Queensland

And

Northern

Territory

Aerial

Services

 

which gives QANTAS (minus the U)... B)

 

....Oh if I had a dollar for everytime someone spelt it wrong. :Money Eyes: :Money Eyes:

How did that "U" get in there??? I've been to Australia a couple of times and was well aware of it. My apologies  :blush:

 

 

QUANTAS is the only airline that played with the idea of the AUX option for a non-stop LHR-SYD had they bought the -LR, understanding winds would require a stop on SYD-LHR. Singapore might have also evaluated the idea for a SIN-NYC flight.

 

Other away around  :lol:  SYD-LHR would be non-stop, but LHR-SYD would have had a stopover. IMO stopovers are beneficial to the airline as say QF1 is a service to London, with a stopover at Dubai. Now, people who wish to visit Dubai may also travel on this flight, but if the flight was a non-stop one direct to London, then the potential customers wishing to travel to Dubai will have to choose another airline. Same goes with cargo.

 

 

Allowing the AUX tanks on the F version almost contradicts the whole winglets on the 737-600.

 

Allowing AUX tanks on the F does not change the dynamics other than changing the mass a bit.

 

Adding winglets on the 600 would mean a dynamics re-work of quite a bit magnitude, even more so that there is no realworld data to build upon.

Fabo,

 

That's not what I was trying to get at. When the NGX was released, I remember people asking why there wasn't a 600 series with winglets. PMDG staff made it clear that it was not available in real life, so they would not model it.

 

From what I've read on this thread, the F model cannot be fitted with axillary tanks yet PMDG let's us equip the F with them. That's what I meant by it contradicting how they did it with the NGX.

 

 

 

Sent from my XT901 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Since it's not a certified and tested config for the 77F, even if they sold it to you, I'm not sure the FAA would let it fly...

Hey, if you're willing to pay for the certification process... they'll tell you that they don't have enough engineers able to work on your project instead, at least that's what happened with the private A380.

What about an eventual 777-BCF.  It is very possible that in the future that Boeing would convert LR airframes into F models, certainly if the F proves to be a popular seller.  It could be possible that those former LR frames would have aux tanks installed.

 

Some cargo operators might actually want the flexibility.  I don't know what the dry weight of the aux tanks, but I was able to load the LRF with 3 full Aux tanks and about 45% cargo load at MGTOW.  Ok so most likely freighters will want to operate at 100% cargo load.  However what about the ability to fly something halfway around the world without refueling.  Specialized cargo.  Disaster relief.  Currently the only other aircraft that can do that are military transports with aerial refueling capability. 

 

Actually in absolute range, I think the KC-10 can match the LR with aux tanks or is pretty close.  If you consider the USAF as a specialized cargo operator, they enjoy the flexibility on their tankers.  Take a KC-10, you can load the aux tanks and use it as a tanker, or empty the aux tanks and load the main deck for use as a freighter.   

 

What if a KC-777 is selected as the KC-10's eventual replacement...it is possible.  Look how many years the 767 airframe was in service before it was offered as a KC-767.   If the Air Force orders the KC-777 wouldn't it be based on the freighter variant with aux tanks installed?

 

It is all about possibilities.  Are the FS cops going to arrest me and a few others for flying a 777-Combi that doesn't exist in real life?  They can try lol.  Will I be not allowed to fly online if I fly an airplane that doesn't exist?  Who cares what PMDG 'allows' some customers to do with some feature as long as you can disable that feature.  Boy the FS cops are really going to have for me when I fly a DC-6 painted in JetBlue colors.  Good thing no dev has released the flying Winnebago from Spaceballs...I would fly that thing all over FS.  Why...because it is fun, and there are no rules in FS.    :lol:

 

Cheers

TJ

 

 

That's not what I was trying to get at. When the NGX was released, I remember people asking why there wasn't a 600 series with winglets. PMDG staff made it clear that it was not available in real life, so they would not model it.

 

Well there's model and model... Not modelling something not existing in real life when it would take a couple hundred manhours to model is different to modeling something that probably does not exists as such in real life, but could concievably exist quite simply, while actually saving manhours by not having to create different config options for F and pax LR....

 

Therefore, incomparable, and:

 

 

 

Allowing the AUX tanks on the F version almost contradicts the whole winglets on the 737-600.

does not hold water.

and:

 

jarhead565, on 12 Sept 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

 

Allowing the AUX tanks on the F version almost contradicts the whole winglets on the 737-600.

 

does not hold water.

 

Right.

 

Folks, if you don't like it (because it cannot be purchased), don't set it (AUX in 777F)! Done! 

 I took the plane and made SIA22 (SIN-EWR), full fuel, no AUX Tanks and payload to MTOW with "Clear skies" to be wind-free. It didn't make it. I had to  cheat use more fuel from a suddenly spawned AUX Fuel Tank  :rolleyes:

 

The B77L's range is supposedly greater than the A345's right? I think my mistake was to set the CI to 999 for 2/4s of the flight before reducing it. I ended up landing with a CI of 5 

 

 I'll set the CI to 80 and lower the total payload to 65-70% with full fuel and no AUX tanks for the return and see what's up.

 

If I don't make it back I must be missing something  :ph34r:

 I took the plane and made SIA22 (SIN-EWR), full fuel, no AUX Tanks and payload to MTOW with "Clear skies" to be wind-free. It didn't make it. I had to  cheat use more fuel from a suddenly spawned AUX Fuel Tank  :rolleyes:

 

The B77L's range is supposedly greater than the A345's right? I think my mistake was to set the CI to 999 for 2/4s of the flight before reducing it. I ended up landing with a CI of 5 

 

 I'll set the CI to 80 and lower the total payload to 65-70% with full fuel and no AUX tanks for the return and see what's up.

 

If I don't make it back I must be missing something  :ph34r:

 

SIA uses CI of 150 on their 777s.

So, again, should not choosing 1 or 3 AUX tank(s) increase the GW and reduce the freight capacity? 

So, again, should not choosing 1 or 3 AUX tank(s) increase the GW and reduce the freight capacity? 

I suspect from the lack of information in Mr. Boeing's documents that empty dry weight vary significantly more from aircraft to aircraft than adding some really lightweight composite honeycomb fuel tanks.

So, again, should not choosing 1 or 3 AUX tank(s) increase the GW and reduce the freight capacity? 

 

Not necessarily. Aux tanks should increase your empty weight a bit, but so do various other customer options. Unless they're actually taking up space in the cargo compartment they won't reduce the maximum cargo capacity though. MTOW is the maximum amount of weight you can put in your aircraft, it's up to you how you want to divide that up between fuel and payload. Even without aux tanks a T7 probably can't simultaneously carry maximum payload and maximum full.

 

I suspect from the lack of information in Mr. Boeing's documents that empty dry weight vary significantly more from aircraft to aircraft than adding some really lightweight composite honeycomb fuel tanks.

 

The aux tanks are composite honeycomb? Do you have a source for that, seems like an odd choice.

 

 

Unless they're actually taking up space in the cargo compartment they won't reduce the maximum cargo capacity though.

 

Hm, right, the density of your cargo could be higher. 

The aux tanks are composite honeycomb? Do you have a source for that, seems like an odd choice.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2012HOC-Presentations/Tuesday/Tues%201400%20Marshall%20Aerospace.pdf

 

The 2nd generation tanks (for 744ER) are explicitly "dual-wall honeycomb" construction. The 3rd generation (77L) looks to be constructed with the same materials. It's likely a kevlar/aramid composite of some sort. Honeycomb structure is renowned for being resistive to out-of-plane shear and compressive forces for its weight and is a good choice for a fuel tank design.