tubeliner question

[cheezyflier]

a while back i read a story of a canadian pilot who freaked out on a flight from toronto to australia. i got the impression from the story it was a non-stop flight. i thought that wasn't possible so i tried it, but i reduced the payload to 50% but carried 100% fuel. i came up short by about 2 hours worth of fuel. can it be done? i flew direct gps course, which they wouldn't do in real life, even though it's shorter distance. how would one go about it?

[Kiwikat]

What kind of aircraft?

[wombat666]

I remember vividly a 1979 B-747SP flight by South African Airways from Mauritius to Sydney (East Coast of Australia) and back to Mauritius without refuelling.
We Aussies were suffering the usual 'refullers strike' at the time, December '79.
Why do I remember it so well?
I was stuck in Perth on the West Coast waiting for a flight to SA and the bloody SP flew across the country and back leaving us to wait another 5 days!
That's a very long distance Cheezy, across the Indian Ocean, back and forth over Australia (some 3000 miles twice) and on to Mauritius without taking on fuel.
:applause:
And a PS: I never flew SAA again.

[Panther_99FS]

Tubeliner=VERBOTEN!!! :173go1::icon_lol:

[fliger747]

IRL I flew a 747-400UF non-stop from Huntsville Alabama to Hong Kong, against the winter headwinds over Japan. 18 hours.....

Blocked in with almost 30,000 lbs of fuel remaining.

Very long range flights are highly dependent on step climbing to the optimum atlitudes as fuel burns off.

Cheers: T.

[IanP]

I know that the A340-2000, possibly the least sane tube in history, can go from Heathrow to Australia non-stop, which neither a B744 nor B772ER can, technically.

Ian P.

[tigisfat]

triple 7's and 747's regularly fly between England and the prison colony, and have for quite some time. A 777 flew from Sydney to London....the long way once.

[IanP]

triple 7's and 747's regularly fly between England and the prison colony, and have for quite some time. A 777 flew from Sydney to London....the long way once.

That was a -300ER on a "we're showing off" flight, carrying nowhere near a commercial load (something like 20 journos and invited guests or something, IIRC, and no cargo). Maybe it was the far side of Australia that an A340-2000 can reach in one go that nothing else can? I'll be honest, I can't remember the exact details. It was a magazine article in Flight International quite some time ago! :)

Ian P.

[cheezyflier]

so, if i took off from toronto, and went directly there, southwesterly, i should have been able to do it if i step climbed properly? can anyone tell me the steps? what cruise speed would be most efficient? i was using the default 747. i just want to see if i can, is all.

[srgalahad]

The shortest 'pure' route (not always the most efficient) is a great circle. I don't know how close a FS GPS-direct comes to that (never tried) but you can map the Great Circle route here:
http://gc.kls2.com/
Type CYYZ-YSSY in the "Paths" box and hit "Display Map". That'll give you a good idea of the points under the Great Circle. (9663 nm and 17:01 at .86Mach). Read the notes/FAQ for more info about GC routes

Rob

[srgalahad]

thinking of step-climbs, I remember working a CPAir DC-8-63 flight out of Edmonton to Amsterdam (enter this route in the GCMapper= cyeg-cyvg-cyvc-cyyq-cyfb-eham ).
Passing Vermillion (CYVG) at about 0:20 they were just through 10,000ft (avg. Rate of Climb= 400 ft/min) and were just getting level at FL330 in the vicinity of LaRonge (CYVC) some 40 min after t/o. IIRC initial altitude was FL250, then FL290, then FL330. It was almost painful to watch :kilroy:

[Brett_Henderson]

We had a similar thread at another forum not long ago. The OP couldn't get the default 747 across the Atlantic without running out of fuel. I tried it with zero winds aloft and made it from NYC to London, with enough fuel to make it most of the way back to to NYC.. :mixedsmi:

The key is obviously fuel management. You cant blast up to altitude and then scream across the ocean at .85 mach or you'll splash-down..lol

I don't remember the exact numbers, but I do remember they were pretty close to realistic ones (via research). Something like 80% N1 climbs pitched for Vy and cruise thrust in the 70% N1 range @ FL360..

I'll see if I can find that thread and post a link..

Edit: I do remeber that while fiddling around with fuel burns and ground speeds.. I could coax well over 8,000nm out of the default 747.

[fliger747]

I think I once flew the default 747-400 all the way to AOZ from london in one of our races. Want to go a long ways? Start out with zero payload.... Fill the tanks (162,000 kg) . Initial altitude will be about 34,000' at mach 0.830, climb about two thousand feet every three hours. Final altitude will be FL 450, fuel flow will be very low!!! Winds are of course critical.

Cheers: Tom

[Navy Chief]

I fly "tubeliners" occasionally. My favorite is the C-9.

NC

[Bjoern]

Tubeliner=VERBOTEN!!! :173go1::icon_lol:
Nichts da!

Without tubeliners, I wouldn't be remotely interested in MSFS...

[Lionheart]

Ive done TONS (tons.. really) in tubes.. From the Concorde in FS2000 to the 'four seven' and 'tripple seven' doing cross atlantics to Heathrow. I was a member of British Airways Virtual (I think they are company based). I was Speedbird BAV738, usually flying a tripple seven on Bostons to Londons.. I couldnt wait till Saturday rolled around. My day off. I would do at leat 2 transatlantics. We were allowed to do 4X speed over the ocean, and I flew on VATSIM, so I was talking with other virtual airlines pilots (built in chat system, one on one), and had a blast...

Also did mini routes form London to Innsbruck, and many Britain hops.


Loved it! :d :applause:


I think the fun was the schedules.. Picking a flight, trying to arrive on time, real weather, occasional vatsim ATC (if there were people on that day), etc.. ALOT of fun.



Bill