Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
catiii
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:24 am

The proving run is underway on 4022J. ETA into LHR at 0717L.
 
User avatar
LX015
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:35 am

Is this with passengers?
 
User avatar
LX015
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:39 am

Never mind, just realized its not.
 
RR757
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:36 am

catiii wrote:
The proving run is underway on 4022J. ETA into LHR at 0717L.


Exciting news! Hope their routes are a success. Never thought I’d see a JetBlue in Europe. From my US travels, they are a fantastic airline.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1536
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:53 am

Congratulations to B6! Very exciting - now please reduce the fares in BOS. Especially in J.
BOS-LGA-JFK | A:319/20/21, 332/3, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 787, 772, 744 || MD80, MD90
 
User avatar
GCT64
Posts: 1926
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:33 am

Due to leave LHR on the return journey tomorrow morning (Wednesday am)
Flown in: A20N,A21N,A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A359,A388,BA11,BU31,(..56 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
DaCubbyBearBar
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:09 pm

Congratulations to B6!
I am me and no one else...so my opinions are mine
 
Fuling
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:41 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:15 pm

LX015 wrote:
Never mind, just realized its not.


I wonder if they have tanks of water on each seat to simulate passenger weights though?
 
N757ST
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:20 pm

Fuling wrote:
LX015 wrote:
Never mind, just realized its not.


I wonder if they have tanks of water on each seat to simulate passenger weights though?


Proving flights are designed to prove the airplane is capable of a flight, it’s to prove to the FAA the systems and procedures are valid and the flight can operate safely. They don’t need to simulate weight to do that. Jetblue has been operating in class 2 watrs airspace for decades, there isn’t much difference with this besides plotting and some some fuel idiosyncrasies relating to enroute redispatching.
 
N757ST
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:21 pm

Sorry, I meant to say that it’s not to prove the aircraft’s capability.
 
dannynoble
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:52 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:30 pm

tlecam wrote:
Congratulations to B6! Very exciting - now please reduce the fares in BOS. Especially in J.


i got the sarcasm. :lol:
 
Moosefire
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:47 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:22 pm

N757ST wrote:
Fuling wrote:
LX015 wrote:
Never mind, just realized its not.


I wonder if they have tanks of water on each seat to simulate passenger weights though?


Proving flights are designed to prove the airplane is capable of a flight, it’s to prove to the FAA the systems and procedures are valid and the flight can operate safely. They don’t need to simulate weight to do that. Jetblue has been operating in class 2 watrs airspace for decades, there isn’t much difference with this besides plotting and some some fuel idiosyncrasies relating to enroute redispatching.


The NATS are far more complicated than WATRS from an execution perspective, so much that at my company you’re required to do one leg on the NATs for IOE. Certainly doable for JetBlue, but it’s not quite as simple as route plotting(which few companies do anymore thanks to FDPro) and redispatching fuel planning. This is the most significant proving run JetBlue has done (and arguably will do) since it got its operating certificate.
MD-11F/C-17A Pilot
 
ytib
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:22 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:16 pm

Another run to LHR this weekend.
17 JUL 2022: JFK-LHR
18 JUL 2022: LHR-JFK

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4022J
318, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 388, 707, 717, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73Q, 735, 73G, 738, 7M8, 739, 752, 753, 742, 74L, 744, 762, 763, 772, 77L, 77W, 789, 142, CN1, CR2, CR7, DC8, DH2, DH8, D8Q, D10, D95, EM2, ER3, ER4, E70, 100, J31, M11, M83, M88, M90, SF3
 
bevan7
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:44 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:43 pm

ytib wrote:
Another run to LHR this weekend.
17 JUL 2022: JFK-LHR
18 JUL 2022: LHR-JFK

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4022J


It may be a bug but that link looks like the plane just turned 90 degrees north to fly over iceland
 
bevan7
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:44 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:45 pm

bevan7 wrote:
ytib wrote:
Another run to LHR this weekend.
17 JUL 2022: JFK-LHR
18 JUL 2022: LHR-JFK

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4022J


It may be a bug but that link looks like the plane just turned 90 degrees north to fly over iceland


I checked in on flightradar and it has it flying towards Iceland too. Maybe diverting?

https://www.flightradar24.com/JBU9403/287389cd
 
FlyingBrit
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:58 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:54 pm

Planned simulated diversion for certification purposes?
Mostly a lurker
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1361
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:58 pm

bevan7 wrote:
bevan7 wrote:
ytib wrote:
Another run to LHR this weekend.
17 JUL 2022: JFK-LHR
18 JUL 2022: LHR-JFK

