the 165,000 litres works out to be ~132t of fuel, almost exactly what would be needed by the A351 for the sunrise route...

Why on earth (pun intended) would the B778 need 160t of fuel when 132 will get it in the air for 21hrs...possible tanker role coming up?

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13693
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:27 am

tealnz wrote:
We don’t yet have an answer on integral fuel capacity of the Sunrise version of the A35K. You’d expect it to at least take the 165,000 litres of the 359ULR. We don’t know whether that’s the physical limit. Or whether it will require a belly tank.


The wing chord on the -1000 is about 400 mm longer than the -900 wing, it has more internal volume available.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:34 am

How about the center tank of the A35K? Does it still has useful volume available?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13693
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:39 am

AECM wrote:
How about the center tank of the A35K? Does it still has useful volume available?


Yes, it is not at capacity. Just like the 359 when it came out.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:39 am

zeke wrote:
tealnz wrote:
We don’t yet have an answer on integral fuel capacity of the Sunrise version of the A35K. You’d expect it to at least take the 165,000 litres of the 359ULR. We don’t know whether that’s the physical limit. Or whether it will require a belly tank.


The wing chord on the -1000 is about 400 mm longer than the -900 wing, it has more internal volume available.

I thought that the trailing edge extension did not increase the size of the wing box where the fuel is actually stored? I.e. the main structural members of the of the A351 wing are externally geometrically identical to that of the A359, the additions of the A351wing are outside of that structure.

Fred
Image
 
tealnz
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:40 am

zeke wrote:
tealnz wrote:
We don’t yet have an answer on integral fuel capacity of the Sunrise version of the A35K. You’d expect it to at least take the 165,000 litres of the 359ULR. We don’t know whether that’s the physical limit. Or whether it will require a belly tank.


The wing chord on the -1000 is about 400 mm longer than the -900 wing, it has more internal volume available.

That’s news to me. I thought it just had a trailing edge extension which wouldn’t affect the wing tank volume...
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:04 am

zeke wrote:
AECM wrote:
How about the center tank of the A35K? Does it still has useful volume available?


Yes, it is not at capacity. Just like the 359 when it came out.
So at least the A35K should match the fuel volume of the A359ULR of arround 165000 liters.
 
SQ317
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:12 am

aryonoco wrote:
SQ317 wrote:
I meant BNE-LHR not JFK, my mistake! My gut instinct is that LHR is the only Sunrise route that BNE could sustain. Agree on MEL-DFW (and SYD-DFW) with 789s, don't know enough about SYD-FRA/CDG/GRU to comment but seems a bit ambitious, although they have flown to FRA and CDG in the past.


Agree with this. BNE-LHR is the only "Sunrise" route I can see BNE sustaining.

DFW and ORD will be covered by the 789.

Any potential route to FRA/CDG/GRU are further out, potentially a "phase 3".

Having said that, if all of these routes materialise, in say 10 years, QF could have quite a fantastic fleet of over two dozen of these Sunrise frames.


Ha, I did think of listing a phase 3 for FRA/CDG/GRU but thought I was getting carried away. Also, having checked, SYD-GRU is 8318mi so probably 789.
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:22 am

The range of 778 is 8,690 nm. It definitely need a cargo fuel given project Sunrise is 9200 nm great circle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X
 
tealnz
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:29 am

From memory the Leeham analysis of a year or two back concluded (with input from Qantas on likely use of a polar route over Anchorage for SYD-LHR) that the route would need an aircraft with still-air range of ~9500nm.
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:02 pm

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/20/airbu ... ing-777-9/

Lucas dismissed the 777-9 as a “compromise” airplane, using old and new features. The new ones—the wing, engines and fuselage stretch—add weight to the airplane, she said.

A fully loaded A350-1000 weighs as much as an empty 777-9, she said. The -1000 is 15% more economic than the 777-9, she says. (Boeing claims the 777-9 is more efficient than the -1000.)

***********************************************

In reality, A350-1000 at 9 abreat should be a very few percentage point less efficient than 777-9x. A350-1000 will be vastly more efficient if using a 10 abreast config. Since 777-8x is a 777-9x "shrink", it will be more inefficient than A350-1000. However 777-9x carries a higher risk due for filling up the entire 400 passenger.

