AF1 range/route/refueling?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
| "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| | "Brett" wrote in message
| | ...
| | wrote:
| | | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| | | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the
particular
| | | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual
to
| see a
| | | civilian 747 doing so.
| |
| | At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
| would
| | even consider it an option.
| |
| |
| |
| | Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway
|
| "crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be
what
| the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure.
|
|
| Actually crew endurance is a problem, rest facilities are usually only
| available for flight crews not the cabin crew which on a 747 or 777
| may be quite large.
|
| I have flown from the UK to Australia with stops at Bahrain
andSingapore
| that meant 2 crew changes each doing about 8 hours, we "cattle in the
back"
| were there for more than 24

So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief crews
available.

| | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
| | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
| | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
|
| And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
| Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high
priority
| passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
|
|
| The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however

By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying boat,
took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel shortly
after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its Western
flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop at
Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its
destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The
Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander,
Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success of
these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to the
service and continue operations in 1940.__

http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/pro...ugherty_sj.pdf

| and the cost was
| considered less than the alternatives which were limited.

What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft in
flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and without
inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
willing to pay in peacetime.
Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
variations).

| Land planes
| could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| option for flying boats.

How attractive is Botwood in winter?

"Brett" wrote in message
...

So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief crews
available.



The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume
12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need
to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.

| | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
| | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
| | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
|
| And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
| Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high
priority
| passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
|
|
| The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however

By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying boat,
took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel shortly
after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its Western
flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop at
Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its
destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The
Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander,
Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success of
these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to the
service and continue operations in 1940.__

http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/pro...ugherty_sj.pdf


So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.

| and the cost was
| considered less than the alternatives which were limited.

What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft in
flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and without
inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
willing to pay in peacetime.

Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now
but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in
nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.

The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
by the outbreak of war.


Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
variations).


I dont recall advocating this as a policy today, especially since modern
aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from
London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at that
point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and
clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point

| Land planes
| could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| option for flying boats.

How attractive is Botwood in winter?


Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
during WW2

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
|
| So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief
crews
| available.
|
|
|
| The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume
| 12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need
| to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
| sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.

Would it be on an A380, there appears to be plenty of volume available.

| | | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In
1939
| | | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| | | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted
Harrow
| | | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
| |
| | And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war,
Imperial
| | Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high
| priority
| | passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
| |
| |
| | The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however
|
| By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying
boat,
| took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel
shortly
| after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its
Western
| flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop
at
| Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its
| destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The
| Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander,
| Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success
of
| these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to
the
| service and continue operations in 1940.__
|
|
http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/pro...ugherty_sj.pdf
|
|
| So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.

16 crossing consituted the trials and I doubt they were finished before
the start of WWII.

| | and the cost was
| | considered less than the alternatives which were limited.
|
| What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft
in
| flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and
without
| inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
| willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
| willing to pay in peacetime.
|
| Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now
| but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in
| nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.

Your description for landplanes included stops in Iceland, that probably
had sea conditions similar to those observed in Newfoundland (it didn't
become part of Canada until after the war).

| The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
| trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
| by the outbreak of war.

That depends on how you read the data presented, they continued the
testing after the outbreak of war and extended the service during the
war.

| Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
| costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
| variations).
|
|
| I dont recall advocating this as a policy today,

Your comment was "Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew
endurance anyway". I don't believe would be a driving factor to either
the airlines or with enough rested relief crews available, with
government regulators.

| especially since modern
| aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from
| London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
| even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at
that
| point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and
| clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
| have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
| lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point

I believe I referred to them as "cattle in the back" and your original
comment said they could endure 24 hours, it sounds like they get
refreshment and cleaning stops along the way.

| | Land planes
| | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| | option for flying boats.
|
| How attractive is Botwood in winter?
|
|
| Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
| used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
| during WW2

Compared with coastal Iceland?

"Brett" wrote in message
news
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

|
| The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume
| 12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need
| to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
| sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.

Would it be on an A380, there appears to be plenty of volume available.


An A380 will need a bigger cabin crew so proportinately there
would seem to be little difference.

snip

|
| So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.

16 crossing consituted the trials and I doubt they were finished before
the start of WWII.


Hey its your data and it referred to 16 crossings having been made.

| | and the cost was
| | considered less than the alternatives which were limited.
|
| What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft
in
| flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and
without
| inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
| willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
| willing to pay in peacetime.
|
| Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now
| but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in
| nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.

Your description for landplanes included stops in Iceland, that probably
had sea conditions similar to those observed in Newfoundland (it didn't
become part of Canada until after the war).


Pardon !

How do sea conditions in Iceland affect land planes ?

A large swell makes putting down a flying boat rather
difficult but reall wont incommode a DC-4 much.

You may not be aware of it but the IFR option was downright
conventional when compared with the other options they tried.
In 1938 they tried Short-Mayo composite aircraft, which was a large
four-engined flying boat similar to the Empire design called 'Maia',
with a smaller seaplane ' Mercury' mounted on top. The 'Mercury'
was designed to carry mail over long distances but when fully laden
with fuel and mail, could not take off unassisted. Therefore the sole
purpose of 'Maia' was to take-off with 'Mercury' on its back (all engines
on both aircraft would be used for take-off), and when they got to a
suitable height they separated and 'Maia' would return to base, whilst
'Mercury' set off on its journey.


| The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
| trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
| by the outbreak of war.

