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

31–40 of 64 posts

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

#31

Post by sandworm101 »

Scoundreller wrote: post #26
sandworm101 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is actually rather common. Many airlines running shorter flights will not refuel at every stop. It saves time on the ground, which can be more valuable then fuel.

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

#33

Post by darknavi »

beaviskhan wrote: post #9

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

Seattle to Joburg is brutal. It's ~23 hours of flying with a lay over somewhere like Dubai. As much as a 23 hour flight sounds terrible, it's hard for me to express how much dread I felt getting back onto a plane right after a 13 hour flight. I'd rather just hunker down for the full day I think.

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

#34

Post by schiffern »

Scoundreller wrote: post #15
lazide wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just… computer controlled air vents?

may not be worth the aero hit. Kinda like running a/c in a car at high speeds instead of opening the windows. Not sure where the crossover point is. In my dreams, my ultra-advanced car would open the windows when braking to get two benefits in one.

  >In my dreams, my ultra-advanced car would open the windows when braking to get two benefits in one.
Or use those triangular vent windows / wing windows, as seen on old trucks and classic cars.

https://www.fastlanecars.com/blog/wing-windows-history-and-c...

https://www.ccjdigital.com/trucks/article/15749837/the-story...

You could quickly flip it open with a servo when braking, controlled by a differential thermostat so it only pulls in air when the outside isn't too much hotter than inside. I think you actually want a negative thermostat offset, because even if it's a couple degrees warmer you still get moving air.

Compared to rolling down the window you don't get the loud buffeting sound, it acts as a really good aero-brake, and it pulls in huge amounts of air. There's the downside that it will preferentially pull in air around intersections, where traffic pollution tends to peak due to braking and accelerating (EVs help but there's still brake and tire dust).

Love this honestly. It has definite "shitty project" potential...

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

#35

Post by cobolcomesback »

WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #32

The Sydney / London flight most direct path cross Russia and that's already 17000km so probably it has to go south of Iran and that's another 1000km thus 18000km total.

The route Qantas has stated they will use (at least for part of the year due to weather and winds) actually goes northeast over the Pacific Ocean, over the central US/Canada, over the North Pole, and then into the UK from the north. It doesn’t go over Asia at all.

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

#36

Post by inigyou »

Scoundreller wrote: post #30
literalAardvark wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's okay that different businesses specialise differently. Icelandic Air can do the two short hops and Qantas can focus on the super long nonstop routes, they're both valid. When companies in an industry become carbon copies of each other, they race to the bottom and the industry rapidly enshittifies.

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

#37

Post by inigyou »

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.

I've traveled UK to Australia a few times. Not nonstop, but with stops in SE Asia, basically 2x13 hours plus a few hours airport time.

It sucks, but you get over it because how else are you going to get there? If you don't suffer blood clots or something, it isn't really actively dangerous.

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

#38

Post by matt_kantor »

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…

A compromise option is a technical stop[0] where the plane lands to refuel but passengers don't have to transfer to another aircraft (and often don't even have to deplane). I've never experienced one of these but it sounds way less annoying/stress-inducing than a connecting flight.

[0]: https://travel.stackexchange.com/q/1598

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

#39

Post by inigyou »

alwa wrote: post #28
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).

Especially on the same routes where you’d think about using this kind of airliner... https://www.airnewzealand.com/economy-skynest

You just know this is going to be 2-3 times the price of an economy seat, which means you're going to buy the economy seat anyway. In flights, price beats everything else.

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

#40

Post by post-it »

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.

Just like The Jaunt by Stephen King. "It's longer than you think, dad! ...about 22 hours."
Post reply on HN