Only on the 8500 nm mission 777-8x is more efficient, as it fly further.

On Sunrise where both aircraft need a cargo tank PIP, then A350-1000 will be more efficient.
Last edited by SQ32 on Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13693
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:04 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
I thought that the trailing edge extension did not increase the size of the wing box where the fuel is actually stored? I.e. the main structural members of the of the A351 wing are externally geometrically identical to that of the A359, the additions of the A351wing are outside of that structure.


Fred I’m not sure now, all I had was a fixed trailing edge extension, I had a look through the documents and the only time that is mentioned is on the droop nose. The tank geometry looks the same, however the fuel capacity of our -1000s is the best part of 15 tonnes more.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:23 pm

SQ32 wrote:
A350-1000 will be vastly more efficient if using a 10 abreast config.

Convict transport ships to Australia are preferable than 10AB on an A350 for 20 hours straight. That config will not receive even non-serious consideration at QF.
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:51 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB

Let do some analysis based on more reliable data. Wiki states
1. MTOW - 316t
2. OEW - 158.8t
3. Range - 8400 nm
4. Seating -366 passengers (specs)
5. Project Sunrise seating - 300 passengers (estimated)

For project sunrise, the still air range is 9200 nm. So a rule of thumb for bad weather is to carry fuel for 9200 x 1.2 = 11,000 nm, in provision for bad weather and contingencies.

Estimated MTOW is about 347t. That is to say Airbus need to find additional 30t takeoff weight or reduce the OEW.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 8395
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:56 pm

zeke wrote:
aryonoco wrote:
Any potential route to FRA/CDG/GRU are further out, potentially a "phase 3".


QF is in dispute with PER airport, they want to use T3 to fly to Paris, and the airport wants them to use T1 like every other international flight


That is not true. Under the agreement drawn up between QF and Perth Airport prior to PER-LHR which includes other European destinations such as CDG and FRA, plus existing services to SIN and at the time AKL to be served from T3. The proposed PER-JNB by QF was not included in this agreement hence Perth Airport argues it should be operated from T1. There are other factors in play here as well such as future airport development and also the airport is currently suing QF for unpaid charges or should I say QF is paying what they feel like rather than what they are being charged
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13693
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:12 pm

qf789 wrote:
That is not true. Under the agreement drawn up between QF and Perth Airport prior to PER-LHR which includes other European destinations such as CDG and FRA, plus existing services to SIN and at the time AKL to be served from T3. The proposed PER-JNB by QF was not included in this agreement hence Perth Airport argues it should be operated from T1. There are other factors in play here as well such as future airport development and also the airport is currently suing QF for unpaid charges or should I say QF is paying what they feel like rather than what they are being charged


Then what is QF an PAPL in dispute about this as reported 4 days ago in ABT ?

from https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-pauses- ... ort-stoush

"In a briefing with media at the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Annual General Meeting in Seoul, Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce shared that “today, we would be in the process of preparing for further services out of Perth into Europe – we would be ordering aircraft to do Perth to Paris, which would be the next one on our list, except for the fact that there’s a dispute with Perth Airport.”"
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:37 pm

SQ32 wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB

Let do some analysis based on more reliable data. Wiki states
1. MTOW - 316t
2. OEW - 158.8t
3. Range - 8400 nm
4. Seating -366 passengers (specs)
5. Project Sunrise seating - 300 passengers (estimated)

For project sunrise, the still air range is 9200 nm. So a rule of thumb for bad weather is to carry fuel for 9200 x 1.2 = 11,000 nm, in provision for bad weather and contingencies.

Estimated MTOW is about 347t. That is to say Airbus need to find additional 30t takeoff weight or reduce the OEW.


WOW! When I do (what I assume is) the same calculation you have just done on the A351 for the wiki numbers the B778X requires 383t takeoff weight.....
((MTOW-(specPAX*0.1)-OWE)/SPECMISSION)*(SUNRISEMISSION*1.2)+(SUNRISEPAX*0.1)+OWE.