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4022J


It may be a bug but that link looks like the plane just turned 90 degrees north to fly over iceland


I checked in on flightradar and it has it flying towards Iceland too. Maybe diverting?

https://www.flightradar24.com/JBU9403/287389cd


More likely just part of the test scenario for route proving.
JetBlue have no transatlantic experience so probably part of the approval.
 
jjbiv
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:58 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 7:04 pm

Are these FAA-required proving runs or something else? I'm familiar with the requirement to perform ETOPS proving runs and proving runs prior to being granted a certificate but I've never noticed north Atlantic proving runs before for an already-certificated operator.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 7:18 pm

jjbiv wrote:
Are these FAA-required proving runs or something else? I'm familiar with the requirement to perform ETOPS proving runs and proving runs prior to being granted a certificate but I've never noticed north Atlantic proving runs before for an already-certificated operator.

FAA required proving runs for ETOPS approval.
 
jjbiv
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:58 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 7:24 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
jjbiv wrote:
Are these FAA-required proving runs or something else? I'm familiar with the requirement to perform ETOPS proving runs and proving runs prior to being granted a certificate but I've never noticed north Atlantic proving runs before for an already-certificated operator.

FAA required proving runs for ETOPS approval.

Thank you. For some reason I assumed they already had ETOPS authorization but that really doesn't make sense now that I think about it. Their existing routes can be served via WATRS routes.
 
gsg013
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:04 pm

How does the speed of the A321 NEO compare for these longer journeys to the bigger twin-engine jets that fly these routes all the time? I know the 757-200 usually took about 30-45 min more to do EWR-LHR than the 777-200 typically did when united was flying the 757-200 on the LHR route.

I know the A321 flys a bit slower than the 747-400 or 777 and on shorter 2-3 hour journeys the difference isnt all that noticable but I would think on flights over 3000 nm you'd notice a bit of a difference...


All be it, Congratulations B6 on proving themselves transatlantic and I very excited to fly the J class across the pond in the not too distant future!
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1330
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:19 pm

Doesn't sound like they are having much luck, Wednesdays LHR departure was delayed 5 hours and Fridays JFK departure delayed until Saturday
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:42 pm

jjbiv wrote:
Are these FAA-required proving runs or something else? I'm familiar with the requirement to perform ETOPS proving runs and proving runs prior to being granted a certificate but I've never noticed north Atlantic proving runs before for an already-certificated operator.

When we got the 767s and A330s proving runs were done before we were allowed to fly with passengers. This was at PI/US.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2316
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:42 pm

gsg013 wrote:
How does the speed of the A321 NEO compare for these longer journeys to the bigger twin-engine jets that fly these routes all the time? I know the 757-200 usually took about 30-45 min more to do EWR-LHR than the 777-200 typically did when united was flying the 757-200 on the LHR route.

I know the A321 flys a bit slower than the 747-400 or 777 and on shorter 2-3 hour journeys the difference isnt all that noticable but I would think on flights over 3000 nm you'd notice a bit of a difference...


All be it, Congratulations B6 on proving themselves transatlantic and I very excited to fly the J class across the pond in the not too distant future!



The A321 will be the slowest airplane on the tracks by a wide margin. The A330 and 767 usually cross at .80, 777,747,787 and A350 at .82 or .84.

The A321 will probably do .76
 
N757ST
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:31 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
gsg013 wrote:
How does the speed of the A321 NEO compare for these longer journeys to the bigger twin-engine jets that fly these routes all the time? I know the 757-200 usually took about 30-45 min more to do EWR-LHR than the 777-200 typically did when united was flying the 757-200 on the LHR route.

I know the A321 flys a bit slower than the 747-400 or 777 and on shorter 2-3 hour journeys the difference isnt all that noticable but I would think on flights over 3000 nm you'd notice a bit of a difference...


All be it, Congratulations B6 on proving themselves transatlantic and I very excited to fly the J class across the pond in the not too distant future!



The A321 will be the slowest airplane on the tracks by a wide margin. The A330 and 767 usually cross at .80, 777,747,787 and A350 at .82 or .84.

The A321 will probably do .76


It will do .78.
 
11C
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:34 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
gsg013 wrote:
How does the speed of the A321 NEO compare for these longer journeys to the bigger twin-engine jets that fly these routes all the time? I know the 757-200 usually took about 30-45 min more to do EWR-LHR than the 777-200 typically did when united was flying the 757-200 on the LHR route.

