• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12
 
VV
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:44 am

scbriml wrote:
VV wrote:
Let's see it the simple way.

There is absolutely no mean the total volume available for fuel in the wing on the A350-1000 can be bigger than that of the A350-900. It is just physics. Both aircraft have the same wing planform.

Anyone who dares to say something otherwise is absolutely wrong.


Please explain how they can have the same wing planform when the -1000’s wing is 22sqm larger in area but with the same span.

What the heck, indeed.


Most probably it was due to the trailing edge extension introduced late in the program. Otherwise it is the same wing geometry.

However the skin and spars are thicker on the A350-1000 and this the (inner) total volume is sensibly smaller than that of the A450-900.

What the heck????????
 
morrisond
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:47 am

VV wrote:
scbriml wrote:
VV wrote:
Let's see it the simple way.

There is absolutely no mean the total volume available for fuel in the wing on the A350-1000 can be bigger than that of the A350-900. It is just physics. Both aircraft have the same wing planform.

Anyone who dares to say something otherwise is absolutely wrong.


Please explain how they can have the same wing planform when the -1000’s wing is 22sqm larger in area but with the same span.

What the heck, indeed.


Most probably it was due to the trailing edge extension introduced late in the program. Otherwise it is the same wing geometry.

However the skin and spars are thicker on the A350-1000 and this the (inner) total volume is sensibly smaller than that of the A450-900.

What the heck????????


I would have to guess that thicker skins (what are we talking a mm?) would have zero difference on the internal volume of a tank - unless the internal height of all structure was made smaller so the outside mould lines were identical - but I highly doubt that.

The spars are probably thicker - but again - most likely using just slightly thicker material - that would be a nominal decrease in capacity - unless the internal structure is substantially different.

You are grasping at straws to show that you weren't wrong - which technically you are not - but it's probably such a small difference (Maybe 1% at the most?) that it would equate to single digits in terms of minutes of flying time.

Basically less of a difference than the person filling the tanks using the wrong temperature correction factor when filling.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:09 am

oschkosch wrote:
I have it! Airbus is getting the order and as a way to save face, QF offered Boeing the opportunity of publicity via the additional empty 787 flights. Could sort of make some sense?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


The A350 will also be more flexible / efficient for other QF missions if / when required compared to the 777X, which is something AJ has mentioned being a requirement before. Airbus has this to lose.
Last edited by 777Jet on Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:09 am

mig17 wrote:
Image
I tried to show how different aircraft would performe on LHR/SYD.

Very impressive. I did notice a few errors.

Most reports and analysis in tech ops shows the 777-8 will fly a higher payload than the A350-1000. The 777-8 has a MTOW only 10% higher yet your trip fuel burn is 20% higher. With similar wing/span loadings and equal engine tech those percentages should be the same.

Also the shorter fuselage lengths should have slightly less drag of 3-4%. So the 777-8, 787-8 and A330-800 should burn slightly less fuel on the trip giving some room extra payload.

Also the MTOW bumps increase trip burn. A 6t MTOW increase would incressd fuel burn by 2t and payload by 4t.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8523
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:00 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
mig17 wrote:
Image
I tried to show how different aircraft would performe on LHR/SYD.

Very impressive. I did notice a few errors.

Most reports and analysis in tech ops shows the 777-8 will fly a higher payload than the A350-1000. The 777-8 has a MTOW only 10% higher yet your trip fuel burn is 20% higher. With similar wing/span loadings and equal engine tech those percentages should be the same.

Also the shorter fuselage lengths should have slightly less drag of 3-4%. So the 777-8, 787-8 and A330-800 should burn slightly less fuel on the trip giving some room extra payload.

Also the MTOW bumps increase trip burn. A 6t MTOW increase would incressd fuel burn by 2t and payload by 4t.


I think that the high payload for the 777-8 is simply an a.net myth. Between the raised OEW compared to the 777-200LR at a similar MTOW and burning more fuel than the A350-1000 there is little room for a higher payload. That is also the reason I put a question mark against the 777-8F beating out or even reaching the 777F in payload capabilities.
I would even say that the OEW of 155t for the A350-1000 is assumed rather high and the OEW for the 777-8 with 165 t rather low.
The 777-9 of the 777-9 is assumed here at 182 t, I would assume that the OEW of the 777-8 to be not more than 15 t lower.
The OEW difference between a 777-200LR and the 777-300ER is 22,7 t. But the length difference between them is with 10.13 m quite a bit more than between the 777-8 and 777-9 with 6.9 m. Additional to that the 777-8 is practical a shrink of the 777-9 with the same structure apart from length.
Regarding the A350-1000 we had not long ago a real world number of 153,5 t including stores and service load. So an OEW of 153 t should be quite realistic for the A350-1000.
Last edited by mjoelnir on Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:09 pm

I think folks have already meandered to the right conclusion on the A350 wing fuel tanks but for the avoidance of doubt:

- Both A359 and A35k share a common torque box (with slightly different laminate properties).
- The A35k has trailing edge extensions to increase wing area.

- Internal volume available for fuel should be as near as makes no difference for both A359 and A35k. There is possibly extra design space in the A359 near the wheel wells due to one less bogie so a small additional tank could go in there, but that is not wing tank.
- There are likely slightly different rotor burst zones on both aircraft, which could lead to slightly different dry bays in the different wings.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21434
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:16 pm

VV wrote:
scbriml wrote:
VV wrote:
Let's see it the simple way.