Fred

PS. If you need 11000nm range then its better to just go the other way...
Image
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6428
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:41 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
It is not only about a possible delay, but according to the wording there is doubt about the 777-8 making sense per se.


The wording is vague, but I interpret "does that make sense" to refer to the currently expected timing rather than the variant as a whole. It will sell just fine in the end, because it will be the basis for the next Boeing freighter. As for the passenger variant, Emirates will need it in due time even if no one else does. (So will Qatar, provided that the airline continues to be an essential trade and defense investment for the Qatari government.)
 
mcg
Posts: 942
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:57 pm

enzo011 wrote:
How do you get 300 seats in the 778 in 4 classes? What layout will you see that will make this possible, for those flights other than LHR that the aircraft will be used on as well.


12 across in Y
 
ewt340
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:51 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
tealnz wrote:
... meanwhile, Seattle Times, quoting Boeing CFO, is reporting possible delay for the 778:

In addition, demand for the 777X, and, in particular for the smaller 777-8X version, has been soft and recent sales have been sparse.

Boeing will build the 777-9X first and was expected to deliver the -8X model perhaps a year later. Smith said Boeing is “looking at the timing and demand for the -8 to see if that still makes sense and do we want to push that out?”


It is not only about a possible delay, but according to the wording there is doubt about the 777-8 making sense per se.


I think Boeing are looking at Etihad cancelation and started to sweat a bit. Especially with situation in Qatar and their spat with their neighbors.

Right now, the only Airlines that would 100% certain to kept their B777-8 order would be Emirates at 35. If I was Boeing, I would want to cancel the B777-8 as well and give Emirates nice discount to convert to more B777-9.

Otherwise this would just ended up like A330-800neo. And at least the -800neo are just a re-engined aircraft with some minor improvements. B777-8 is heavily modified version of the classic series. It's a waste of money for them.

I don't think it would worth it for Boeing to sell around 10 aircrafts while wasting significant sums of money to tweak the aircraft to fit Qantas demands.
 
nry
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:04 pm

ewt340 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Otherwise this would just ended up like A330-800neo. And at least the -800neo are just a re-engined aircraft with some minor improvements. B777-8 is heavily modified version of the classic series. It's a waste of money for them.

I don't think it would worth it for Boeing to sell around 10 aircrafts while wasting significant sums of money to tweak the aircraft to fit Qantas demands.


This has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads. the 778 will be the foundation for the next 777F. This is not the same situation as the A330-800neo at all.
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320, A321, A340 (surprisingly no A330 yet)
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1636
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:09 pm

zeke wrote:
qf789 wrote:
That is not true. Under the agreement drawn up between QF and Perth Airport prior to PER-LHR which includes other European destinations such as CDG and FRA, plus existing services to SIN and at the time AKL to be served from T3. The proposed PER-JNB by QF was not included in this agreement hence Perth Airport argues it should be operated from T1. There are other factors in play here as well such as future airport development and also the airport is currently suing QF for unpaid charges or should I say QF is paying what they feel like rather than what they are being charged


Then what is QF an PAPL in dispute about this as reported 4 days ago in ABT ?

from https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-pauses- ... ort-stoush

"In a briefing with media at the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Annual General Meeting in Seoul, Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce shared that “today, we would be in the process of preparing for further services out of Perth into Europe – we would be ordering aircraft to do Perth to Paris, which would be the next one on our list, except for the fact that there’s a dispute with Perth Airport.”"


Yer, Joyce is saying that QF will not operate any further international services out of Perth until the dispute between the two parties is resolved.

The issues aren't flying to other European cities from Perth T3, it was Perth airports insistence that the proposed JNB flight be operated from T1, the charges they currently levy and the long term development of T1 and the airport expansion in general. Until they are resolved, Joyce is saying that QF will not reward Perth Airport with more services and thus revenue. If it's left too long they may miss out altogether.
 
sabby
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:31 pm

ewt340 wrote:

I think Boeing are looking at Etihad cancelation and started to sweat a bit. Especially with situation in Qatar and their spat with their neighbors.

Right now, the only Airlines that would 100% certain to kept their B777-8 order would be Emirates at 35. If I was Boeing, I would want to cancel the B777-8 as well and give Emirates nice discount to convert to more B777-9.


