Gesamt
← Back to Squawk list
Qantas #8 from DFW to BNE can't make the nonstop for a second day
Second day in a row, QFA8 doesn't make it nonstop back to Australia. This route has been plagued with range problems due to aircraft performance/capacity. (flightaware.com) Mehr...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
@f4phlyer - in nil wind 100deg, the A380 would be limited to on MTOW by about 15T out of DFW - as you say, this *could* be the difference in also not being able to make it, but it's very close. Don't know the traffic loads, etc. but assuming a fuel load of ~220T, then useful load is around 30-35T, or enough for 300+ pax.
And regarding turn radius - the A380 has no problems with that. Can take a 90 deg turn on a 22m wide taxiway. FYI the rear bogies on the wing gear DO pivot - not in the same way as the B747, but it is there to assist with turns. You can actually do a u-turn on a 60m wide runway in an A380 without touching the sides.
The limit in DFW is pavement strength. The B747 is also over the limit by about 15%, but is operating on a *permanent* dispensation there. The A380 would be over the limit by more than 30%, and continued operation would damage the pavement, so no dispensation would be sought or granted.
@iflysx - Sadly, I think they did think twice about cancelling the SFO route.. unfortunately it looks like they decided to hand yet another Qantas route to Jetstar as part of what seems to be a progressive stripping of Qantas routes whilst building up the Jetstar ones.
And regarding turn radius - the A380 has no problems with that. Can take a 90 deg turn on a 22m wide taxiway. FYI the rear bogies on the wing gear DO pivot - not in the same way as the B747, but it is there to assist with turns. You can actually do a u-turn on a 60m wide runway in an A380 without touching the sides.
The limit in DFW is pavement strength. The B747 is also over the limit by about 15%, but is operating on a *permanent* dispensation there. The A380 would be over the limit by more than 30%, and continued operation would damage the pavement, so no dispensation would be sought or granted.
@iflysx - Sadly, I think they did think twice about cancelling the SFO route.. unfortunately it looks like they decided to hand yet another Qantas route to Jetstar as part of what seems to be a progressive stripping of Qantas routes whilst building up the Jetstar ones.
Qantas. Sorry.
Looks like Quantas should have thought twice before cancelling the YSSY-KSFO route.
While I haven't read all this dribble I haven't seen any discussion of departure OAT. I'm betting that with temps pushing 100+ in the DFW area they are right up against max 2nd segment climb limits. The A380 would probably be stretched as well. It all becomes a fine line trade off between payload and fuel. You depart with absolute min fuel requirements, refiles, etc. and all it takes is a headwind 10knots above forecast for an hour or so and the plan goes to pot as your reserves go out the tail pipe.
A380, I don't think it's max weight it's a matter of taxi turn radius. Without rotatable main gear the beast needs filets on all the turns to stay out of the mud.
A380, I don't think it's max weight it's a matter of taxi turn radius. Without rotatable main gear the beast needs filets on all the turns to stay out of the mud.
Well stated "Fleagle" senior PIC/EAL66508/What "a woman pilot in '79" w/a degree in Flying Safe/Wx arr with souls, even our own!I also applaude the PIC's here who likewise as a grasp of "the tension" that comes frm squeezing fuel, Jetstream Aware, Wx aware...for the rest, GO LOG SOME TIME!
My comment on the turn issue was the pictures that came out during certification about tire scrub in turns while taxiing. Very dramatic shots almost pulling the tire off the wheel. I do find your stress comment interesting as I seem to recall that one of the selling points in the beginning was that the beast would have equal or less tire loading than a 747.