There is absolutely no mean the total volume available for fuel in the wing on the A350-1000 can be bigger than that of the A350-900. It is just physics. Both aircraft have the same wing planform.

Anyone who dares to say something otherwise is absolutely wrong.

Please explain how they can have the same wing planform when the -1000’s wing is 22sqm larger in area but with the same span.

What the heck, indeed.

Most probably it was due to the trailing edge extension introduced late in the program.

Thus not the same wing planform.

VV wrote:
Otherwise it is the same wing geometry.

However the skin and spars are thicker on the A350-1000 and this the (inner) total volume is sensibly smaller than that of the A450-900.

What the heck????????

You win the a.net "Pedant of the Day" award, and are in the running for the "Pedant of the Year" award too!
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mig17
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:55 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
mig17 wrote:
Image
I tried to show how different aircraft would performe on LHR/SYD.

Very impressive. I did notice a few errors.

Thanks :-)

RJMAZ wrote:
Most reports and analysis in tech ops shows the 777-8 will fly a higher payload than the A350-1000. The 777-8 has a MTOW only 10% higher yet your trip fuel burn is 20% higher. With similar wing/span loadings and equal engine tech those percentages should be the same.
Also the shorter fuselage lengths should have slightly less drag of 3-4%. So the 777-8, 787-8 and A330-800 should burn slightly less fuel on the trip giving some room extra payload.

This is only a payload range analysis. The "base performance" of each model is here given by the "OEM range" in the "OEM config". So the drag or the engine tech are already included in the OEM base performance. I agree so, that the 777-8 should offer better performance than the official 360 pax on 8690nm with 151t of fuel but that are the official numbers from Boeing for now. However a par with the A35K would be "phenomenal".

RJMAZ wrote:
Also the MTOW bumps increase trip burn. A 6t MTOW increase would incressd fuel burn by 2t and payload by 4t.

Roger that !
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:02 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
mig17 wrote:
Image
I tried to show how different aircraft would performe on LHR/SYD.

Very impressive. I did notice a few errors.

Most reports and analysis in tech ops shows the 777-8 will fly a higher payload than the A350-1000. The 777-8 has a MTOW only 10% higher yet your trip fuel burn is 20% higher. With similar wing/span loadings and equal engine tech those percentages should be the same.

Also the shorter fuselage lengths should have slightly less drag of 3-4%. So the 777-8, 787-8 and A330-800 should burn slightly less fuel on the trip giving some room extra payload.

Also the MTOW bumps increase trip burn. A 6t MTOW increase would incressd fuel burn by 2t and payload by 4t.


I think that the high payload for the 777-8 is simply an a.net myth. Between the raised OEW compared to the 777-200LR at a similar MTOW and burning more fuel than the A350-1000 there is little room for a higher payload. That is also the reason I put a question mark against the 777-8F beating out or even reaching the 777F in payload capabilities.
I would even say that the OEW of 155t for the A350-1000 is assumed rather high and the OEW for the 777-8 with 165 t rather low.
The 777-9 of the 777-9 is assumed here at 182 t, I would assume that the OEW of the 777-8 to be not more than 15 t lower.
The OEW difference between a 777-200LR and the 777-300ER is 22,7 t. But the length difference between them is with 10.13 m quite a bit more than between the 777-8 and 777-9 with 6.9 m. Additional to that the 777-8 is practical a shrink of the 777-9 with the same structure apart from length.
Regarding the A350-1000 we had not long ago a real world number of 153,5 t including stores and service load. So an OEW of 153 t should be quite realistic for the A350-1000.


Boeing has probably some update about 777-9 OEW because at ACAP is TBD now at OEW column. So it explain why Boeing try push 779 for "project Sunrise" as interim solution for QS.

As was posted at technical operation forum, picture from A350-1000 cockpit operated by CX is label with OEW 148900 kg.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:05 pm

It appears to me that some hard core "expurts" are busily taking this thread hostage, and wandering off in square metres, litres, kilos, and kilometres. Take those discussions to somewhere else, this thread is about a small set of 3 flights being conducted to obtain data on performance - and degradation of performance - of flight crew, cabin crew, and passengers on flights of between 20 and 22 hours!

I think the cabin crew have the best experience on such flights - they have work to attend to at regular intervals, it keeps them busy, active, engaged. The flight crew(s) do have a monitoring role, but the automation is most likely to be doing the actual work. I think it is the pax that will suffer the most, such flights must seem interminable after about 12 hours.

Someone above posted about the very high fuel consumption on such flights compared with a one-stop alternative. Is it really worth the cost, the additional pollution, the stress on the bodies of those on board, ....... to get there 2 hours quicker?

Do real people envisage getting off a 22-hour flight and going straight into business negotiations? It is likely that they will spend the saved time at the destination airport having the "3S's" (s**t, shower, shave) and a change of clothes before heading off to their clear-headed business meeting!

It's a fascinating challenge, and brilliant technology to achieve it, but I question its added value, and its sustainability when the economic and actual climates go wrong!
 