To be honest, 777-8 was the smallest frame on order in EK fleet before they ordered A339 and A359. Now, I think they'll definitely convert them to 777-9, especially that they will need a lot of A380 replacements over the next 10-15 years. Long and thin route would be operated by A359 as they've already said. For DXB-AKL (and similarly DOH-AKl), the A359 and if needed A35K for higher payload would do the duty nicely. If Boeing don't get the sunrise order, they should abandon 777-8 for pax and focus on weight reduction and engine PIP for 779. It is nicely positioned after A380 shut down and a lot of 77W would come for replacement in the next decade.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6428
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:22 pm

ewt340 wrote:
I think Boeing are looking at Etihad cancelation and started to sweat a bit. Especially with situation in Qatar and their spat with their neighbors.


The Qatar "spat" makes Qatari orders more secure. Aircraft orders are one of Qatar's biggest sources of leverage to keep the West neutral in the "spat." The Qatari government won't be interested in imposing any financial discipline on QR orders while this is happening.

Right now, the only Airlines that would 100% certain to kept their B777-8 order would be Emirates at 35. If I was Boeing, I would want to cancel the B777-8 as well and give Emirates nice discount to convert to more B777-9.


If I were Emirates and Boeing canceled my 777-8, I'd be more inclined to get more A350s than to convert to 777-9s. And if I'm correct, I suspect 35 frames for Emirates is enough by itself to fund development of what is basically a shrink of the already built 777-9, even before we consider future freighter sales.

Otherwise this would just ended up like A330-800neo. And at least the -800neo are just a re-engined aircraft with some minor improvements. B777-8 is heavily modified version of the classic series. It's a waste of money for them.


But most of the work is already done, and had to be done regardless for the 777-9. Once you have a 777-9, a 777-8 is almost a straight shrink of it.

I don't think it would worth it for Boeing to sell around 10 aircrafts while wasting significant sums of money to tweak the aircraft to fit Qantas demands.


If you believe Joyce we're looking at 15-20 ULH aircraft for Sunrise, not counting any non-ULH sales that are included in the deal, and I expect some improvements for Sunrise (especially any MTOW increase) will translate well to the freighter.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:45 pm

seabosdca wrote:
If you believe Joyce we're looking at 15-20 ULH aircraft for Sunrise, not counting any non-ULH sales that are included in the deal, and I expect some improvements for Sunrise (especially any MTOW increase) will translate well to the freighter.


The freighter version, as well as possible other passenger sales. Whichever manufacturer wins the Sunrise order will be in a good position to market that to other airlines, whether it's the 778 with a MTOW boost or a A350K ULR. I can certainly see SQ and TK being interested in such a frame.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:44 pm

SQ32 wrote:
The range of 778 is 8,690 nm. It definitely need a cargo fuel given project Sunrise is 9200 nm great circle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X

Wrong again.

The 777-8 does not need an extra cargo fuel tank.

When flying 8690nm the 777-8 fuel tank is only around 85% full. This range is also with 365 passengers. The remaining 15% of the fuel tank must be left empty as the aircraft is at its MTOW weight.

If you remove 100 passengers to bring it down to 265 that is around 10T of weight removed. This then allows the fuel tanks to now be filled to approx 95% capacity. It can comfortably fly the 9200nm Sydney to London route.

It is the A350-1000 that requires expensive mods and extra fuel capacity to match the 777-8.

It would be like saying the 787-10 needs extra cargo fuel tanks. With a full passenger load the 787-10's fuel tanks can only be filled to 65%. It is MTOW limited not tank capacity limited.

Those who say the 777-8 should be cancelled, the aircraft is a simple shrink of the 777-9. Shrinks are much cheaper to develop than a fuselage stretch. Nearly all of the loads would be reduced on the 777-8 when compared to the 777-9 so no strengthening is required.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:50 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
SQ32 wrote:
The range of 778 is 8,690 nm. It definitely need a cargo fuel given project Sunrise is 9200 nm great circle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X

Wrong again.

The 777-8 does not need an extra cargo fuel tank.