I know the A321 flys a bit slower than the 747-400 or 777 and on shorter 2-3 hour journeys the difference isnt all that noticable but I would think on flights over 3000 nm you'd notice a bit of a difference...


All be it, Congratulations B6 on proving themselves transatlantic and I very excited to fly the J class across the pond in the not too distant future!



The A321 will be the slowest airplane on the tracks by a wide margin. The A330 and 767 usually cross at .80, 777,747,787 and A350 at .82 or .84.

The A321 will probably do .76


I’m not involved in those flights, but I’d guess .78 would be more the norm. I guess if it were .78, or .76 wouldn’t really matter that much. It’s still quite a bit slower than all the wide bodies, and will therefore require routing and altitudes appropriate to the slower speed.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:35 pm

gsg013 wrote:
How does the speed of the A321 NEO compare for these longer journeys to the bigger twin-engine jets that fly these routes all the time? I know the 757-200 usually took about 30-45 min more to do EWR-LHR than the 777-200 typically did when united was flying the 757-200 on the LHR route.

I know the A321 flys a bit slower than the 747-400 or 777 and on shorter 2-3 hour journeys the difference isnt all that noticable but I would think on flights over 3000 nm you'd notice a bit of a difference...


All be it, Congratulations B6 on proving themselves transatlantic and I very excited to fly the J class across the pond in the not too distant future!

I would expect the LRs to fly .78 at FL300-FL340 at the weights they will be at crossing, which ends up being about 450-455kts true. A 777/787 flying at .85 at FL350-F390 will be probably between 480-490kts true. A 767/330 at .80-82 somewhere in-between. From a pure Mach number standpoint (what cruise speed is measure by), between .78/.80/.82/.85 we are talking roughly a 2.5% (~4 between .82-.85) speed increase for each of those (at the same altitude), and a max difference of 9% between .78 and .85. But .78 Mach at FL300 is 460 kts, and .78 Mach at FL370 is 447 kts. So .78 at FL300 will be closer to .85 at FL380 than a straight Mach number comparison would show. But then the winds could be different as well, also affecting it one way or another.

Never flown either, but just from experience it seems triples cruise in the low to mid 30s and 787s seem more like mid to high 30s. Guessing heavy 321LRs will be limited to low 30s.

So, you can do the math for the length of flight and the speed differences, but I would estimate it’ll add between 15-45 minutes on a TATL flight compared a bigger plane, depending on the type, direction, weight, altitude, winds, etc. But then a 140 seat 321LR will also be quicker to board and deplane than a 777, so depending on when you get on and off either plane in a hypothetical comparison, your total butt in seat time may vary even less. If they have to tech stop that will obviously make the travel time significantly more.
 
USTraveler
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:37 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:59 pm

What engines does JetBlue use on their NEOs?
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:10 pm

USTraveler wrote:
What engines does JetBlue use on their NEOs?

Pratts
 
r6russian
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:12 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:38 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
USTraveler wrote:
What engines does JetBlue use on their NEOs?

Pratts

take it the GTF issues are solved now, to safely reliably send them TATL?
 
zuckie13
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:49 pm

FlyingBrit wrote:
Planned simulated diversion for certification purposes?


Most likely. Probably need to demonstrate doing a diversion working with the Oceanic centers.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:09 pm

r6russian wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
USTraveler wrote:
What engines does JetBlue use on their NEOs?

Pratts

take it the GTF issues are solved now, to safely reliably send them TATL?

Mostly. No less safe than Hawaiian flying them ETOPS (I’m sure there are others as well).
 
airplanedriver6
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:27 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:33 pm

fcogafa wrote:
Doesn't sound like they are having much luck, Wednesdays LHR departure was delayed 5 hours and Fridays JFK departure delayed until Saturday

It's hard to tell from the outside.

For example, I've flown a set of FAA proving runs and a delay could easily be a result of the FAA presenting a 'maintenance scenario' at departure time. Many different airline operations are being examined and departments other than flight operations also have to demonstrate their capabilities.

Also, it's not unusual for the FAA to request date/time changes for their own internal needs as they are scheduling an entire ad-hoc team that all have other primary responsibilities.
 
