Boeing 777-200LR Sets New World Record

[amphora 0]

Boeing to Set New World Record for Distance with 777-200LR Worldliner Flight

777-200LR is the world's longest-range commercial jetliner

Samsonite,

Just for my information.

Do you know what the range of comparable Airbus jets is in the same circumstances?

What will be the range of the A380?

Edited November 11, 2005 by amphora

[Emil 0]

I found it interesting that the Jet Stream wasn't discovered until World War II, by a crew on a bombing mission.  At first they weren't believed and it was thought it was an excuse for missing their target.  ;-)

 

Some other interesting facts about the Jet Stream:

 

http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/earthscie...am-woes-01.html

On my first trip flying from Hong Kong to SFO on Cathay Pacific as I was channel surfing on the individual programs in economy, I came across the program that show all the flight info. I was amazed when it showed the speed at close to 730 mph which is close to mach 1 as I thought that comercial planes flew around the 500 mark. Then the next screen showed that we had a tail wind over 200 mph. Later when I check the flight itinerary the listed time from SFO to Hong Kong was 15 hours and the return was only 12 hours.

 

Regarding your earlier comment about London to Sydney, my paper listed the previous record as 10,587 miles, set in 1989 on a Boeing 747-400 flying from London to Sydney. Boeing lists the range of the 777-200LR as 9420 nautical miles. If your conversion factor is correct that would equate to 10,848 miles.

Edited November 12, 2005 by Emil

[BongoBill9999 0]

I once had a similar experience flying NRT to SFO. Happened to look at the flight data and we were at 41,000 feet and traveling at about 719 mph. As the Jet Stream can be as fast as 300 mph I guess the pilots must throttle back to avoid hitting Mach One?

Interesting one this.

 

Many years ago I was travelling on an RAF VC10 (nice aircraft in its day) from Dulles to UK. At about 2am when most of us were dozing there was an almighty bang and a second later the engines died to idle. You can imagine what most of us thought!

 

Apparently we had hit a thermal block where the jetstream meets 'normal' air and there is a large temperature difference. The pilot had throttled back to lose height but we weren't to know that. Got the old ticker going that's for sure!

 

Not sure being in the jet stream will help you get to Mach 1. We are talking about the speed of sound in air and if you are in an airstream that is moving it seems to me that you still have to travel fast enough to break the sound barrier in that particular air stream. It is 4am here so I'm not about to think too hard about it but I'm sure someone will come up with the correct answer.

 

Bill

[Emil 0]

Spot on, Emil.

However, when they aren't trying to break distance records, the 747-400's maximum range is listed at 7,260 nautical miles, or 8,360.6 miles and the

747-400ER is rated at 7,670 nautical miles or 8,832.7 miles.

 

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/technical.html

 

I once had a similar experience flying NRT to SFO. Happened to look at the flight data and we were at 41,000 feet and traveling at about 719 mph. As the Jet Stream can be as fast as 300 mph I guess the pilots must throttle back to avoid hitting Mach One?

 

As someone here once pointed out, London to Sydney is not a problem as you have the tailwinds, but Sydney to London is another story.

;-)

I realize that the 747 could fly nowhere near the record distance. The only reason I mentioned that article is because it had the distance between Sydney and London listed at 10,587 miles. Boeing lists the range of the -200ER at 9,420 nautical miles or 10,848 miles, slighly more than the distance between Sydney and London. Maybe they need to exceed the distance by a greater amount in case things go bad.

[Samsonite 181]

Samsonite,

Just for my information.

Do you know what the range of comparable Airbus jets is in the same circumstances?

What will be the range of the A380?

Good question. Off the top of my head I think the range of the A380 will be 8,000 miles....but....hang on let me see if I can find it......Airbus is not as "open" with their tech data as Boeing........

 

Here we go:

 

From here: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=29

 

A380-800: Range 14,800km (8,000nm). Service ceiling 43.000ft (13,100m).

A380-800F (freighter): Range 10,370km (5,600nm).

8,000 nautical miles would be 9,212.8 miles.

 

Found this:

"In recent years, the battle for long-range has been fought out by Airbus and Boeing, the world's primary manufacturers of commercial aircraft. The two planes that have been at the center of the struggle to date are the Airbus A340 and the Boeing 777. Airbus unveiled its long-range A340-500 in 2002. This model seats about 300 in a typical layout and has a range of 8,665 nm (16,050 km)."

