Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

aaronrash

Confusion about 777 Range

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

 

I haven't been on the forum in a while, the 777 is looking awesome! I'm confused about the range of the 777 though... For instance, I live here in Houston and Emirates flys a 777-300ER from Houston to Dubai nonstop. The maximum range for a 777-300ER is 7,930 nmi. If you look on flightaware: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE212 its a 8,300 nmi flight. So what am I missing here? Do some airlines mod their 777's with extra fuel space for extremely long range flights or something? It's clearly out of the 777's range.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I see 7190 nm on that flightaware link, not 8000+...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see 7190 nm on that flightaware link, not 8000+...

 

Yeah- I think the OP got confused between miles and nautical miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it since 7190 NM is 8269 SM. Also keep in mind that with a full pax load the tanks aren't full, so for extra wiggle room you can reduce pax/cargo for more fuel.

 

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP is confused between nautical miles and statue miles. The distance and range are quoted using diffrent units.

 

1 nm = 1.15 sm

 

Wikipedia quotes the range of the 300ER at 7,930 NM. Therefore, that equals 9119.5 SM. The flight looks to be around 8200 SM so it is well within range for the 777-300ER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay somehow this 777 flew 11,518 miles. how s this possible?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE215

 

 

Boeing 777-300ER (twin-jet) (B77W – photos) Speed Filed: 444 kts (graph) Altitude (graph) Distance Direct: 8,335 sm    Planned: 8,393 sm    Flown: 11,518 sm Route GEG FMG J7 REYES V107 FIM SADDE6

 

Maybe a flightaware glitch?

Mate, once again it's SM. Boeing measures the range in NM on the technical specifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate, once again it's SM. Boeing measures the range in NM on the technical specifications.

 

True, but on the post you quoted, it says "Flown: 11,518 sm" which is 10009 NM, which is well above the -300ER's quoted range on the boeing website.(7,825 nautical miles)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but on the post you quoted, it says "Flown: 11,518 sm" which is 10009 NM, which is well above the -300ER's quoted range on the boeing website.(7,825 nautical miles)

Ahh okay. That's probably a fault on flight aware's site then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Ahh okay. That's probably a fault on flight aware's site then!

 

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah flightaware can act funny sometimes. One time it claimed a flight from london to houston was 20 minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah flightaware can act funny sometimes. One time it claimed a flight from london to houston was 20 minutes.

Funny you say that

 

There was a thread on airliners.net not long ago about a piper/Cessna/beech that flew from Tennessee to Iran in 55min. Turns out FA confuses RZR airport in TN with a northern Iran location

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


So what am I missing here?

 

In addition to what everyone else has said, I'm sure with a search you could dig up another one of my rants on the same topic:

Range is never a hard number.  The range numbers given on Wikipedia and the like are just there for those who have no idea what is going on in aviation to have something to compare different aircraft with.  This is actually the reason the NBAA came up with NBAA IFR Reserves to standardize quoted ranges (between business jets, mind you).

 

Your range varies greatly with wind aloft, passenger load, fuel load (you may be thinking "duh - more fuel means longer range," but remember fuel is also weight, and more of it means lower altitudes, and higher fuel burn), cruise altitude, and route (also you may think that's a stupid statement, but IAD-JFK is about 200nm direct, and 230nm as you'd be routed - meaning direct range isn't always practical range).

 

So, I'd never pay attention to the listed "stats" of range and random sites, and pay more attention to what your cruise planning charts would give you.  Passengers are often traded for fuel and range when it's necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Iain beat me to it, and yes, they have almost full belly cargo to compliment the pax load, and that is why they do not fly the 380 there, as it does not have the ability YET (It is on a diet lol) to carry their cargo loads if memory serves.

 

Again, the beauty of human ingenuity, the 300ER is like the Energizer bunny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is why they do not fly the 380 there, as it does not have the ability YET (It is on a diet lol) to carry their cargo loads if memory serves.

 

From what I've heard, the 380 is rubbish when it comes to carrying freight. I.e. why Emirates have had to send a 77F to LHR since they went completely 380. Whereas the original 777 services got all the freight there no issues! I wouldn't be surprised to see a 77W back on one sector in the near future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard, the 380 is rubbish when it comes to carrying freight. I.e. why Emirates have had to send a 77F to LHR since they went completely 380. Whereas the original 777 services got all the freight there no issues! I wouldn't be surprised to see a 77W back on one sector in the near future. 

Luke, I believe the 900 was the real aircraft, as the 800 was an intro. only in the ultimate plan.

 

Bad economy (thank you bankers) bad communication skills between company designers  led to a "cancellation" of the 900 for the near future.

 

I am under the understanding that the wings, engines, rudder and landing gear were geared towards the 900 for that exact purpose (Cargo), and Emirates was hoping to have around 75% of the fleet in the 900 guise.

 

For the record, having flown quite a number of times in it to New York, I must admit it is a wonderful plane (passenger perspective), though I have to admit it divorced beauty from most angles a long time ago lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W

 

Hello everyone,

 

I haven't been on the forum in a while, the 777 is looking awesome! I'm confused about the range of the 777 though... For instance, I live here in Houston and Emirates flys a 777-300ER from Houston to Dubai nonstop. The maximum range for a 777-300ER is 7,930 nmi. If you look on flightaware: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE212 its a 8,300 nmi flight. So what am I missing here? Do some airlines mod their 777's with extra fuel space for extremely long range flights or something? It's clearly out of the 777's range.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

 

It states under the maximum range that the figures are with a maximum payload. The way I read that is a 777 with max zero fuel weight then fueled to max takeoff weight.

 

If you lower ZFW then you can add more fuel and get greater range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what everyone else has said, I'm sure with a search you could dig up another one of my rants on the same topic:

Range is never a hard number. The range numbers given on Wikipedia and the like are just there for those who have no idea what is going on in aviation to have something to compare different aircraft with. This is actually the reason the NBAA came up with NBAA IFR Reserves to standardize quoted ranges (between business jets, mind you).

 

 

Your range varies greatly with wind aloft, passenger load, fuel load (you may be thinking "duh - more fuel means longer range," but remember fuel is also weight, and more of it means lower altitudes, and higher fuel burn), cruise altitude, and route (also you may think that's a stupid statement, but IAD-JFK is about 200nm direct, and 230nm as you'd be routed - meaning direct range isn't always practical range).

 

So, I'd never pay attention to the listed "stats" of range and random sites, and pay more attention to what your cruise planning charts would give you. Passengers are often traded for fuel and range when it's necessary.

So true

Something people really dont know

That companies really rely on wind aloft

And they greatly do! Specialy when it comes to deliver new aircrafts to their operators

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke, I believe the 900 was the real aircraft, as the 800 was an intro. only in the ultimate plan.

 

Bad economy (thank you bankers) bad communication skills between company designers  led to a "cancellation" of the 900 for the near future.

 

I am under the understanding that the wings, engines, rudder and landing gear were geared towards the 900 for that exact purpose (Cargo), and Emirates was hoping to have around 75% of the fleet in the 900 guise.

 

For the record, having flown quite a number of times in it to New York, I must admit it is a wonderful plane (passenger perspective), though I have to admit it divorced beauty from most angles a long time ago lol.

Mate I honestly don't know enough about the Airbus to have that conversation haha - so you're probably right (-;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites