Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

airbus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#21

Post by literalAardvark »

Scoundreller wrote: post #14
beaviskhan wrote: post #9

> flight times of up to 22 hours Making flight connections is never fun, but this sounds absolutely brutal.

Also bad for fuel economy (and/or take a hit on cargo/pax/luggage carrying capacity): You have to take off with all that fuel even though you only need X / hr. Increased weight = more flying at a lower altitude (+ air resistance) until the fuel burn makes it safe to fly higher. On shorter flights, you still have the weight impact from that empty tank and its infra. If they had to make a bump out on the fuselage, you…

You're still cutting a take off and landing so I can't imagine it'd be too hard to break even for flights where this increased capacity is helpful.

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#22

Post by toast0 »

beaviskhan wrote: post #9

> flight times of up to 22 hours Making flight connections is never fun, but this sounds absolutely brutal.

22 hours is a very long time to be in a plane. But, being able to skip a stop in a 3rd nation is likely worthwhile for many. Depending on the routes, it will likely reduce the overall travel time significantly and a meaningful amount of time in the air.

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#23

Post by anonzzzies »

wildzzz wrote: post #10
beaviskhan wrote: post #9

> flight times of up to 22 hours Making flight connections is never fun, but this sounds absolutely brutal.

I'd love to visit Australia and SE Asia but am hesitant with those long flights. I'd probably be fine with layflat seats but those are well beyond what I'd ever consider paying for an airline ticket.

Many of colleagues do this all the time, usually via the Middle East. I did it before; it sucks but with enough gin tonic and melatonin it goes by in with too much pain.

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#24

Post by 27183 »

Scoundreller wrote: post #16
wildzzz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to visit Australia and SE Asia but am hesitant with those long flights. I'd probably be fine with layflat seats but those are well beyond what I'd ever consider paying for an airline ticket.

Would make sense to offer packages with lay-flat seats in shifts (possibly formally/informally for people on the same ticket).

You could pack a lot more in if you sedate them and put them in racks like they have at the morgue. TBH I'd sign up for that on a long flight if the sedative recovery wasn't bad.

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#25

Post by soulofmischief »

beaviskhan wrote: post #9

> flight times of up to 22 hours Making flight connections is never fun, but this sounds absolutely brutal.

What are the economics of connecting flights? I'd imagine that max flight time isn't the only factor; hubs allow people to move around via connecting flights in a way that might not be economically acceptable if all flights were direct.

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#26

Post by Scoundreller »

sandworm101 wrote: post #18
Scoundreller wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also bad for fuel economy (and/or take a hit on cargo/pax/luggage carrying capacity): You have to take off with all that fuel even though you only need X / hr. Increased weight = more flying at a lower altitude (+ air resistance) until the fuel burn makes it safe to fly higher. On shorter flights, you still have the weight impact from that empty tank and its infra. If they had to make a bump out on the fuselage, you…

But it may allow operation of more routes without the need to refuel at both ends. That can be logistically interesting, paticularly going forward in a world of fuel crisis and uncertainty. Being able to deliver people in and out of Cuba without having to refuel in that country would be a market niche.

Assuming you can regularly land with your fuel tanks half-full. You could overbuild everything to support that, but usually airlines don't want to pay for a niche design to support that. I'd bet military aircraft do get that treatment though.

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#27

Post by nine_k »

literalAardvark wrote: post #21
Scoundreller wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also bad for fuel economy (and/or take a hit on cargo/pax/luggage carrying capacity): You have to take off with all that fuel even though you only need X / hr. Increased weight = more flying at a lower altitude (+ air resistance) until the fuel burn makes it safe to fly higher. On shorter flights, you still have the weight impact from that empty tank and its infra. If they had to make a bump out on the fuselage, you…

You're still cutting a take off and landing so I can't imagine it'd be too hard to break even for flights where this increased capacity is helpful.

Not only do take-offs spend large amounts of fuel; the fact of a landing and the servicing and refueling in the airport also cost the airlines.

Not having to land but instead having to carry some extra fuel while the engines work in their most efficient mode, and the air drag is low at a high altitude, should make airlines money. Else they won't try that :)

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#28

Post by alwa »

Scoundreller wrote: post #16
wildzzz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to visit Australia and SE Asia but am hesitant with those long flights. I'd probably be fine with layflat seats but those are well beyond what I'd ever consider paying for an airline ticket.

Would make sense to offer packages with lay-flat seats in shifts (possibly formally/informally for people on the same ticket).

Especially on the same routes where you’d think about using this kind of airliner...

https://www.airnewzealand.com/economy-skynest

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#29

Post by throwaway173738 »

27183 wrote: post #24
Scoundreller wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would make sense to offer packages with lay-flat seats in shifts (possibly formally/informally for people on the same ticket).

You could pack a lot more in if you sedate them and put them in racks like they have at the morgue. TBH I'd sign up for that on a long flight if the sedative recovery wasn't bad.

Next stop Phlosten Paradise.

Re: Rear center fuel tank adds roughly 20k liters and extends range by 1k NM

#30

Post by Scoundreller »

literalAardvark wrote: post #21
Scoundreller wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also bad for fuel economy (and/or take a hit on cargo/pax/luggage carrying capacity): You have to take off with all that fuel even though you only need X / hr. Increased weight = more flying at a lower altitude (+ air resistance) until the fuel burn makes it safe to fly higher. On shorter flights, you still have the weight impact from that empty tank and its infra. If they had to make a bump out on the fuselage, you…

You're still cutting a take off and landing so I can't imagine it'd be too hard to break even for flights where this increased capacity is helpful.

It's basically the business model for some airlines like the Icelandic and middle eastern ones. Hub in the middle so you're not paying (potentially extra) staff to rest on an aircraft and/or hotels at each end. Be at home more rather than an out-station. Fuel up more where its cheaper. Do some "scissor" routing. Fly cheaper/less specialized aircraft. Not as easy for Qantas to get all those advantages. Cargo airlines do the same to carry more cargo.
Post reply on HN