Article on Yahoo about the Press charter aircraft planning to fly non stop from Brisbane to Andrews AFB.



Looks like a Delta triple 7 and that's over 8200 NM, impressive. Anyone know if its an ER or LR ?

edit... it did! amazing.

[Edited 2014-11-16 20:45:23]

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 1): Of course it cannot fly nonstop.

Its an LR and if lightly loaded its not impossible! Impressive, but.

Gemuser

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 1): Of course it cannot fly nonstop.

Oh a 777-200LR could do that easy if only taking a few press people. Boeing did a record setting flight of 11,664nm and the pilots indicated they had fuel to go further. That was with like 30-40 people on board. So 8200nm should be no problem with a less than full load.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 2): Its an LR and if lightly loaded its not impossible! Impressive, but. Gemuser

  

It's actually an ER (N864DA) and it's certainly doing it's damndest... halfway across the States at the moment. It also flew westbound nonstop from Andrews to PEK.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N864DA

BA flew a lightly loaded 777 from BRU to MEL. The aircraft carried then-PM Tony Blair to the Commonwealth games.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-flight-record-brussels-to-205768/

UK flag carrier British Airways set a new record for the longest non-stop commercial flight late last month, when it flew 17,157km (9,274nm) from Brussels international airport to Melbourne.

iIrc the direction of travel here is favorable. It is about 1000 mi further than SYD-DFW which is flown on a much less capable airplane. Take these 3 points together and the LR should perform this leg with full passenger load no problem.

I stand corrected. It must have carried 50 people max. Why do such a thing? That is a big waste of tax payer dollars.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 6): It is about 1000 mi further than SYD-DFW which is flown on a much less capable airplane.

The A380 is less capable than a B77L?
PROVE IT!!!

Gemuser

According to the Boeing webiste and GC Map, a -200LR A/C could have flown this route nonstop at MTOW.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page

Quoting gemuser (Reply 8): The A380 is less capable than a B77L?

What's to prove? There's no question who has the better range, by far.

The 772LR at max fuel option, has nearly 900nm more range than the A388.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 8): Quoting Flighty (Reply 6): It is about 1000 mi further than SYD-DFW which is flown on a much less capable airplane. The A380 is less capable than a B77L? PROVE IT!!! Gemuser

Given that it was a 777-200ER that is flying the flight, Flighty would be arguing that the A380 is less capable than a 777-200ER!

We know what the LR is capable of...

14:40 out of 16:22 duration flown so far and it's still going! Not bad for an ER - but a lighlty loaded LR could eat such a route... Remember the one that flew HKG-LHR the long way over North America and landed with about 2hrs fuel remaining - "The 777-200LR (Longer Range) flew 11,664 nautical miles (21,601 km) during its 22-hour 42-minute flight that left Hong Kong flying eastbound". It had fewer people on board of course...

[Edited 2014-11-16 21:06:39]

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 7): Why do such a thing? That is a big waste of tax payer dollars.

The chartered flights aren't paid for by the government, they are paid for by the news organizations that send staff on the flights.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 8): The A380 is less capable than a B77L? PROVE IT!!!

Well, the A380 has a range of 8,500nm while the 777-200LR has a range of 9,395nm. Of course, the A380 is a much larger aircraft, but it's range is ultimately less.

Quoting N415XJ (Reply 13): Well, the A380 has a range of 8,500nm while the 777-200LR has a range of 9,395nm. Of course, the A380 is a much larger aircraft, but it's range is ultimately less.

Happy to concede the range, but the A380 will lift a lot more over its max range. Hardly think that makes the B777 a more capable AIRCRAFT.

Gemuser

Would this be a possible route in the future? East coast America to Australia? I know the winds are favorable going west so is the reverse route not possible?

There are around 90 people on it.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 15): Would this be a possible route in the future? East coast America to Australia? I know the winds are favorable going west so is the reverse route not possible?

The wind is the problem going West - the winds are favourable going East. People have been dreaming about a route like SYD-JFK for years... A 77L with penalties going East might be doable, but I doubt going West...

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 15): I know the winds are favorable going west so is the reverse route not possible?

The wind is favourable eastbound, in the direction this aircraft is travelling.

Speaking of which, currently 15:06 of 16:23 and still at FL410. Showoffs!

I am sorry I meant eastbound, not off to a good start this morning, think I'll call it a day for posting!

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 12): The chartered flights aren't paid for by the government, they are paid for by the news organizations that send staff on the flights.