From: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0229.shtml

 

Also found this: http://www.flybernhard.de/ueb_eng.htm?http...d.de/a330_e.htm

But I had a hard time understanding what the author was trying to say. Maybe you will have better luck.

[Samsonite 181]

.........The only reason I mentioned that article is because it had the distance between Sydney and London listed at 10,587 miles. Boeing lists the range of the -200ER at 9,420 nautical miles or 10,848 miles, slighly more than the distance between Sydney and London. Maybe they need to exceed the distance by a greater amount in case things go bad.

Yes, head winds, delays, etc. There has to be a certain "cushion" but I don't remember if it is measured in time or fuel or both. On the last trip from TPE to SFO the pilot made 2 passes before he finally landed on the 3rd approach. Guess they, the airport, was busy. Added about 25 minutes to the flight.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I think a fair summary would be that both the A380 and the 777-200LR can fly from HKG to LHR non-stop. It's just that the A380 uses around 10 hours less flying time and can carry 500 more passengers. As long as they both use Rolls Royce engines, that's all that matters!

 

Seriously, all these new aircraft (A340/350/380 and Boeing 777-300ER/777-200LR/747Adv) must be good news for all of us as travellers. At the end of the day, most of us will relate our experience to the cabin layout and the performance of the cabin crew rather than the badge on the aircraft.

 

Tom

[Samsonite 181]

I think a fair summary would be that both the A380 and the 777-200LR can fly from HKG to LHR non-stop.  It's just that the A380 uses around 10 hours less flying time............

10 hours less flying time??????????????

Edited November 12, 2005 by Samsonite

[Samsonite 181]

Well, while they did take advantage of the Jet Stream, they did not take the shortest route:

 

"From Hong Kong to London, the long way around

Friday November 11, 2005

 

Boeing's 777-200LR Worldliner achieved a new distance record of 11,664 nm. (21,601 km.) when it touched down in London at 13:06 UTC yesterday, 22 hr. 42 min. after it departed Hong Kong Wednesday night at 10:30 p.m. local time.The GE90-110B1-powered aircraft took off at 711,000 lb., well under its MTOW of 766,000 lb. Liftoff was 40 sec. after power-up and it reached its initial cruising altitude of 29,000 ft. in just 18 min.

 

The 777-200LR tracked northeast over Taipei and the southern island of Japan before turning due east to the mid-Pacific. Just to the north of Midway Island it took a more northerly heading, picking up a strong jetstream that took it to the northern California coast, where it turned south to Los Angeles. Over LA at 03:02 UTC the jet turned northeast to the Denver area and then headed east for New York, which it reached at 07:06 UTC.

 

After passing over New York, the aircraft tracked northeast to Newfoundland where the 35 passengers and crew saw their second sunrise of the flight. It then was set on a more easterly heading toward Ireland and the UK. The 777-200LR was held for 20 min. over Heathrow due to overcast and windy conditions.

 

In command was Suzanna Darcy-Hennemann. She was supported by seven other captains including three Boeing pilots, among them Frank Santoni and John Cashman, along with two PIA pilots and one Singapore Airlines captain.

 

The flight breaks the previous weight-category record of 9,200 nm. set by Qantas in 1989 on the delivery flight of its first 747-400, which flew from London to Sydney with 18 passengers. That flight took 20 hr. 9 min. The 777-200LR took off with 360,700 lb. of fuel and had 18,700 lb. left upon engine shutdown at Heathrow. ATW Senior Editor Geoffrey Thomas was a guest onboard the aircraft."

 

by Geoffrey Thomas

 

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=3051

Edited November 12, 2005 by Samsonite

[CheshireTom 1,377]

10 hours less flying time??????????????

It takes an A380 around 13 hours to fly from HKG to LHR ...... the same journey for a 777-200LR takes nigh on 23 hours .......... 10 hours difference in my book!

 

Tom

[Samsonite 181]

It takes an A380 around 13 hours to fly from HKG to LHR ...... the same journey for a 777-200LR takes nigh on 23 hours .......... 10 hours difference in my book!

 

Tom

Tom, I know that is "tongue in cheek," but just in case, did you read the article above your last message?