Blueballs
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:21 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:22 am

fcogafa wrote:
Doesn't sound like they are having much luck, Wednesdays LHR departure was delayed 5 hours and Fridays JFK departure delayed until Saturday

That’s probably the closest to an on time flight we’ve had all month
 
PITFlyer330
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 4:56 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:34 am

born and raised in PIT. AUS second home. Currently in asia
 
airzona11
Posts: 1884
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:54 am

JoseSalazar wrote:
gsg013 wrote:
How does the speed of the A321 NEO compare for these longer journeys to the bigger twin-engine jets that fly these routes all the time? I know the 757-200 usually took about 30-45 min more to do EWR-LHR than the 777-200 typically did when united was flying the 757-200 on the LHR route.

I know the A321 flys a bit slower than the 747-400 or 777 and on shorter 2-3 hour journeys the difference isnt all that noticable but I would think on flights over 3000 nm you'd notice a bit of a difference...


All be it, Congratulations B6 on proving themselves transatlantic and I very excited to fly the J class across the pond in the not too distant future!

I would expect the LRs to fly .78 at FL300-FL340 at the weights they will be at crossing, which ends up being about 450-455kts true. A 777/787 flying at .85 at FL350-F390 will be probably between 480-490kts true. A 767/330 at .80-82 somewhere in-between. From a pure Mach number standpoint (what cruise speed is measure by), between .78/.80/.82/.85 we are talking roughly a 2.5% (~4 between .82-.85) speed increase for each of those (at the same altitude), and a max difference of 9% between .78 and .85. But .78 Mach at FL300 is 460 kts, and .78 Mach at FL370 is 447 kts. So .78 at FL300 will be closer to .85 at FL380 than a straight Mach number comparison would show. But then the winds could be different as well, also affecting it one way or another.

Never flown either, but just from experience it seems triples cruise in the low to mid 30s and 787s seem more like mid to high 30s. Guessing heavy 321LRs will be limited to low 30s.

So, you can do the math for the length of flight and the speed differences, but I would estimate it’ll add between 15-45 minutes on a TATL flight compared a bigger plane, depending on the type, direction, weight, altitude, winds, etc. But then a 140 seat 321LR will also be quicker to board and deplane than a 777, so depending on when you get on and off either plane in a hypothetical comparison, your total butt in seat time may vary even less. If they have to tech stop that will obviously make the travel time significantly more.


Thanks for this awesome analysis.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1589
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:22 am

Blueballs wrote:
fcogafa wrote:
Doesn't sound like they are having much luck, Wednesdays LHR departure was delayed 5 hours and Fridays JFK departure delayed until Saturday

That’s probably the closest to an on time flight we’ve had all month

Lol….
The Northeast has been rough the entire month.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14102
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:26 am

Fuling wrote:
I wonder if they have tanks of water on each seat to simulate passenger weights though?

That's for the manufacturer to prove of the aircraft.

What B6 is doing is something for the carrier to prove of its ops/procedures.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
airsmiles
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:14 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:29 pm

N4022J is heading back to LHR as JBU9404. How many proving flights is usual for a new TATL carrier?
 
11C
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:43 pm

airsmiles wrote:
N4022J is heading back to LHR as JBU9404. How many proving flights is usual for a new TATL carrier?

I’ve heard 6, but I have never been part of an ETOPS certification.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22665
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:47 pm

r6russian wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
USTraveler wrote:
What engines does JetBlue use on their NEOs?

Pratts

take it the GTF issues are solved now, to safely reliably send them TATL?

Pratt now has 99.98% dispatch reliability. That is a huge improvement.
https://50skyshades.com/news/manufactur ... -Jets%20E2.

Yes, it took a pandemic to free up manufacturing and overhaul shop capacity to replace bad parts.

The GTF's now qualify for ETOPS

For a trip down memory lane, the knife edge seal issue where the original fix was worse than the initial problem:
https://www.americanmachinist.com/news/ ... e-failures

I'd fly this TATL.

Lightsaber
10 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
LDRA
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
r6russian wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
Pratts

take it the GTF issues are solved now, to safely reliably send them TATL?

Pratt now has 99.98% dispatch reliability. That is a huge improvement.
https://50skyshades.com/news/manufactur ... -Jets%20E2.

Yes, it took a pandemic to free up manufacturing and overhaul shop capacity to replace bad parts.

The GTF's now qualify for ETOPS

For a trip down memory lane, the knife edge seal issue where the original fix was worse than the initial problem:
https://www.americanmachinist.com/news/ ... e-failures

I'd fly this TATL.