These trips are not cheap either. They can run between $15-30k/person.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 17): People have been dreaming about a route like SYD-JFK for years

I wonder if the 777-8X will open up this route. Isn't it supposed to have like 10,000 nm range or something ridiculous?

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 21): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 17): People have been dreaming about a route like SYD-JFK for years I wonder if the 777-8X will open up this route. Isn't it supposed to have like 10,000 nm range or something ridiculous?

Actually, according to the Wiki 777 article, the 777-200LR has 80 NM more range than the 777-8X - 9,380 v 9,300 NM - at this stage of course. We won't know the full performnce until later...

Quoting gemuser (Reply 14): Happy to concede the range, but the A380 will lift a lot more over its max range.

Based on what?

A big reason that the no airline desired a freighter based on the A380 frame, was because the payload-density over its range sucked... such that it would only be of use to low density parcel carriers (e.g. FX and 5X), and even they ultimately didn't want it.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 7): I stand corrected. It must have carried 50 people max. Why do such a thing? That is a big waste of tax payer dollars

According to the article it is carrying 200 passengers.

Quoting N415XJ (Reply 13): Well, the A380 has a range of 8,500nm while the 777-200LR has a range of 9,395nm. Of course, the A380 is a much larger aircraft, but it's range is ultimately less.

What you are looking at with such a light load is a ferry range, not the range you quoted. There is absolutely no reason Airbus would be prevented for installing additional tanks in the A380 either.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 21): I wonder if the 777-8X will open up this route. Isn't it supposed to have like 10,000 nm range or something ridiculous?

None of the marketing "ranges" have any real life significance.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 23): A big reason that the no airline desired a freighter based on the A380 frame, was because the payload-density over its range sucked... such that it would only be of use to low density parcel carriers (e.g. FX and 5X), and even they ultimately didn't want it

That is what the Boeing bashers on a.net said. In reality the cargo density the A380F was capable of is in line with what airlines like CX normally see carrying electronics etc. High density cargo is not the norm, most of the general cargo carried by air is packaging.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25): What you are looking at with such a light load is a ferry range, not the range you quoted.

Such would apply to both aircraft in question, not just one... so it's not as if the comparative situation would change.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25): There is absolutely no reason Airbus would be prevented for installing additional tanks in the A380 either.

Indeed, there sure isn't, but since that 1) hasn't happened nor 2) isn't being offered and thus 3) won't be in the air any time soon..... we should probably stick to the reality of the model as it currently stands, and not some "OMG, what if!" scenario.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25): That is what the Boeing bashers on a.net said.

...though it does make one wonder if there's some merit to that, considering that nothing but parcel carriers wanted anything to do with the model, even when it did have orders.   

[Edited 2014-11-16 23:49:15]

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 26): Such would apply to both aircraft in question, not just one... so it's not as if the comparative situation would change.

It does, 50 people probably means about 10t of payload by the time you take bags, crew, catering, and passengers.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 26): Indeed, there sure isn't, but since that 1) hasn't happened nor 2) isn't being offered and thus 3) won't be in the air any time soon..... we should probably stick to the reality of the model as it currently stands, and not some "OMG, what if!" scenario.

Airbus does offer the A380 with an additional centre tank of 41,700 liters, around another 1000 nm in range, the tank is the center wing box. Probably the reason they are not being used on the the normal passengers A380s now is it can do the commercial routes without needing them. All A380s have the additional tank, they are just not activated, like the A330-300.

Probably the only A380-800s to have that tank activated will be the corporate jet.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 26): ...though it does make one wonder if there's some merit to that, considering that nothing but parcel carriers wanted anything to do with the model, even when it did have orders

Wonder away, still does not make it a factual.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 7): That is a big waste of tax payer dollars.

It is paid for by the media companies that use it.

Quoting zeke (Reply 27): Airbus does offer the A380 with an additional centre tank of 41,700 liters, around another 1000 nm in range, the tank is the center wing box. Probably the reason they are not being used on the the normal passengers A380s now is it can do the commercial routes without needing them. All A380s have the additional tank, they are just not activated, like the A330-300.

When did this change? Because in 2005 they certainly didn't... they only had 11 fuel tanks (outer, outboard-feed, inner, mid and inboard-feed, all in each wing; plus trim), and 2 surge tanks and 3 vent tanks. No mention of a deactivated center at all.

I remember it well, during the NTSB's freak-out over Airbus' choice to not inert, despite the fact that A/C packs wouldn't run underneath where a center tank would be were there one available; which they (at least at the time) only expected to see on a freighter or HGW bird. And even back then, the max tank capacity was the same 320k L that Airbus is advertising today.