When flying 8690nm the 777-8 fuel tank is only around 85% full. This range is also with 365 passengers. The remaining 15% of the fuel tank must be left empty as the aircraft is at its MTOW weight.

If you remove 100 passengers to bring it down to 265 that is around 10T of weight removed. This then allows the fuel tanks to now be filled to approx 95% capacity. It can comfortably fly the 9200nm Sydney to London route.

It is the A350-1000 that requires expensive mods and extra fuel capacity to match the 777-8.

It would be like saying the 787-10 needs extra cargo fuel tanks. With a full passenger load the 787-10's fuel tanks can only be filled to 65%. It is MTOW limited not tank capacity limited.

Those who say the 777-8 should be cancelled, the aircraft is a simple shrink of the 777-9. Shrinks are much cheaper to develop than a fuselage stretch. Nearly all of the loads would be reduced on the 777-8 when compared to the 777-9 so no strengthening is required.


While I also think A35K requires more mods than 777-8...
Isn't 777-8 a paper airplane at the moment? I don't think even 777-9 has ever flown yet.
How can you be sure about those exact numbers about fuel reserves?
 
BBJ777X
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:16 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:29 am

RJMAZ wrote:
SQ32 wrote:
The range of 778 is 8,690 nm. It definitely need a cargo fuel given project Sunrise is 9200 nm great circle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X

Wrong again.

The 777-8 does not need an extra cargo fuel tank.

When flying 8690nm the 777-8 fuel tank is only around 85% full. This range is also with 365 passengers. The remaining 15% of the fuel tank must be left empty as the aircraft is at its MTOW weight.

If you remove 100 passengers to bring it down to 265 that is around 10T of weight removed. This then allows the fuel tanks to now be filled to approx 95% capacity. It can comfortably fly the 9200nm Sydney to London route.

It is the A350-1000 that requires expensive mods and extra fuel capacity to match the 777-8.

It would be like saying the 787-10 needs extra cargo fuel tanks. With a full passenger load the 787-10's fuel tanks can only be filled to 65%. It is MTOW limited not tank capacity limited.

Those who say the 777-8 should be cancelled, the aircraft is a simple shrink of the 777-9. Shrinks are much cheaper to develop than a fuselage stretch. Nearly all of the loads would be reduced on the 777-8 when compared to the 777-9 so no strengthening is required.


Isn't the 8690 nmi range is inaccurate and Boeing will revise it to be 9500 nmi? 9500 nmi will certainly be more than enough for Project Sunrise.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6428
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
It is the A350-1000 that requires expensive mods and extra fuel capacity to match the 777-8.


That's not clear either. The A350-900ULR just unlocked the full tank capacity, which was not certified for use on the regular A350-900. It's not clear yet whether that will also be good enough for the A350-1000XLR or whether it will need an aux tank.

The A350-1000 as introduced needed more MTOW before it needed more fuel. It seems clear Airbus is prepared to give it enough MTOW to use its full fuel capacity. The 777-8 was in the same situation, needing a MTOW increase to fly QF's desired payload--just not as much of one. Recent rumblings suggest that Boeing, like Airbus, is prepared to do that.
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1650
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 am

tealnz wrote:
... meanwhile, Seattle Times, quoting Boeing CFO, is reporting possible delay for the 778:

In addition, demand for the 777X, and, in particular for the smaller 777-8X version, has been soft and recent sales have been sparse.

Boeing will build the 777-9X first and was expected to deliver the -8X model perhaps a year later. Smith said Boeing is “looking at the timing and demand for the -8 to see if that still makes sense and do we want to push that out?”


Thanks for posting this here, as well as in the 777X testing thread.

I agree with others that Boeing's language is sufficiently vague that it could mean the timeline or the model itself, but I believe they probably mean the timeline. That said, what stands out for me as far as this thread is concerned is that the new timeline, even if only pushed back by 12 months, but particularly the vague language around a potential delay, indicates Boeing is in no way sure QF will select the 778 for Sunrise.

The other important post in the 777X testing thread, and I'm sure QF are looking at things like this closely, is that a GE9X test engine experienced an undisclosed anomaly, and there's an expectation this will delay 779 first flight. Article here: https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... a27b5245cf
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:36 am

BBJ777X wrote:
Isn't the 8690 nmi range is inaccurate and Boeing will revise it to be 9500 nmi? 9500 nmi will certainly be more than enough for Project Sunrise.