VV
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:09 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
I think folks have already meandered to the right conclusion on the A350 wing fuel tanks but for the avoidance of doubt:

- Both A359 and A35k share a common torque box (with slightly different laminate properties).
- The A35k has trailing edge extensions to increase wing area.

- Internal volume available for fuel should be as near as makes no difference for both A359 and A35k. There is possibly extra design space in the A359 near the wheel wells due to one less bogie so a small additional tank could go in there, but that is not wing tank.
- There are likely slightly different rotor burst zones on both aircraft, which could lead to slightly different dry bays in the different wings.


Clearly, the A350-1000 has slightly lower volume for fuel in the wing and most probably in the center box too. There's absolutely no way A450-1000 can have higher fuel volume than A350-900. No way.

The only way to get higher volume capacity than A350-900 on the A350-1000 is to add aux tanks, thus extra plumbing, additional fuel vent, fuel pump, wiring, fuel quantity probes, structural reinforcement, tank puncture protection (Kevlar lining?), Changes in the flight management system (fuel quantity, CH vector etc.) refueling additional panel.

All those things will have to be designed then built by suppliers. One year certification? It is not going to happen. It will take at least 24 months.

What the heck?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3144
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:14 pm

sassiciai - those questions you raise deserve a separate thread, and some good technical discussions. The mental and physical health of close quartered confinement for upwards of 24 hours is problematical. EKs success with a 1Stop for those long trips is pertinent. I do not think there has been a good discussion on this. There must be academic and industrial studies which would be helpful.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2666
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:17 pm

Where is Zeke when you need him? He could easily put this fuel capacity debate to bed with 1 post.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:31 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Where is Zeke when you need him? He could easily put this fuel capacity debate to bed with 1 post.


This was part of a discussion with him in another thread.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:43 pm

VV wrote:
Clearly, the A350-1000 has slightly lower volume for fuel in the wing and most probably in the center box too. There's absolutely no way A450-1000 can have higher fuel volume than A350-900. No way.


The -1000 was made after the -900. That always means refinements to the earlier systems are a possibility. Some examples being

- Slightly better placement of the scavenge pumps can see unuseable fuel drop
- Changes to the fuel gallery can lower the amount of volume used for internal plumbing
- Changes to the inerting system can lower the amount of volume used for internal plumbing
- Changes to main pumps or to engine feed can reduce number of pumps needed, which obviously frees up internal volume
- Refinement of the rotor burst zone can mean relaxing of the size of the dry bay(s).

It definitely is not "clear" and there is definitely "absolutely no way" that the -1000 can have a higher fuel volume than -900. I'd say its unlikely, but very far from impossible.


But it doesn't really matter. Either way, the difference between the -900 and -1000 is background noise when compared to the additional uplift required for this mission profile.

VV wrote:
The only way to get higher volume capacity than A350-900 on the A350-1000 is to add aux tanks, thus extra plumbing, additional fuel vent, fuel pump, wiring, fuel quantity probes, structural reinforcement, tank puncture protection (Kevlar lining?), Changes in the flight management system (fuel quantity, CH vector etc.) refueling additional panel.

All those things will have to be designed then built by suppliers. One year certification? It is not going to happen. It will take at least 24 months.


Depends if the original fuel system was ever designed with ACTs in mind. If it was, then integration of ACTs becomes a much simpler process. If not, then the system does need a bit of work alright.

Even if it were to take 24 months - do you know when Airbus started looking at it? Qantas launched Project Sunrise in Aug 2017. That is 24 months ago. So unless you know for sure that Airbus haven't started the ball rolling till this thread appeared on anet and someone in Toulouse thought "oh, that sounds like a good idea, have we considered that yet fellas?"....
 
VV
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:34 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
VV wrote:
Clearly, the A350-1000 has slightly lower volume for fuel in the wing and most probably in the center box too. There's absolutely no way A450-1000 can have higher fuel volume than A350-900. No way.


The -1000 was made after the -900. That always means refinements to the earlier systems are a possibility. Some examples being

- Slightly better placement of the scavenge pumps can see unuseable fuel drop
- Changes to the fuel gallery can lower the amount of volume used for internal plumbing
- Changes to the inerting system can lower the amount of volume used for internal plumbing
- Changes to main pumps or to engine feed can reduce number of pumps needed, which obviously frees up internal volume
- Refinement of the rotor burst zone can mean relaxing of the size of the dry bay(s).

It definitely is not "clear" and there is definitely "absolutely no way" that the -1000 can have a higher fuel volume than -900. I'd say its unlikely, but very far from impossible.


But it doesn't really matter. Either way, the difference between the -900 and -1000 is background noise when compared to the additional uplift required for this mission profile.

VV wrote:
The only way to get higher volume capacity than A350-900 on the A350-1000 is to add aux tanks, thus extra plumbing, additional fuel vent, fuel pump, wiring, fuel quantity probes, structural reinforcement, tank puncture protection (Kevlar lining?), Changes in the flight management system (fuel quantity, CH vector etc.) refueling additional panel.

All those things will have to be designed then built by suppliers. One year certification? It is not going to happen. It will take at least 24 months.


Depends if the original fuel system was ever designed with ACTs in mind. If it was, then integration of ACTs becomes a much simpler process. If not, then the system does need a bit of work alright.