So again, when was this option added, and why doesn't Airbus make it apparent?

Quoting zeke (Reply 27): Wonder away,

Well of course I will.... why would I stop wondering if that's accurate or not, just based on your word?  

Quoting zeke (Reply 27): still does not make it a factual.

Granted, I haven't bothered looking for myself, but do you have any corroboration to that effect?

Just to note that N864DA has not been in regular DL service for most of November.

The aircraft seems to have been operating lots of add ball flights for the US military and the US Press Corps.


Date Aircraft Origin Destination
17-Nov-2014 B772/L KADW - ATL En-route
17-Nov-2014 B772/L BNE - KADW 16hrs24min.
14-Nov-2014 B772/L RGN - BNE 9hrs13min.
08-Nov-2014 B772/L KADW - PEK 13hrs08min.
07-Nov-2014 B772/L ATL - KADW 1hrs22min.
06-Nov-2014 B772/L KSDF - ATL 0hrs52min.
06-Nov-2014 B772/L KGTB - KSDF 1hrs29min.
06-Nov-2014 B772/L HHN - KGTB 7hrs54min.
04-Nov-2014 B772/L ATL - HHN 7hrs57min.
02-Nov-2014 B772/L BWI - ATL 1hrs15min.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 30): 14-Nov-2014 B772/L RGN - BNE 9hrs13min. 08-Nov-2014 B772/L KADW - PEK 13hrs08min.

Nice. Curious as to what she did/where she went, between these two dates and destinations. Any idea?

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 29): I remember it well, during the NTSB's freak-out over Airbus' choice to not inert, despite the fact that A/C packs wouldn't run underneath where a center tank would be were there one available; which they (at least at the time) only expected to see on a freighter or HGW bird. And even back then, the max tank capacity was the same 320k L that Airbus is advertising today.

I recall something very similar regarding Airbus' choice not to inert on the A380 and comments made by the NTSB. In fact, I still have the following article saved. It states: "There is no center wing tank on the A380, although one could be fitted on subsequent models of the aircraft (e.g., the 800-passenger version)." - the term 'subsequent models' is not very clear as the -800 passenger version is the only model thus far... Has the centre tank always been optional then???


http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions...-Be-Inerted_2728.html#.VGnAD2fgU_w


""NTSB Disappointed That A380 Fuel Tanks Will Not Be Inerted

The Airbus A380 will not feature fuel tank inerting, but rather a comprehensive effort to minimize ignition sources. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) officials say the system safety assessments upon which the fuel system for the A380 is predicated, with the focus on ignition sources, is an incomplete approach...

There is no center wing tank on the A380, although one could be fitted on subsequent models of the aircraft (e.g., the 800-passenger version). Moreover, the air conditioning packs on the A380 are located on the forward side of the front wing spars, with insulation. Thus located, they are not directly under any fuel tanks, which is the case on the B747 and the B737; these models have experienced three fuel tank explosions in recent years - TWA 800 involving a B747, a Philippine Air Lines (PAL) B737 at Manila, and a Thai International Airways (THA) B737 at Bangkok. All three sustained explosions of the center wing tanks.

"The A380 air conditioning packs are in the 'shoulder' of the wing," the NTSB official conceded, but on a hot day on the ground, as was the case in the Philippine Air Lines and Thai Airways explosions, the airplanes didn't have the benefit of airflow to dissipate the heat of the packs, and this also would be the case with the A380 on a hot day.""


BTW I did not quote the full article as it was long.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 31): Quoting factsonly (Reply 30): 14-Nov-2014 B772/L RGN - BNE 9hrs13min. 08-Nov-2014 B772/L KADW - PEK 13hrs08min. Nice. Curious as to what she did/where she went, between these two dates and destinations. Any idea?

Sorry I forgot to answer that part:

I would guess PEK-RGN followed by RGN-BNE as APEC was in Beijing from Nov 8-10, followed by the ASEAN Summit in Myanmar from Nov 12-14, followed by the G20 in Brisbane over the past weekend. The POTUS attended all three events so I assume that plane would have flown KADW-PEK-RGN-BNE-KADW  

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 29): So again, when was this option added, and why doesn't Airbus make it apparent?

Designed in the aircraft from the start, exactly the same as the A330/A340. The A340 and A330-200 all have the centre wing box tank, on the A330-300 up until recently was not activated. Structurally it is still there on every aircraft, sans pumps and plumbing. It was designed to be standard on the A380-900.

Look at the AC_A380 airport planning document you will see a note that says usable fuel capacity with centre tank : 355 850 l (94 005 US gal)

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 29): Granted, I haven't bothered looking for myself, but do you have any corroboration to that effect?

