London to Sydney Non-Stop Test Flight Today

[noTAGlove]

If you are a bit of an avgeek like me you can follow the Qantas 787 test flight from London to Sydney on Flightradar24.

It took off a 6am this morning and is due into Sydney around noon.

[HappyJack]

I'm looking forward to seeing this route in service - the saving in time with stopover and less direct routing should be a big improvement. I've done the Perth-London and the return trip a couple of times, and prefer it, but there's a 3 hours plus wait in Perth, which makes it not much quicker compared to the routes via Asia or Dubai.

[noTAGlove]

Here's the link to track the flight if anyone is interested. Flight number QF 7879

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/qf7879

[petethegeek]

There's a couple of short video clips available on the BBC website which give some more detail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-...ndon-to-sydney

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-...on-stop-flight

[paul360m]

Sod that - nearly 20 hrs in economy is my absolute definition of hell!!

Wonder if this is possible with a full load of passengers??

Incredible achievement though!

[vulcangascompany]

Crikey I struggle on a full flight LON-LAX - and thats a working day less. The movies had better be good to distract!

[Peck]

It’s undoubtedly a great achievement and if they can operate it viably (financially) I’m sure it will have a market. I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up as a business class heavy configuration which would obviously bring down weight considerably. Also, being stuck in economy for 19 hours would be pretty hellish - personally, if travelling in the cheap seats I’d still rather go via Singapore / KL / wherever and have a break en route.

[number2]

It’s undoubtedly a great achievement and if they can operate it viably (financially) I’m sure it will have a market. I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up as a business class heavy configuration which would obviously bring down weight considerably. Also, being stuck in economy for 19 hours would be pretty hellish - personally, if travelling in the cheap seats I’d still rather go via Singapore / KL / wherever and have a break en route.

Yep, a sort of latter day 'red eye'.

[broxie]

This can only be a proving flight, it can't be commercially viable. Other airlines have tried the business class model and failed even on profitable transatlantic routes.

The QF flight took 19'19" yesterday. That would equate to a fuel burn of around 99,000kgs. Plus, say 3,000kg for an alternate, 2,000kgs contingency, 2,000kg reserve fuel and 400kgs for taxi out of Heathrow, then that's a fuel load of 106,400kgs. The max usuable on a 787-9 is 101kg at an SG of 0.8 so they must have adjusted the flight plan figures somehow.

With full tanks then of 101,000kg, and an empty weight of around 130,000kg, then that only leaves room for a payload of 16,000kg to reach the max take off weight of 247,200kgs. That's a max of 160 passengers with no freight. Cargo makes money for the airline, so I can't believe they wouldn't just run a freighter. The 787 is fairly unique in that it has temperature controlled holds so airlines can make a lot of money shipping temp sensitive cargo.

Normal payloads on a 787 are more like 30,000kgs, double what the QF could have carried. I can't see this ever being a regular flight. The numbers don't work for a 787.

[Bondurant]

I think I would be on the verge of madness by the end of that kind of journey in economy

[Peck]

This can only be a proving flight, it can't be commercially viable. Other airlines have tried the business class model and failed even on profitable transatlantic routes.

The QF flight took 19'19" yesterday. That would equate to a fuel burn of around 99,000kgs. Plus, say 3,000kg for an alternate, 2,000kgs contingency, 2,000kg reserve fuel and 400kgs for taxi out of Heathrow, then that's a fuel load of 106,400kgs. The max usuable on a 787-9 is 101kg at an SG of 0.8 so they must have adjusted the flight plan figures somehow.

With full tanks then of 101,000kg, and an empty weight of around 130,000kg, then that only leaves room for a payload of 16,000kg to reach the max take off weight of 247,200kgs. That's a max of 160 passengers with no freight. Cargo makes money for the airline, so I can't believe they wouldn't just run a freighter. The 787 is fairly unique in that it has temperature controlled holds so airlines can make a lot of money shipping temp sensitive cargo.

Normal payloads on a 787 are more like 30,000kgs, double what the QF could have carried. I can't see this ever being a regular flight. The numbers don't work for a 787.

Thanks for posting Broxie that’s really interesting. Is it possibility just a publicity stunt?

[Kingstepper]

This can only be a proving flight, it can't be commercially viable. Other airlines have tried the business class model and failed even on profitable transatlantic routes.

The QF flight took 19'19" yesterday. That would equate to a fuel burn of around 99,000kgs. Plus, say 3,000kg for an alternate, 2,000kgs contingency, 2,000kg reserve fuel and 400kgs for taxi out of Heathrow, then that's a fuel load of 106,400kgs. The max usuable on a 787-9 is 101kg at an SG of 0.8 so they must have adjusted the flight plan figures somehow.

With full tanks then of 101,000kg, and an empty weight of around 130,000kg, then that only leaves room for a payload of 16,000kg to reach the max take off weight of 247,200kgs. That's a max of 160 passengers with no freight. Cargo makes money for the airline, so I can't believe they wouldn't just run a freighter. The 787 is fairly unique in that it has temperature controlled holds so airlines can make a lot of money shipping temp sensitive cargo.

Normal payloads on a 787 are more like 30,000kgs, double what the QF could have carried. I can't see this ever being a regular flight. The numbers don't work for a 787.

Indeed, stated on linked BBC report wouldn't work with current planes (and regulations).