Even if it were to take 24 months - do you know when Airbus started looking at it? Qantas launched Project Sunrise in Aug 2017. That is 24 months ago. So unless you know for sure that Airbus haven't started the ball rolling till this thread appeared on anet and someone in Toulouse thought "oh, that sounds like a good idea, have we considered that yet fellas?"....


Not all the elements you mentioned are correct. For instance the fact the power density (and also the weight) of the engines on teh -1000 is such that there is a need for stronger protection for rotor burst and stronger mount (to the spar). In essence, there is not so much opportunity to improve the fuel volume on the -1000.

The reality is that initially there has not been an issue until the ULR concept was introduced, firstly to the -900 and then to the -1000.. Therefore I have serious doubt the provision for auxiliary tanks was even initially thought.

The biggest question is obviously whether it is worth the effort to develop such solution for such a small niche.. Is it more reasonable to develop some other things that would benefit the majority of customers or potential customers. In my opinion the answer is obvious.
 
VV
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:41 pm

Again, I insist strongly that the inner volume in the wing of the A350-1000 cannot be bigger than that of the A350)900. It is just physics.

The "usable fuel quantity" is something else.

So, please accept that reality.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:43 pm

VV wrote:
Again, I insist strongly that the inner volume in the wing of the A350-1000 cannot be bigger than that of the A350)900. It is just physics.

The "usable fuel quantity" is something else.

So, please accept that reality.


Please accept the reality that the difference is probably so small that it is meaningless. Or are you back to the argument that thicker skins will take up volume?
 
EBiafore99
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:47 pm

sassiciai wrote:
It appears to me that some hard core "expurts" are busily taking this thread hostage, and wandering off in square metres, litres, kilos, and kilometres. Take those discussions to somewhere else, this thread is about a small set of 3 flights being conducted to obtain data on performance - and degradation of performance - of flight crew, cabin crew, and passengers on flights of between 20 and 22 hours!

I think the cabin crew have the best experience on such flights - they have work to attend to at regular intervals, it keeps them busy, active, engaged. The flight crew(s) do have a monitoring role, but the automation is most likely to be doing the actual work. I think it is the pax that will suffer the most, such flights must seem interminable after about 12 hours.

Someone above posted about the very high fuel consumption on such flights compared with a one-stop alternative. Is it really worth the cost, the additional pollution, the stress on the bodies of those on board, ....... to get there 2 hours quicker?

Do real people envisage getting off a 22-hour flight and going straight into business negotiations? It is likely that they will spend the saved time at the destination airport having the "3S's" (s**t, shower, shave) and a change of clothes before heading off to their clear-headed business meeting!

It's a fascinating challenge, and brilliant technology to achieve it, but I question its added value, and its sustainability when the economic and actual climates go wrong!


I for one take the tests with a little cynicism. While I understand the theory behind it, will the results really be applied appropriately for all customers? For example, UA has the ULH flight from SFO to SIN (I believe it's 18 hours one way and 17 hours the other). However, not one change for the Y customers in their 787. It's the same cabin layout as any other 787. The meal service wasn't even changed - it's a meal, midflight "snack" and pre-arrival meal for a full 18 hour flight (same as any flight over 12 hours). I would have expected some changes (maybe a little more legroom, three full meals, etc.), but nothing. Maybe QF will be different...
 
VV
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:07 pm

morrisond wrote:
VV wrote:
Again, I insist strongly that the inner volume in the wing of the A350-1000 cannot be bigger than that of the A350)900. It is just physics.

The "usable fuel quantity" is something else.

So, please accept that reality.


Please accept the reality that the difference is probably so small that it is meaningless. Or are you back to the argument that thicker skins will take up volume?


I estimated the volume to be about 500 litres smaller.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:30 pm

VV wrote:
morrisond wrote:
VV wrote:
Again, I insist strongly that the inner volume in the wing of the A350-1000 cannot be bigger than that of the A350)900. It is just physics.

The "usable fuel quantity" is something else.

So, please accept that reality.


Please accept the reality that the difference is probably so small that it is meaningless. Or are you back to the argument that thicker skins will take up volume?


I estimated the volume to be about 500 litres smaller.


That's probably not bad guess if the internal structure takes up more volume due to thicker stringers.

At .81 KG/L that's about 400KG of Fuel - for really long distance I think the rule of thumb is 1/3rd of that to carry it that far so that leaves about 270KG. An A351 burns about 6T of fuel per hour near the end of a very long flight - so basically less than 5 extra minutes of Flight time.

So basically meaningless. You wouldn't pick an A350-900ULR because it can fly for 5 more minutes.
 
VV
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:40 pm

morrisond wrote:
VV wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Please accept the reality that the difference is probably so small that it is meaningless. Or are you back to the argument that thicker skins will take up volume?


I estimated the volume to be about 500 litres smaller.


That's probably not bad guess if the internal structure takes up more volume due to thicker stringers.

At .81 KG/L that's about 400KG of Fuel - for really long distance I think the rule of thumb is 1/3rd of that to carry it that far so that leaves about 270KG. An A351 burns about 6T of fuel per hour near the end of a very long flight - so basically less than 5 extra minutes of Flight time.

So basically meaningless. You wouldn't pick an A350-900ULR because it can fly for 5 more minutes.


Initially someone asserted that A350-1000 has bigger fuel volume. To which I said, "It is absolutely wrong".