There is no way the 777-8 will be able to be revised to fly 9500nm with the 365 passengers. All aircraft fly further when you have less payload (passengers). So any revised range figure above 9000nm will also be with a revised passenger number of below 300.

ITSTours wrote:
While I also think A35K requires more mods than 777-8...
Isn't 777-8 a paper airplane at the moment? I don't think even 777-9 has ever flown yet.
How can you be sure about those exact numbers about fuel reserves?

The 8690nm figure with 365 passengers will be extremely accurate. Boeing and Airbus give numbers like this years before first flight and they always hit the target within a couple percent.

So even if the 777-8 range is plus or minus 100nm the aircraft will still fly further than the A350-1000. In addition to this you can take any payload range curve and see the rate that which range increases as payload reduces. So we can comfortably see that 265 passengers will easily fly 9000+nm in the 777-8.

For instance lets take the 787-9 payload range chart. It shows it can fly 7500nm with 30T of payload but with a 20T payload it can fly massive 8700nm.

If the 777-8 can fly 8690nm with 365 passengers and we use the gradient of the 787 payload range curve then it cwould fly 9500nm with 265 passengers. So it can easily do Sydney to London completely standard.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1353
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:42 am

RJMAZ wrote:
If the 777-8 can fly 8690nm with 365 passengers and we use the gradient of the 787 payload range curve then it would fly 9500nm with 265 passengers. So it can easily do Sydney to London completely standard.

You can't just use data from the 787's performance and extrapolate to the 777x and then conclude as fact that 777-8X can fly SYD-LHR in a completely standard configuration. I'd have thought that if there's anything this thread might have taught you, it's not to base firm conclusions on unsupported assumptions.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:55 am

DavidByrne wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
If the 777-8 can fly 8690nm with 365 passengers and we use the gradient of the 787 payload range curve then it would fly 9500nm with 265 passengers. So it can easily do Sydney to London completely standard.

You can't just use data from the 787's performance and extrapolate to the 777x and then conclude as fact that 777-8X can fly SYD-LHR in a completely standard configuration. I'd have thought that if there's anything this thread might have taught you, it's not to base firm conclusions on unsupported assumptions.

Take any payload range chart from the 777, A350, 787, A340 and pick the worst one with the steepest gradient. Even using this worse case gradient the 8690nm easily exceeds the Sydney-London route. So my firm conclusion is completely supported.
 
AC77X
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:12 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:00 am

The 777-8 is not a 787, its a 777. Even if it uses some technology from the 787, that still makes it a 777. By that logic, we could use the 777 to predict how the 787 would perform. DavidByrne is correct in saying that we cannot use the 787's performance to judge a 777.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1353
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Take any payload range chart from the 777, A350, 787, A340 and pick the worst one with the steepest gradient. Even using this worse case gradient the 8690nm easily exceeds the Sydney-London route. So my firm conclusion is completely supported.

On that basis I don’t know why airlines even bother with the complexity of calculating payload range. They should all just do it by eye like you!
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
AC77X
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:12 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:10 am

RJMAZ wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
If the 777-8 can fly 8690nm with 365 passengers and we use the gradient of the 787 payload range curve then it would fly 9500nm with 265 passengers. So it can easily do Sydney to London completely standard.

You can't just use data from the 787's performance and extrapolate to the 777x and then conclude as fact that 777-8X can fly SYD-LHR in a completely standard configuration. I'd have thought that if there's anything this thread might have taught you, it's not to base firm conclusions on unsupported assumptions.

Take any payload range chart from the 777, A350, 787, A340 and pick the worst one with the steepest gradient. Even using this worse case gradient the 8690nm easily exceeds the Sydney-London route. So my firm conclusion is completely supported.

Your firm conclusion for a large, ultra long haul twinjet was based off of the performance of a medium sized, medium-long haul twinjet that isn't even being considered in this competition. You then proceed to compare it to the 340 and 350 even though those are direct 777 competitors, not direct 787 competitors.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12194
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:23 am

RJMAZ wrote:
the aircraft is a simple shrink of the 777-9.