Google industry average airfreight freight densities, lots of information about. You do not believe anything I write anyway.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter): Looks like a Delta triple 7 and that's over 8200 NM, impressive.

That's light work for a lightly loaded 777  

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 4): It's actually an ER (N864DA) and it's certainly doing it's damndest... halfway across the States at the moment. It also flew westbound nonstop from Andrews to PEK.

Queen Elizabeth II flew from PER-LHR non-stop in a BA 777-200ER a few years back when PER hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. I understand that she also flew non-stop in that same aircraft from London to Canberra at the commencement of her Australian tour.

The 777-200ER is a very capable long haul aircraft which can fly further than the 747-400. When lightly loaded, it can fly a long, long way. If I recall, prior to the 777-200LR's record flight from Hong Kong to London the long way round, the previous record for the longest flight by a commercial airliner was from Paine Field to Kuala Lumpur east bound on delivery of MH's first 777-200ER.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 14): Happy to concede the range, but the A380 will lift a lot more over its max range.

More what? People? Bags?

In any event, it's hardly relevant to this thread, don't you think?

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 7): I stand corrected. It must have carried 50 people max. Why do such a thing? That is a big waste of tax payer dollars

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 12): The chartered flights aren't paid for by the government, they are paid for by the news organizations that send staff on the flights.

Although no link was provided the poster is British and was therefore probably referring to the Blair BRU-MEL flight:

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 5): BA flew a lightly loaded 777 from BRU to MEL. The aircraft carried then-PM Tony Blair to the Commonwealth games.

The aircraft used for this flight was BA 772 G-YMMO. This aircraft is one of two BA 772s fitted with an adapted floor to its F Class cabin. This allows the installation of the Royal Suite in that cabin.

This suite comprises two single beds (one on each side) an oak table (in the centre) and four chairs with a changing area at the back of the cabin.

Leading up to the BRU-MEL flight this aircraft had had the Royal Suite installed to carry Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth together with Prince Philip to Australia routing LHR-SIN-CBR (BA9113C) on an official visit in her role as Head of the Commonwealth. The flight departed from LHR on 10 March 2006.

On 15 March 'MO operated CBR-MEL carrying Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip to the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games.

On 17 March 'MO operated MEL-SIN-LHR (BA9116C) bringing the Queen and Prince back to London. It was then parked at LHR.

With the Royal Suite still installed the same aircraft next flew LHR-BRU (BA9117C) on 24 March. It carried PM Tony Blair, his wife, his officials and members of the press to an EU Heads of Government meeting. Later that day it flew BRU-MEL (BA9118C) with the Blairs plus approximately 60 officials and press to attend the closing ceremony of the Commonwealth Games.

On the 28 March the aircraft operated MEL-AKL carrying the Blairs, his advisors and press on an Official Visit to New Zealand. The following day it operated AKL-CGK (BA9120C) carrying the party on an Official Visit to Indonesia. Next day it operated CGK-LHR (BA9121C) bringing the Blairs and accompanying officials and press home.

This is the nearest thing the UK has to Air Force One or the official aircraft operated by many other nations. Although the employers of those members of the press accompanying the Blairs will have had to pay for their flight, most of the costs on these eight or nine flights halfway around the world and back again will have been paid by the British tax payer.

As far as I am aware the accommodation of the Blairs in the Royal Suite for the second set of flights is the only time it has been used other than by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. It certainly was not used by PM Cameron on his recent trip to the G20 Meeting in Brisbane. However there are some similarities between the Blairs trip to the Commonwealth Games , New Zealand and Indonesia with President Obama's very recent trip to the Asia-Pacific region. In addition to attending the G20 in Brisbane he visited Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines all in just eight days.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 7): That is a big waste of tax payer dollars.

And since when is wasting tax payer dollars (or pounds) a big deal?

UA has also used the 777-200ER to ferry press non-stop from Washington to Australia during Presidential visits.

Any idea if the IFE works on these flights?

Quoting chrisair (Reply 20): These trips are not cheap either. They can run between $15-30k/person.

Wow...

B8887

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 3): Boeing did a record setting flight of 11,664nm and the pilots indicated they had fuel to go further

I remember seeing news reports about that flight. They flew from Asia (or was it Australia?) to Europe the long way, over North America. Anything that can go more than halfway around the world on one tank of fuel can fly any city pair nonstop.