So now you would be willing to support my position that the A350-1000 has smaller fuel volume than A350-900.
Obviously A350-1000 will nedd more fuel to fly the same distance compared to A350-900.

From that point, I guess you can make your own conclusion, or can you?
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:42 pm

May I ask you to continue the fuel volume topic in a separate thread, after all this is about Qntas Project Sunrise. I very well understand that it is linked to fuel volume of the aircrafts in consideration, but not on this level. Thanks.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17485
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:48 pm

VV wrote:
Initially someone asserted that A350-1000 has bigger fuel volume. To which I said, "It is absolutely wrong".

So now you would be willing to support my position that the A350-1000 has smaller fuel volume than A350-900.
Obviously A350-1000 will nedd more fuel to fly the same distance compared to A350-900.

From that point, I guess you can make your own conclusion, or can you?


From Airbus ACAP document for A350:

A350-900 fuel capacity 138,000 litres.

A350-1000 fuel capacity 156,000 litres (no auxilliary tanks).

I guess you can make your own conclusion. Enjoy.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17485
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:49 pm

SQ22 wrote:
May I ask you to continue the fule volume topic in a separate thread, after all this is about Qntas Project Sunrise. I very well understand that it is linked to fuel volume of the aircrafts in consideration, but not on this level. Thanks.


Apologies, I was composing my last post before I saw yours.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:50 pm

scbriml wrote:
SQ22 wrote:
May I ask you to continue the fule volume topic in a separate thread, after all this is about Qntas Project Sunrise. I very well understand that it is linked to fuel volume of the aircrafts in consideration, but not on this level. Thanks.


Apologies, I was composing my last post before I saw yours.


No worries, I think you made a good post to end this discussion in this thread.
 
VV
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:04 pm

SQ22 wrote:
May I ask you to continue the fuel volume topic in a separate thread, after all this is about Qntas Project Sunrise. I very well understand that it is linked to fuel volume of the aircrafts in consideration, but not on this level. Thanks.


There is no need for a new thread. The conclusion is clear.

The A350-900 has bigger volume in its wing than that of the A350-1000.
 
ewt340
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:48 am

mig17 wrote:
Image
I tried to show how different aircraft would performe on LHR/SYD. Several aircraft can do it. But with a significant payload and fuel efficiently is another story.

Considering the 777-200LR hasn't been deemed economical enough for 15 years, 781, A332, 77W, 788, 744, A339, 789 (254t), 748, 779 (351t) and A388 are out.

Interestingly, the A338 without any modification can fly the route with around 125 pax and with better economics than the 77L. So does a 260t MTOW 789 with more than 140 pax. The A338 and 260t 789 maybe the lower risk ULH planes to begin with, but the 280t A359 and it's ULR version will offer more payload and efficiency than both.

Now with current info on the A35K and 778, there is no battle, the 319t A350-1000 can do it more efficiently and with more payload than the 778 ...
But I have simulated a 777-X boost with a 360t MTOW for both 778 and 779. The 779+ could carry 170 pax but with similar efficiency than a 77L. The 778 on the other hand would be on a par with A35K but only for LHR/SYD flight.

I have also simulated a 788 with the 260t MTOW of the 789/1. And that plane would carry 240 pax with the same efficiency has larger A35K and 778+. But that plane doesn't exist : Maybe Boeing should have developpe more the 788 rather than building the 778 ... By the way, the same can be said of a A359 319t MTOW.


The problem with smaller widebodies like B787-8 and A330-800 are the fact that these 2 have really small capacity to make it work.

While I appreciate your detailed calculations. I feel like you forgot to take one of the major factor that determine the final numbers for your calculations.

As we see with Qantas B787-9 that they used for PER-LHR. They would be filling the cabin with big percentages of premium seating. Now, while premium seating are heavier than economy class seat. They also bring in more revenue compared to economy class seats, heck they even lose money on economy class seats on daily basis.

Since Qantas are planning on fitting the ULH plane with 4 class cabin, the seating numbers for each aircraft would be significantly lower. While Alan Joyce said in the past they need at least 300 seats on 4 class configurations, in recent months he had been peddling back on those comments and put the number between 250-300 seats instead.

And it all comes down to profits instead of efficiency. They might goes for options 2 or 3 even if those plane are less efficient as long as they could get more profits out of them.
Last edited by ewt340 on Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:52 am

ewt340 wrote:
The problem with smaller widebodies like B787-8 and A330-800 are the fact that these 2 have really small capacity to make it work.

Obviously the configurations for Qantas sunrise would be high premium seating for higher profits. And those seats take tons of rooms. B787-8 and A330-800 would be unable to provide enough seating to make it profitable.

So I don't think it make sense for Boeing or Airbus to even blink at those 2 planes.

Given Y Class barely pays for itself on ULH flights, the 788 has the advantage over the 789 given the same number of premium seats pay for less of an airframe, therefore more profits for Qantas.

That said, that requires the new configuration with the common wings to the 789, and it would require probably another 6-7% engine+frame efficiency.
 
ewt340
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:01 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
The problem with smaller widebodies like B787-8 and A330-800 are the fact that these 2 have really small capacity to make it work.

Obviously the configurations for Qantas sunrise would be high premium seating for higher profits. And those seats take tons of rooms. B787-8 and A330-800 would be unable to provide enough seating to make it profitable.

So I don't think it make sense for Boeing or Airbus to even blink at those 2 planes.

Given Y Class barely pays for itself on ULH flights, the 788 has the advantage over the 789 given the same number of premium seats pay for less of an airframe, therefore more profits for Qantas.

That said, that requires the new configuration with the common wings to the 789, and it would require probably another 6-7% engine+frame efficiency.


4F 40C 28P and 84Y seats for B787-8 with Qantas configurations.

You sure they gonna be happy by eliminating tons of economy class seats on their Long-haul routes? While the profits would be nice, many of their economy class passengers would fly on other airlines instead. This is such capacity drop from A380 or even A330.

Beside, A330-800neo have larger base range by 735 nmi to begin with. Since they are already operate A330ceo. It would be a better options no?
I think it would be extremely problematic if they can't even offer at least 100 economy class seats on their cabin for such long flights.
 
Dave05
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:47 am

mig17 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Boeing to offer 777-9x’ with palletized extra fuel tanks as stopgap until 778?

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... t-sunrise/

“Apparently the Boeing strategy of offering the larger 777X-9 will also enable Qantas to operate the flights a little earlier than the originally anticipated start date of late 2022 eaerly 2023.

Recent cutbacks by Etihad Airways to its 777X order have freed up delivery positions.

While the 777X-9 is too big in the long term for the Project Sunrise mission the aircraft is now the largest aircraft available for an Airbus A380 replacement.

Boeing anticipates that Qantas would retain the 777X-9 as 777X-8s are delivered.

However, the Boeing offer faces very tough competition from Airbus with its A350-1000.”

MTOW increase on the 777-9?


This is exactly what I have in mind for 777-9 to work in the project sunrise......
 
Ozair
Posts: 4271
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:15 am

ewt340 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
The problem with smaller widebodies like B787-8 and A330-800 are the fact that these 2 have really small capacity to make it work.

Obviously the configurations for Qantas sunrise would be high premium seating for higher profits. And those seats take tons of rooms. B787-8 and A330-800 would be unable to provide enough seating to make it profitable.

So I don't think it make sense for Boeing or Airbus to even blink at those 2 planes.

Given Y Class barely pays for itself on ULH flights, the 788 has the advantage over the 789 given the same number of premium seats pay for less of an airframe, therefore more profits for Qantas.

That said, that requires the new configuration with the common wings to the 789, and it would require probably another 6-7% engine+frame efficiency.


4F 40C 28P and 84Y seats for B787-8 with Qantas configurations.

You sure they gonna be happy by eliminating tons of economy class seats on their Long-haul routes? While the profits would be nice, many of their economy class passengers would fly on other airlines instead. This is such capacity drop from A380 or even A330.

Beside, A330-800neo have larger base range by 735 nmi to begin with. Since they are already operate A330ceo. It would be a better options no?
I think it would be extremely problematic if they can't even offer at least 100 economy class seats on their cabin for such long flights.

Sunrise doesn't replace all current flights to London from Oz including the one stops, it just supplements and grabs the high yield traffic. In that context losing a 100 Y class seats meets the intent.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:28 am

Ozair wrote:
Sunrise doesn't replace all current flights to London from Oz including the one stops, it just supplements and grabs the high yield traffic. In that context losing a 100 Y class seats meets the intent.


To be fair they can probably down-gauge the A380 flights into Singapore to 787s without issue once the Sunrise flights get going. Most people take those flights either because they love the A380 or they would rather visit Changi over Perth (which I can sympathize with).

As for New York, well, see my previous post. Doing the direct flights means the a380s going to California can be retired. Houston's a different animal. For that they'd want a 777-9 or A35K flying it regardless if the A380 were to stop servicing the route.
 
ewt340
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:27 pm

Ozair wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Given Y Class barely pays for itself on ULH flights, the 788 has the advantage over the 789 given the same number of premium seats pay for less of an airframe, therefore more profits for Qantas.

That said, that requires the new configuration with the common wings to the 789, and it would require probably another 6-7% engine+frame efficiency.


4F 40C 28P and 84Y seats for B787-8 with Qantas configurations.

You sure they gonna be happy by eliminating tons of economy class seats on their Long-haul routes? While the profits would be nice, many of their economy class passengers would fly on other airlines instead. This is such capacity drop from A380 or even A330.

Beside, A330-800neo have larger base range by 735 nmi to begin with. Since they are already operate A330ceo. It would be a better options no?
I think it would be extremely problematic if they can't even offer at least 100 economy class seats on their cabin for such long flights.

Sunrise doesn't replace all current flights to London from Oz including the one stops, it just supplements and grabs the high yield traffic. In that context losing a 100 Y class seats meets the intent.


Is that why Alan Joyce are keen on keeping the seat counts between 250-300 seats instead of 150?
 
TObound
Posts: 311
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:05 pm

I am curious why they'd bother with Y at all on ULH. I don't even get the point of Y on PER-LHR. In my mind, these should be 3-class F/J/W.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26399
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:22 pm

TObound wrote:
I am curious why they'd bother with Y at all on ULH. I don't even get the point of Y on PER-LHR. In my mind, these should be 3-class F/J/W.


I an guessing that there is still strong demand for Economy on a price basis (yes, fares are expensive, but still multiples cheaper than higher classes of service).