 

"The 777-200LR tracked northeast over Taipei and the southern island of Japan before turning due east to the mid-Pacific. Just to the north of Midway Island it took a more northerly heading, picking up a strong jetstream that took it to the northern California coast, where it turned south to Los Angeles. Over LA at 03:02 UTC the jet turned northeast to the Denver area and then headed east for New York, which it reached at 07:06 UTC.

 

After passing over New York, the aircraft tracked northeast to Newfoundland where the 35 passengers and crew saw their second sunrise of the flight. It then was set on a more easterly heading toward Ireland and the UK. The 777-200LR was held for 20 min. over Heathrow due to overcast and windy conditions."

 

I'm sure they did this to show the different airlines what is possible. They took the long way around over the mid-Pacific instead of the far northern Pacific or "over the pole" and then zigzagged across the U.S. before heading toward the UK. Then they were held for 20 minutes over LHR, but still managed to land with over an hours worth of fuel still in the tanks.

Were the A380 and the 777-200LR to follow the same route, the time of flight would be approximately the same. Ditto the A380 and the 747-400.

[Samsonite 181]

Here are some interesting facts about the flight from a aviation related web site. Actual miles flown, 12,173nm or 14,008 statue miles.

 

"......Thanks also to HK ATC for allowing the airplane to be fueled at the ramp at the end of the runway, start and immediately takeoff with essentially zero taxi time. Only 700lb fuel consumed from start to takeoff.

 

Here are some more detailed stats if you are interested:

 

Record "credit" distance: 11,664 nm (great circles between declared waypoints) or 13,422 statutue miles

Actual flight plan distance flown: 12,173 nm or 14,008 statute miles

Flight time: 22:42

Fuel burned: 341,300 lb

Fuel remaining: 18,700 lb

Fuel burn at cruise: 11,200 lb/hr

Total on board: 35 incl crew

Cases of champagne: 5

Sunsets: 1

Sunrises: 2"

 

Found here: http://www.luchtzak.be/posts13995-start20&...6dfd6f917e4b040

[BigDUSA 71]

As long as they both use Rolls Royce engines, that's all that matters!

We on the other side of the pond hope they use GE or Pratt & Whitney.

Edited November 14, 2005 by BigDUSA

[CheshireTom 1,377]

BigD,

 

We on the other side of the pond hope they use ........... Pratt & Whitney.

 

Jeez, you're the co-owner of a jet engine business now!

 

Tom

[BigDUSA 71]

BigD,

 

 

 

Jeez, you're the co-owner of a jet engine business now!

 

Tom

At one time I used to own GE stock. GE was very good to me. If I ever invest in the market again. GE would be at the top of my list assuming my research justified buying it.

[echster 1]

Not to make a big deal of speed/Mach issue, but what you referring to is ground speed and not cruising speed. Your ground speed in the jet stream may have indicated flying at or above the speed of sound but that is not the case.

 

Now, as for the B772LR, correct me if I'm wrong or miss a point. Boeing would love to sell some to Qantas for the Kangaroo Run. There is no doubt existing planes can do the LHR-SYD run, but only the B772LR could possibly do the SYD-LHR run. The point is it would take the 3 extra internal fuel tanks and that may still not be enough if the headwinds are strong. On top of that, the extra weight negates some revenue opportunities. I think this is where the possible fallacies lie.

[Samsonite 181]

If it is 10,587 statute miles SYD-LHR and the 777-200LR flew 14,008 statute miles, spent 25 minutes circling over LHR, and once on the ground still had an hour and a half worth of fuel in its tanks, wouldn't that be enough, heads winds and all?

Apparently not?

Edited November 16, 2005 by Samsonite

[Tahoe_Bill 0]

Just saw this on the net:

 

Emirates to announce major Boeing 777 order

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051119/bs_af...us_051119162358

 

Cheers

 

Bill

[echster 1]

If it is 10,587 statute miles SYD-LHR and the 777-200LR flew 14,008 statute miles, spent 25 minutes circling over LHR, and once on the ground still had an hour and a half worth of fuel in its tanks, wouldn't that be enough, heads winds and all?

Apparently not?

The record flight was spent totally in the jet stream, with less than 40 people onboard and no cargo. The maximum range of the B772LR with 3 extra fuel tanks, 301 seats, and 11 tons of cargo will be 9,420 miles. With the winds, it is capable of LHR-SYD, but not in reverse (at least not yet).

 

However, should an airline like Qantas want to limit the number of seats and amount of cargo, they could probably make SYD-LHR most - but not every - days. As I've mentioned previously, more seats + more cargo = more revenue. It's hard for an airline to give that money up for a flight people are willing to take with one stop.

[Samsonite 181]

The record flight was spent totally in the jet stream,

Possible, but I don't think so, unless, of course, the Jet Stream zigged and zagged across the U.S. and happened to accommodate their flight plan.

[echster 1]

Possible, but I don't think so, unless, of course, the Jet Stream zigged and zagged across the U.S. and happened to accommodate their flight plan.

Below is a report issued by the flight's engineer. One thing not mentioned is ATC at Hong Kong allowed them to refuel at the runway edge and gave them priority for departure thus limiting their fuel use on the ground.

 

"The National Aeronautics Association (NAA) is the group that sanctions all aviation records. Part of the NAA is the Contest and Records Board, which sets guidelines and keeps track of record-flight attempts. I serve on the board with other aerospace industry and general aviation volunteers. An NAA representative was onboard the flight to officially record the results.

 

There are other NAA rules that affect the airplane's final route on a record attempt. Once the airplane takes off, we can't change our declared route or chosen "turn points." For the purpose of computing the record distance, the NAA rules allowed us to declare three turn points, between Hong Kong and London. The flight's official distance is measured by adding up the miles between points: Hong Kong to point A...point A to point B...point B to point C...then point C into London. The trick is to put those turn points where they will maximize the wind advantage and take into account all of our other flight restrictions.

 

Before we took off from Hong Kong we spent a lot of time checking weather charts for where the jet stream was going to be - all the way across the north Pacific, North America and north Atlantic. We were trying to pinpoint a route of flight that maximized tail winds to help give us the greatest distance. We made the final decision just hours before takeoff.

 

In addition to favorable winds, another critical factor in setting a new record is fuel. I already mentioned the auxiliary fuel tanks. Two other variables are fuel density, as measured by pounds per gallon, and BTUs per pound (BTU stands for British Thermal Unit, a measure of energy.) The highest energy fuel available comes out of southern California; typically, the lowest density fuel in the world is in southeast Asia, where we took off. We thought about shipping fuel from California to Hong Kong, but it just wasn't practical.

 

We also had to pick the best cities for our departure and arrival. We wanted big cities with a lot of impact and public exposure and eventually chose Hong Kong and London. The planning started about six months ago and now, with a world record under our belt, all of us involved with the flight think the hard work and extra effort were well worth it."

[Samsonite 181]

According to one report I read, from someone who was on the plane during the flight, they turned due east at the southern island of Japan, flew straight across the Pacific, not taking the usual far Northern Pacific route, arrived in the U.S. along the Northern California Coast, turned south and flew to Los Angeles, turned northeast and flew to Denver, turned east and flew to New York, and then on to the northeast and finally London.

[Samsonite 181]

The record flight was spent totally in the jet stream, with less than 40 people onboard and no cargo.  The maximum range of the B772LR with 3 extra fuel tanks, 301 seats, and 11 tons of cargo will be 9,420 miles.  With the winds, it is capable of LHR-SYD, but not in reverse (at least not yet).

 

However, should an airline like Qantas want to limit the number of seats and amount of cargo, they could probably make SYD-LHR most - but not every - days.  As I've mentioned previously, more seats + more cargo = more revenue.  It's hard for an airline to give that money up for a flight people are willing to take with one stop.

The entire article is too long to post here, but the newspaper, "The Australian" points out Airbus' recent mistakes. Here is one excerpt:

 

"...Boeing also said yesterday that it had reduced the Boeing 777-300ER/200LR fuel burn by 1.4 per cent with aerodynamic improvements and weight savings.

The fuel burn reduction comes on top of the 2 per cent improvement achieved during the flight test program, which finished late last year for the 777-300ER. These improvements mean the 777-200LR will be capable of a Sydney-London non-stop flight with an economical payload, Qantas insiders say.

While the 777-200LR appears to be a clear winner over the A340-500 for the ultra-long-range hub-busting mission for Qantas,........"

 

The entire article is here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...5E23349,00.html

Edited December 1, 2005 by Samsonite