Lightsaber


While it is nice that the known GTF issues are getting resolved and availability is good now, confidence in PW GTF engine will take time to establish. All the initial GTF issues just demostrate how ineffective PW's development process is.

Some obvious issues will immediately pop out once engine gets into service; However there are likely other issues taking time and engine wear to show up. I wouldn't want be an operator of "fleet leader" GTF engines. Too much potential for "suprises"
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 pm

LDRA wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
r6russian wrote:
take it the GTF issues are solved now, to safely reliably send them TATL?

Pratt now has 99.98% dispatch reliability. That is a huge improvement.
https://50skyshades.com/news/manufactur ... -Jets%20E2.

Yes, it took a pandemic to free up manufacturing and overhaul shop capacity to replace bad parts.

The GTF's now qualify for ETOPS

For a trip down memory lane, the knife edge seal issue where the original fix was worse than the initial problem:
https://www.americanmachinist.com/news/ ... e-failures

I'd fly this TATL.

Lightsaber


While it is nice that the known GTF issues are getting resolved and availability is good now, confidence in PW GTF engine will take time to establish. All the initial GTF issues just demostrate how ineffective PW's development process is.

Some obvious issues will immediately pop out once engine gets into service; However there are likely other issues taking time and engine wear to show up. I wouldn't want be an operator of "fleet leader" GTF engines. Too much potential for "suprises"

Frontier switched their future engines from LEAPs to Pratts. If they didn’t have confidence in Pratts, I doubt they would have done that.
 
trueblew
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:54 pm

All this talk of engines made me think... I was told B6 have a 34,000 foot restriction on the PW GTF engines for the first 1000-2000 hours of life (IIRC) yet I'm seeing on these proving runs cruising altitudes above 34,000. Are they swapping engines off newly-delivered LRs for NEO engines that have been in service with B6 for some time now? Always a good idea to have different "batches" of engines on a single airframe but this is another matter.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:12 pm

I was at LHR on the 13th and saw a B6 aircraft parked on the ramp near T1 and thought it odd to see that. Thought at first it was a technical stop for a new delivery, but seeing this thread, it all makes more sense.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8053
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: JetBlue 9400 en route to LHR

Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:08 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
gsg013 wrote:
How does the speed of the A321 NEO compare for these longer journeys to the bigger twin-engine jets that fly these routes all the time? I know the 757-200 usually took about 30-45 min more to do EWR-LHR than the 777-200 typically did when united was flying the 757-200 on the LHR route.

I know the A321 flys a bit slower than the 747-400 or 777 and on shorter 2-3 hour journeys the difference isnt all that noticable but I would think on flights over 3000 nm you'd notice a bit of a difference...


All be it, Congratulations B6 on proving themselves transatlantic and I very excited to fly the J class across the pond in the not too distant future!

I would expect the LRs to fly .78 at FL300-FL340 at the weights they will be at crossing, which ends up being about 450-455kts true. A 777/787 flying at .85 at FL350-F390 will be probably between 480-490kts true. A 767/330 at .80-82 somewhere in-between. From a pure Mach number standpoint (what cruise speed is measure by), between .78/.80/.82/.85 we are talking roughly a 2.5% (~4 between .82-.85) speed increase for each of those (at the same altitude), and a max difference of 9% between .78 and .85. But .78 Mach at FL300 is 460 kts, and .78 Mach at FL370 is 447 kts. So .78 at FL300 will be closer to .85 at FL380 than a straight Mach number comparison would show. But then the winds could be different as well, also affecting it one way or another.

Never flown either, but just from experience it seems triples cruise in the low to mid 30s and 787s seem more like mid to high 30s. Guessing heavy 321LRs will be limited to low 30s.

So, you can do the math for the length of flight and the speed differences, but I would estimate it’ll add between 15-45 minutes on a TATL flight compared a bigger plane, depending on the type, direction, weight, altitude, winds, etc. But then a 140 seat 321LR will also be quicker to board and deplane than a 777, so depending on when you get on and off either plane in a hypothetical comparison, your total butt in seat time may vary even less. If they have to tech stop that will obviously make the travel time significantly more.


Simple formula, rule of thumb maybe, every change in MN of .01 equals 1 minute over 600nm. So, it’s roughly 3,000 nautical JFK-LHR, at M.78 it will be 30 minutes longer flight at .78 than a B777 flying at M.84 over the same route and wind. Being route or level restricted on the NATS, when they’re busy is pretty common. RVSM and 30/30 spacing helped a LOT.

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