It has been said that Singapore Airlines went all-Business Class on the A340-500 because that was where the bulk of the demand was, but the new Business Class suites were also much larger than the original "SpaceBeds" so it might have been a case that there was just not enough room to offer a Premium Economy cabin anymore.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13992
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:58 pm

TObound wrote:
I am curious why they'd bother with Y at all on ULH. I don't even get the point of Y on PER-LHR. In my mind, these should be 3-class F/J/W.


J probably pays for all the costs, and W/Y the profit.

QF knows their market, they would have configured for their target market.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2895
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:48 pm

zeke wrote:
TObound wrote:
I am curious why they'd bother with Y at all on ULH. I don't even get the point of Y on PER-LHR. In my mind, these should be 3-class F/J/W.


J probably pays for all the costs, and W/Y the profit.

QF knows their market, they would have configured for their target market.

I don’t necessarily believe that the profit mix from the classes is all that skewed towards the premium cabins. The fares in my experience are about 3-4 times the cost for a business seat vs an economy seat, once you factor in the fact that the premium seats have a more expensive service provision then the profit per kilo of (seat+ person + bags ) or per square meter of cabin are probably quite similar.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7890
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:49 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
zeke wrote:
TObound wrote:
I am curious why they'd bother with Y at all on ULH. I don't even get the point of Y on PER-LHR. In my mind, these should be 3-class F/J/W.


J probably pays for all the costs, and W/Y the profit.

QF knows their market, they would have configured for their target market.

I don’t necessarily believe that the profit mix from the classes is all that skewed towards the premium cabins. The fares in my experience are about 3-4 times the cost for a business seat vs an economy seat, once you factor in the fact that the premium seats have a more expensive service provision then the profit per kilo of (seat+ person + bags ) or per square meter of cabin are probably quite similar.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Where are you seeing those sorts of business fares on Qantas? I'd genuinely like to know as that is a bargain!

For Australia - Europe, on average Qantas businss fares (at least those available in the lucrative Australia POS market) are in the 4-5x range.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
waly777
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:18 pm

zeke wrote:
TObound wrote:
I am curious why they'd bother with Y at all on ULH. I don't even get the point of Y on PER-LHR. In my mind, these should be 3-class F/J/W.


J probably pays for all the costs, and W/Y the profit.

QF knows their market, they would have configured for their target market.


It's the other way around. Y covers cost, J is usually the most profitable cabin, followed by W/Y+. F is almost always unprofitable, the BELF for F is usually over 100% and thus in last place after Y for profitability.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5196
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:19 pm

zeke wrote:
TObound wrote:
I am curious why they'd bother with Y at all on ULH. I don't even get the point of Y on PER-LHR. In my mind, these should be 3-class F/J/W.


J probably pays for all the costs, and W/Y the profit.

QF knows their market, they would have configured for their target market.


have always been sceptical of the JFK run...I think you'll find it's more "prestige" than economic sense.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4271
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:44 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

4F 40C 28P and 84Y seats for B787-8 with Qantas configurations.

You sure they gonna be happy by eliminating tons of economy class seats on their Long-haul routes? While the profits would be nice, many of their economy class passengers would fly on other airlines instead. This is such capacity drop from A380 or even A330.

Beside, A330-800neo have larger base range by 735 nmi to begin with. Since they are already operate A330ceo. It would be a better options no?
I think it would be extremely problematic if they can't even offer at least 100 economy class seats on their cabin for such long flights.

Sunrise doesn't replace all current flights to London from Oz including the one stops, it just supplements and grabs the high yield traffic. In that context losing a 100 Y class seats meets the intent.


Is that why Alan Joyce are keen on keeping the seat counts between 250-300 seats instead of 150?

No, the reason is those non stop fares in Y will still command a price premium over the one stop. There will be enough Y class passengers willing to pay that premium to make that load viable if seats are available. Additionally the FF program upgrades will heavily utilise those Y+ and J seats for the one stop routes.

patrickjp93 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Sunrise doesn't replace all current flights to London from Oz including the one stops, it just supplements and grabs the high yield traffic. In that context losing a 100 Y class seats meets the intent.


To be fair they can probably down-gauge the A380 flights into Singapore to 787s without issue once the Sunrise flights get going. Most people take those flights either because they love the A380 or they would rather visit Changi over Perth (which I can sympathize with).

Certainly potential for down gauge but I could see the A380 still running LHR from Singapore.

patrickjp93 wrote:
As for New York, well, see my previous post. Doing the direct flights means the a380s going to California can be retired. Houston's a different animal. For that they'd want a 777-9 or A35K flying it regardless if the A380 were to stop servicing the route.

QF is the dominant airline Oz to California and could likely still do well with the A380 into LA. If the A380 disappears from the QF fleet by 2025-28 they will have been a worthwhile investment.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2895
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:17 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
zeke wrote:

J probably pays for all the costs, and W/Y the profit.

QF knows their market, they would have configured for their target market.

I don’t necessarily believe that the profit mix from the classes is all that skewed towards the premium cabins. The fares in my experience are about 3-4 times the cost for a business seat vs an economy seat, once you factor in the fact that the premium seats have a more expensive service provision then the profit per kilo of (seat+ person + bags ) or per square meter of cabin are probably quite similar.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Where are you seeing those sorts of business fares on Qantas? I'd genuinely like to know as that is a bargain!