Has that ever been confirmed though?

Can't use introduction for that conclusion: the 77W debuted first, but it's actually a stretch of the 772 frame.

What evidence indicates that the 778 is a shrink of a 779, versus the opposite?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
AC77X
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:12 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:32 am

LAX772LR wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
the aircraft is a simple shrink of the 777-9.

Has that ever been confirmed though?

Can't use introduction for that conclusion: the 77W debuted first, but it's actually a stretch of the 772 frame.

What evidence indicates that the 778 is a shrink of a 779, versus the opposite?

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ochure.pdf
It says that the 9 is from the 300ER, and the 8 is from the 9. Granted, the brochure is from May 2015.
 
lutfi
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:46 am

jupiter2 wrote:
zeke wrote:
qf789 wrote:
That is not true. Under the agreement drawn up between QF and Perth Airport prior to PER-LHR which includes other European destinations such as CDG and FRA, plus existing services to SIN and at the time AKL to be served from T3. The proposed PER-JNB by QF was not included in this agreement hence Perth Airport argues it should be operated from T1. There are other factors in play here as well such as future airport development and also the airport is currently suing QF for unpaid charges or should I say QF is paying what they feel like rather than what they are being charged


Then what is QF an PAPL in dispute about this as reported 4 days ago in ABT ?

from https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-pauses- ... ort-stoush

"In a briefing with media at the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Annual General Meeting in Seoul, Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce shared that “today, we would be in the process of preparing for further services out of Perth into Europe – we would be ordering aircraft to do Perth to Paris, which would be the next one on our list, except for the fact that there’s a dispute with Perth Airport.”"


Yer, Joyce is saying that QF will not operate any further international services out of Perth until the dispute between the two parties is resolved.

The issues aren't flying to other European cities from Perth T3, it was Perth airports insistence that the proposed JNB flight be operated from T1, the charges they currently levy and the long term development of T1 and the airport expansion in general. Until they are resolved, Joyce is saying that QF will not reward Perth Airport with more services and thus revenue. If it's left too long they may miss out altogether.


True - there are many more airlines, but only one Perth airport.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:49 am

DavidByrne wrote:
On that basis I don’t know why airlines even bother with the complexity of calculating payload range. They should all just do it by eye like you!


There are a few airlines that do do it like that. They generally end up sending passenger luggage via Broom and it arrives a couple of hours later. No biggie.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:54 am

DavidByrne wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Take any payload range chart from the 777, A350, 787, A340 and pick the worst one with the steepest gradient. Even using this worse case gradient the 8690nm easily exceeds the Sydney-London route. So my firm conclusion is completely supported.

On that basis I don’t know why airlines even bother with the complexity of calculating payload range. They should all just do it by eye like you!

You cannot be serious?

I am not making up the entire payload range curve! I am using Boeings very accurate data point and using the gradient of other long range aircraft. This can create accurate data points to the left and right.

Image

As everyone can see the gradients of the lines are very close to being the same. So if you have a data point for the 777-8 of 8690nm at 365 passengers you can apply the same gradient to determine the range increase as payload reduces.
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5924
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:14 am

zeke wrote:
Airlines0613 wrote:
No, the aircraft are wet-leased and operated in behalf of QF. So yes, the previous poster was correct. You just can’t accept defeat, even if it’s right in front of you.


They are not QF aircraft, they are Atlas aircraft, operated by Atlas crew. The same tail maybe does a few days of work for QF and then do a few days of work for us.


Qantas does have them for a while, under Qantas flight numbers and call signs. I never made any distinctions on ownership or otherwise - you just decided to go down the path of pedantry, disappointing for a veteran of this site. I expected better.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13693
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
[
The 8690nm figure with 365 passengers will be extremely accurate. Boeing and Airbus give numbers like this years before first flight and they always hit the target within a couple percent.

So even if the 777-8 range is plus or minus 100nm the aircraft will still fly further than the A350-1000. In addition to this you can take any payload range curve and see the rate that which range increases as payload reduces. So we can comfortably see that 265 passengers will easily fly 9000+nm in the 777-8.