According to Flightaware the sector time was 16hr 24 min which is an ESAD of ~7700nm. The load/range table for a 77E shows ~ 24t payload for this distance assuming a DOW of ~146t This would permit about 200-210 occupied seats at a generous weight allowance per seat.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 11): Given that it was a 777-200ER that is flying the flight, Flighty would be arguing that the A380 is less capable than a 777-200ER! We know what the LR is capable of... 14:40 out of 16:22 duration flown so far and it's still going! Not bad for an ER - but a lighlty loaded LR could eat such a route...

Exactly, sorry, I thought the post suggesting this was an LR was true. The leg would be easy work for the LR. If we assume 50 knots tailwind over 16 hours, that is 800nm still air range gained. So, it is like a 7400nm flight (assuming my 50 knot WAG). An ER can do it, and an LR can probably laugh while doing it.


I assume the A380 could also do 7400nm fairly easily.

[Edited 2014-11-17 08:37:44]

Quoting gemuser (Reply 8): The A380 is less capable than a B77L? PROVE IT!!!

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 10): What's to prove? There's no question who has the better range, by far. The 772LR at max fuel option, has nearly 900nm more range than the A388.

Quoting N415XJ (Reply 13): Well, the A380 has a range of 8,500nm while the 777-200LR has a range of 9,395nm. Of course, the A380 is a much larger aircraft, but it's range is ultimately less.

I haven't seen any proof.

What would the A380 range be, when loaded with the load of a 777-200LR (as loaded for its 9395nm). You may decide for yourself if you want to use the additional centre tank of 41,700 liters. I'll be betting that it won't be required to beat the 77L. So yes, the A380 would most likely be the more capable plane.

Quoting zeke (Reply 27): Airbus does offer the A380 with an additional centre tank of 41,700 liters, around another 1000 nm in range, the tank is the center wing box. Probably the reason they are not being used on the the normal passengers A380s now is it can do the commercial routes without needing them. All A380s have the additional tank, they are just not activated, like the A330-300.

Agree, but it would probably be not required.

Rgds,
PW100

At least as of the January 2012 A380 ACAP (including the latest revision of December 2013), the listed usable fuel capacity for all weight variants (WV000-WV008) is 323,546 liters, which is the value of the wing, trim and system tanks only.

The Type Certificate Data Sheets have never shown a center fuel tank option or value and to my knowledge Airbus never certified the option once the freighter model was put on hiatus. They may very well put the tank inside each frame (since it's not something you can add later), but I believe Airbus would need to test and certify it before any customer could activate it.

The FCOM also makes no mention of a center tank in the Fuel section.

Quoting LOWS (Reply 28): It is paid for by the media companies that use it.

Do media companies also have to pay if their reporters are on the Presidential plane?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44): The Type Certificate Data Sheets have never shown a center fuel tank option or value and to my knowledge Airbus never certified the option once the freighter model was put on hiatus. They may very well put the tank inside each frame (since it's not something you can add later), but I believe Airbus would need to test and certify it before any customer could activate it.

The tank is the centre wingbox, it is in every aircraft, FG is incorrect in the capacity in this article
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...first-subassembly-for-a380-165974/

It is a fruitless argument to say the A380 does not have it when Airbus is doing that very same process on the A330-300 right now. Never in any FCOM, TCDS, ACAP did Airbus refer to the A330-300 having a centre wing tank, it was however always there (and being used on the A340 and A330-200). First A330-300 with an activated centre tank aircraft is in production.

EK use the centre wing box location for additional water storage for the showers.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 45): Do media companies also have to pay if their reporters are on the Presidential plane?

If I'm not mistaken, yes. Some marginal price, but they pay something for it.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 43): What would the A380 range be, when loaded with the load of a 777-200LR (as loaded for its 9395nm). You may decide for yourself if you want to use the additional centre tank of 41,700 liters. I'll be betting that it won't be required to beat the 77L. So yes, the A380 would most likely be the more capable plane

Looks like I lost my own bet, based on these charts . . . :
777-200LR

A380-800

The 777-200LR will carry around 29 tons for 9500nm
The A380-800 will carry 29 tons for 8900nm.

Mea Culpa!

Quoting zeke (Reply 46): It is a fruitless argument to say the A380 does not have it when Airbus is doing that very same process on the A330-300 right now.

Sorry Zeke, unless the A380 center section is sealed, vented for fuel, plumbed, has pumps installed, and method for filling it is provided, it isn't a fuel tank.

While it could be done, until all these things happen, the A380 center section is not a fuel tank.

It's sort of like an A380F. Until a side cargo door is installed, an A380 isn't an A380F, no matter if the interior isn't installed and it has a high max payload capability.