For Australia - Europe, on average Qantas businss fares (at least those available in the lucrative Australia POS market) are in the 4-5x range.


I was generalising from all flights not just Qantas and these super long, antipodean routes. My flights TATL are 1800-2000 gbp and business is ~6000.

My recent flights to Melbourne were ~4500gbp (from the uk), economy fares for the same flights were typically 12-1700.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
moa999
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:52 pm

Ozair wrote:
If the A380 disappears from the QF fleet by 2025-28 they will have been a worthwhile investment.


With the current investment on c-checks and a full refurb of the your deck (new lounge, J and PE and refresh of F and Y, I'd see flying until 2028-30 as more likely.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:36 pm

EBiafore99 wrote:
sassiciai wrote:
It appears to me that some hard core "expurts" are busily taking this thread hostage, and wandering off in square metres, litres, kilos, and kilometres. Take those discussions to somewhere else, this thread is about a small set of 3 flights being conducted to obtain data on performance - and degradation of performance - of flight crew, cabin crew, and passengers on flights of between 20 and 22 hours!

I think the cabin crew have the best experience on such flights - they have work to attend to at regular intervals, it keeps them busy, active, engaged. The flight crew(s) do have a monitoring role, but the automation is most likely to be doing the actual work. I think it is the pax that will suffer the most, such flights must seem interminable after about 12 hours.

Someone above posted about the very high fuel consumption on such flights compared with a one-stop alternative. Is it really worth the cost, the additional pollution, the stress on the bodies of those on board, ....... to get there 2 hours quicker?

Do real people envisage getting off a 22-hour flight and going straight into business negotiations? It is likely that they will spend the saved time at the destination airport having the "3S's" (s**t, shower, shave) and a change of clothes before heading off to their clear-headed business meeting!

It's a fascinating challenge, and brilliant technology to achieve it, but I question its added value, and its sustainability when the economic and actual climates go wrong!


I for one take the tests with a little cynicism. While I understand the theory behind it, will the results really be applied appropriately for all customers? For example, UA has the ULH flight from SFO to SIN (I believe it's 18 hours one way and 17 hours the other). However, not one change for the Y customers in their 787. It's the same cabin layout as any other 787. The meal service wasn't even changed - it's a meal, midflight "snack" and pre-arrival meal for a full 18 hour flight (same as any flight over 12 hours). I would have expected some changes (maybe a little more legroom, three full meals, etc.), but nothing. Maybe QF will be different...



Yea we have ULH flights and In J class its just fine. Y+ should be the min seating IMOP on any flights over 10 hr. I don't know what they plan on learning but there are enough ULH flights already that pretty much have nothing special going on. I can wish they would add some stuff. Don't see what they need to learn, other then publicity i'd be curious to learn what they are really after? Maybe diligence for the unions on working conditions.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:37 am

ewt340 wrote:

Is that why Alan Joyce are keen on keeping the seat counts between 250-300 seats instead of 150?


He wants it that way for economics, but he already knows he's not going to get it in this generation of aircraft. Boeing and Airbus have already dialed back his expectations to 200-250 passengers with decent payload.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:44 am

Ozair wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
To be fair they can probably down-gauge the A380 flights into Singapore to 787s without issue once the Sunrise flights get going. Most people take those flights either because they love the A380 or they would rather visit Changi over Perth (which I can sympathize with).

Certainly potential for down gauge but I could see the A380 still running LHR from Singapore.

patrickjp93 wrote:
As for New York, well, see my previous post. Doing the direct flights means the a380s going to California can be retired. Houston's a different animal. For that they'd want a 777-9 or A35K flying it regardless if the A380 were to stop servicing the route.

QF is the dominant airline Oz to California and could likely still do well with the A380 into LA. If the A380 disappears from the QF fleet by 2025-28 they will have been a worthwhile investment.


The A380 to California would be redundant. Most Aussies continue on from LAX and SFO. They don't stop there. With direct Chicago flights coming online from BNE, direct flights from BNE/MEL/SYD to ORD and JFK on smaller craft will make the A380 running SYD/MEL to LAX completely redundant. You could easily justify down-gauging to a 787 or A350 for all of those routes given Qantas is already having trouble filling those A380s.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:07 am

grbauc wrote:
Y+ should be the min seating IMOP on any flights over 10 hr.

Sorry, but that sounds very elitist - what's your rationale? Do you worry that poor Y passengers may not be able to endure 10h plus flights? Here in NZ, almost anywhere long-haul is 10hr plus, and we're well-used to sitting on the same aircraft for 24h plus if we're travelling to London. Should we all just stay home unless we can afford a premium fare? Or just perhaps, we could let the market decide?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
CraigAnderson
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:28 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:33 am

QF says it already has "high level design" of Sunrise first class and business class. Sounds like if they give Sunrise this the green light they want to be ready ASAP, and if not then the same designs can be used for whatever follows the A380, A330 and Boeing 787.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/qant ... ass-suites
 
User avatar
CraigAnderson
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:28 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:34 am

Also I have heard that among the 40 pax on the 'research flights' there will be some media, probably will be the usual suspects. A shame QF doesn't hold a contest to select a handful of real people, aka normal passengers.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12

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