For instance lets take the 787-9 payload range chart. It shows it can fly 7500nm with 30T of payload but with a 20T payload it can fly massive 8700nm.

If the 777-8 can fly 8690nm with 365 passengers and we use the gradient of the 787 payload range curve then it cwould fly 9500nm with 265 passengers. So it can easily do Sydney to London completely standard.


I will do the maths for you.

The landing weight L2 at the end of 9500 nm will be equal to the following formula, assuming the average L/D and TSFC will be the same for 8690 nm as it is for 9500 nm. Assuming the Boeing numbers have it landing with a 30 minute fixed reserve, assume that to be 3000 kg.

MTOW 351534 Kg
DOW 173000 Kg (From Fred’s previous analysis on this thread)
R1 8690 Nm
R2 9500 Nm
P1 365 pax 36500 Kg
L1 212500 Kg
Fixed Res 1 30 min 3000 Kg
Fixed Res 2 70 m 7000 Kg

The landing weight (L2) at 9500 nm assuming 70 minutes fixed reserve (Qantas fuel policy).

L2=MTOW*exp[(R2*Ln(MTOW/L1))/R1]
L2= 193433 kg

Passenger payload = L2-DOW-Fixed Res 2 = 13443 kg or 134 passengers.

RJMAZ wrote:
As everyone can see the gradients of the lines are very close to being the same. So if you have a data point for the 777-8 of 8690nm at 365 passengers you can apply the same gradient to determine the range increase as payload reduces.


The gradients are not the same, the gradient is Kg/nm, known as specific range.

cpd wrote:
Qantas does have them for a while, under Qantas flight numbers and call signs. I never made any distinctions on ownership or otherwise - you just decided to go down the path of pedantry, disappointing for a veteran of this site. I expected better.


We have the same arrangement with Atlas, they operate in their livery, with their crew, however with our call signs. If you look at their incidents at HKG using our call signs you will see they are different tail numbers.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
grbauc
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:28 am

RJMAZ wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Take any payload range chart from the 777, A350, 787, A340 and pick the worst one with the steepest gradient. Even using this worse case gradient the 8690nm easily exceeds the Sydney-London route. So my firm conclusion is completely supported.

On that basis I don’t know why airlines even bother with the complexity of calculating payload range. They should all just do it by eye like you!

You cannot be serious?

I am not making up the entire payload range curve! I am using Boeings very accurate data point and using the gradient of other long range aircraft. This can create accurate data points to the left and right.

Image

As everyone can see the gradients of the lines are very close to being the same. So if you have a data point for the 777-8 of 8690nm at 365 passengers you can apply the same gradient to determine the range increase as payload reduces.



What I see your saying and showing is common sense. You using data points of other models and variants to show a point and make a estimate of a possible range..
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:45 am

zeke wrote:
I will do the maths for you.

MTOW 351534 Kg
DOW 173000 Kg (From Fred’s previous analysis on this thread)
R1 8690 Nm
R2 9500 Nm
P1 365 pax 36500 Kg
L1 212500 Kg
Fixed Res 1 30 min 3000 Kg
Fixed Res 2 70 m 7000 Kg

The landing weight (L2) at 9500 nm assuming 70 minutes fixed reserve (Qantas fuel policy).

L2=MTOW*exp[(R2*Ln(MTOW/L1))/R1]
L2= 193433 kg

Passenger payload = L2-DOW-Fixed Res 2 = 13443 kg or 134 passengers.

To the average person all your fancy calculations makes you look like you know what you are talking about.

However your calculations is wrong. It shows the 777-8 having the same range as the 787 with similar payload. The 787-8 payload range chart on the Boeing ACAP clearly shows it can lift 20,000lb of payload 9500nm. That is 90 passengers. So according to you the 777-8 can only carry 44 more passengers than the 787-8. Very doubtful.

The A350-900 ACAP document shows it can carry a massive 20T of payload 9500nm. That is 50% more passengers than your 777-8 number.

What you have done is added the reserve fuel twice on the 777-8 number. The 8690nm value with 365 passengers already includes reserve fuel so you've added twice the reserve fuel reducing the payload by approx 6000-8000kg.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos