Author Topic: 777-200LR performance question  (Read 1199 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mottoth

  • Senior Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
  • Amadeus guru
777-200LR performance question
« on: February 22, 2011, 08:33:26 AM »
Air Austral has announced the launch of a direct DZA-CDG service on 31OCT11, with 362-seater 777-200LR (14J 32W 316Y): http://www.air-austral.com/en/about-air-austral/whats-new.html

Despite the fact that UU actually bought 77Ls for this route, and the fact that planned flightime is consistent with non-stop ops, I'm still very doubful about the feasibility of this route: DZA/FMCZ runway is only 1930m long, with available take-off lenght reduced to 1815m on QFU34. Given that those 777s are fitted with high density configuration (other operators commonly have 250 to 320 seats on 77L) and that there are LOTS of luggages on these flights I don't see how can they take off with full payload and enough fuel for a 10 hour trip (plus reserves)  ::confused::

What do you think ?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 01:59:48 PM by mottoth »
Regards, Yohann.

Offline GHB

  • Senior Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 887
  • FS9 user only
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2011, 08:40:29 AM »
No offense but how do you qualify to challenge a decision taken by a reputable airline?

 ;)

GHB
Peter Fechter (1944 - 1962) "Er wollte nur die Freiheit"

Offline Klemen

  • AIG Dispatch
  • Command Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 4071
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2011, 11:19:47 AM »
LOL it is a honest and interesting question.

For starter weights should be calculated
What is the empty weight of their 772 (approx)
than pax load
MTOW for 1,8km long runway...and hot air
than you can see how much fuel they can take

Do you remember the incident when one 777 took off somewhere from the Caribbean from wrong intersection and it had like 1,5km  :o

Maybe pprune would be a good forum to ask this question too.

Area ATC | Ljubljana Radar | LJLA

Offline mottoth

  • Senior Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
  • Amadeus guru
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2011, 01:40:01 PM »
Quote
how do you qualify to challenge a decision taken by a reputable airline?
Actually it's not so reputable, safety issues have been questionned lately in local newpapers after a CPT was fired for not accepting an item on the MEL (an ATR-72 crew seat was was inoperative and thus locked in the upright position). But that was not my point, I was not questionning safety but rather performance issues (payload restrictions or fuel diversions).
If the 77L can make it 90% of the time without any problem then it would really be an amazing performance. But when I see that our own 77Ws - a very capable airplane too - are sometimes payload restricted on RUN-ORY flights (RUN/FMEE runway is 3200m long) then I really wishes UU good luck from DZA's 1800m take off rolls.

Quote
Do you remember the incident when one 777 took off somewhere from the Caribbean from wrong intersection and it had like 1,5km
Yes it was a BAW B772, but it was bound for a short intra-caribbean hop, so very light on fuel: it could rotate after a 1200m roll.

Is anybody having a copy of PSS 777-200LR ? Maybe they have take-off performance charts included in the documentation (runway available lenght vs. MTOW) ?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 02:01:58 PM by mottoth »
Regards, Yohann.

Offline gapeters

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2011, 02:30:43 PM »
Here are the numbers.. standard and hot.

Greg

Offline masped

  • Turbine 2nd Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2011, 02:38:03 PM »
Is anybody having a copy of PSS 777-200LR ? Maybe they have take-off performance charts included in the documentation (runway available lenght vs. MTOW) ?

Better to get the data from Boeing, don't you think?  ;)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/777.htm

MTOW for the 77L with a runway length of 1800m at sea level and OAT 30C looks to be around 590,000 lb with the GE90-110B1L, which appears to give a MZFW of around 435,000 lb for DZA-CDG.

I haven't made any allowance for wind in that estimate, and I don't know what assumptions Boeing make with regard to reserves etc.

Matthew

Offline mottoth

  • Senior Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
  • Amadeus guru
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2011, 03:39:04 PM »
Thanks a lot. According to these docs the MTOW at FMCZ will usually be in the 263-270t range (metric tonnes).
A fully loaded B777-200LR with 362pax and their bags but no cargo would have a ZFW around 190t (OEW 155t + pax 28t + bags 7t).
DZA-CDG is 4336nm (GC), knowing that routes are usually pretty direct and winds aloft quite neutral on this sector, total air distance would usually be somewhere within the 4500-4600 nam range.
The range/payload table gives an actual TOW of 263-265t with normal conditions, which is barely the same as the MTOW (exceeding MTOW by a couple of tonnes in the worse case): without cargo and without adverse weather this route is actually doable.. Whoah, I'm really impressed by the capabilities of the 77L !
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 04:36:59 PM by mottoth »
Regards, Yohann.

Offline Jeepee

  • AIG Dispatch
  • Command Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1551
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2011, 04:28:54 PM »
(..) without cargo and without adverse weather this route is actually doable.. Whoah, I'm really impressed by the capabilities of the 77L !
I'm also pretty amazed by the payload/range capability of this bird.. but operate such a sector without cargo seems rather "risky business" to me..!
Jean-Philippe DELWICHE
Captain B737 & B787
TUI fly Belgium

Offline vc-10

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 2872
  • Fly Embraer Jets!
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2011, 06:15:43 PM »
But won't most of the cargo be going from Paris to Dzaoudzi? And it's not like Paris has short runways..

Offline M-Sauce

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 3782
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2011, 07:56:54 PM »
The tripple is pretty impressive. It starts loosing a lot the higher you go, and it is quite restricted at field elevations of 5000ft plus. It has some pretty long legs and some neat features, especially on the 300ER and 200LR. Our 300ERs have a feature which locks the main gear bogeys and forces the aircraft to rotate on the aft wheels (instead of tilting on the truck). This lets you rotate earlier and is very useful in places like JNB.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could play around with the takeoff field length and get it quite short when not pushing the range of the aircraft too much, especially on the LR with it's shorter fuselage.
ROG Rampage V Edition 10, Intel Core i7-6850K 4.6GHz (OC & Watercooled)
Corsair VLPX DDR4-3200 64GB , Samsung M2 960 PRO 2TB, SanDisk 1TBx2 (RAID 0)
EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC (2xSLI & Watercooled), Asus ROG PG348Q, TM HOTAS Warthog
Caselabs Merlin SM8, Corsair AX1500i, Win 10 Pro 64Bit, P3D Version 4

Offline mottoth

  • Senior Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
  • Amadeus guru
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2011, 08:03:11 PM »
But won't most of the cargo be going from Paris to Dzaoudzi? And it's not like Paris has short runways..
Well, cargo is a strong business from RUN to Paris due to fresh fruits (pineapples, bananas..) imported from Réunion island. I wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to Mayotte island.
Regards, Yohann.

Offline vc-10

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 2872
  • Fly Embraer Jets!
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2011, 09:25:02 PM »
The tripple is pretty impressive. It starts loosing a lot the higher you go, and it is quite restricted at field elevations of 5000ft plus. It has some pretty long legs and some neat features, especially on the 300ER and 200LR. Our 300ERs have a feature which locks the main gear bogeys and forces the aircraft to rotate on the aft wheels (instead of tilting on the truck). This lets you rotate earlier and is very useful in places like JNB.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could play around with the takeoff field length and get it quite short when not pushing the range of the aircraft too much, especially on the LR with it's shorter fuselage.

That's a good point- they'll also probably have the higher power 115,000lb engines off the -300ER on them too.

Offline GHB

  • Senior Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 887
  • FS9 user only
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2011, 11:10:13 PM »
Actually it's not so reputable, safety issues have been questionned lately in local newpapers after a CPT was fired for not accepting an item on the MEL (an ATR-72 crew seat was was inoperative and thus locked in the upright position).

 ::rolleyes:  Air Austral was one of my customer as a part supplier for their ATRs and they paid the bills right on time wich is not often the case! On the same Out Of Topic subject was'snt one of their B777 damaged by a real bullet that was fired by the local gendarmes SWAT team during a failed training exercise about 2 years ago?

 :D

GHB
Peter Fechter (1944 - 1962) "Er wollte nur die Freiheit"

Offline mottoth

  • Senior Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
  • Amadeus guru
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2011, 11:58:29 AM »
On the same Out Of Topic subject was'snt one of their B777 damaged by a real bullet that was fired by the local gendarmes SWAT team during a failed training exercise about 2 years ago?
I had never heard of that one, but that's agood story indeed: http://avherald.com/h?article=42863e6a&opt=0
Regards, Yohann.

Offline Jan Martin

  • Turbine Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • FS Addon Designer
    • Jan's Websites
Re: 777-200LR performance question
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2011, 07:32:15 PM »
Boeing Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning ---> 777 ---> Section 3.0 Airplane Performance