That depends on how you read the data presented, they continued the
testing after the outbreak of war and extended the service during the
war.


Actually the last flight arrived in New York in Sept 1939.



| Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
| costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
| variations).
|
|
| I dont recall advocating this as a policy today,

Your comment was "Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew
endurance anyway". I don't believe would be a driving factor to either
the airlines or with enough rested relief crews available, with
government regulators.


AFAIK there are no regs preventing IFR for commercial aircraft but
the regulations on crew rest are pretty stringent.

| especially since modern
| aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from
| London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
| even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at
that
| point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and
| clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
| have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
| lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point

I believe I referred to them as "cattle in the back" and your original
comment said they could endure 24 hours, it sounds like they get
refreshment and cleaning stops along the way.


Not much, they get the option of stretching their legs for an hour
in the terminal. At Singapore I always head for the fitness club
on the 3rd floor and take a shower.

| | Land planes
| | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| | option for flying boats.
|
| How attractive is Botwood in winter?
|
|
| Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
| used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
| during WW2

Compared with coastal Iceland?


Well the idea was with IFR they didnt have to land seaplanes
at either location but could fly straight on to Montreal.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| news | "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
|
| |
| | The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you
assume
| | 12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a
need
| | to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
| | sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.
|
| Would it be on an A380, there appears to be plenty of volume
available.
|
|
| An A380 will need a bigger cabin crew so proportinately there
| would seem to be little difference.

Not that much bigger.

| snip
|
| |
| | So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.
|
| 16 crossing consituted the trials and I doubt they were finished
before
| the start of WWII.
|
|
| Hey its your data and it referred to 16 crossings having been made.

With the first one occurring August 5, the war started as far as you
would be concerned on September 3 that same year. If 16 crossing
occurred in less than 30 days, it sounds like the trials would have been
performed with the entire Imperial Airways Fleet and not the one
aircraft that they did use.

| | | and the cost was
| | | considered less than the alternatives which were limited.
| |
| | What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an
aircraft
| in
| | flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and
| without
| | inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British
Government
| | willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger
be
| | willing to pay in peacetime.
| |
| | Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is
now
| | but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land
in
| | nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.
|
| Your description for landplanes included stops in Iceland, that
probably
| had sea conditions similar to those observed in Newfoundland (it
didn't
| become part of Canada until after the war).
|
|
| Pardon !
|
| How do sea conditions in Iceland affect land planes ?

Pardon, your claim was that land planes could use Iceland, so could
flying boats.

| A large swell makes putting down a flying boat rather
| difficult but reall wont incommode a DC-4 much.
|
| You may not be aware of it but the IFR option was downright
| conventional when compared with the other options they tried.
| In 1938 they tried Short-Mayo composite aircraft, which was a large
| four-engined flying boat similar to the Empire design called 'Maia',
| with a smaller seaplane ' Mercury' mounted on top. The 'Mercury'
| was designed to carry mail over long distances but when fully laden
| with fuel and mail, could not take off unassisted. Therefore the sole
| purpose of 'Maia' was to take-off with 'Mercury' on its back (all
engines
| on both aircraft would be used for take-off), and when they got to a
| suitable height they separated and 'Maia' would return to base, whilst
| 'Mercury' set off on its journey.

All that to for a Government mail service.... cost not really an object
in the exercise.

| | The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
| | trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
| | by the outbreak of war.
|
| That depends on how you read the data presented, they continued the
| testing after the outbreak of war and extended the service during
the
| war.
|
|
| Actually the last flight arrived in New York in Sept 1939.

Do you have a source for that, since 16 crossings in about 30 days by
one 1930's Short Flying Boat sounds like the trials were a service
performed by more than one aircraft I've seen quoted as being used.

| | Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat
mile
| | costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent
price
| | variations).
| |
| |
| | I dont recall advocating this as a policy today,
|
| Your comment was "Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew
| endurance anyway". I don't believe would be a driving factor to
either
| the airlines or with enough rested relief crews available, with
| government regulators.
|
|
| AFAIK there are no regs preventing IFR for commercial aircraft but
| the regulations on crew rest are pretty stringent.

That's why I said "enough rested relief crews"

| | especially since modern
| | aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying
from
| | London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
| | even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at
| that
| | point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew)
and
| | clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
| | have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
| | lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point
|
| I believe I referred to them as "cattle in the back" and your
original
| comment said they could endure 24 hours, it sounds like they get
| refreshment and cleaning stops along the way.
|
|
| Not much, they get the option of stretching their legs for an hour
| in the terminal. At Singapore I always head for the fitness club
| on the 3rd floor and take a shower.

The "cattle in the back" got some rest from flying.

|
| | | Land planes
| | | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| | | option for flying boats.
| |
| | How attractive is Botwood in winter?
| |
| |
| | Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
| | used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
| | during WW2
|
| Compared with coastal Iceland?
|
|
| Well the idea was with IFR they didnt have to land seaplanes
| at either location but could fly straight on to Montreal.

That wasn't what they demonstrated, there was a landing off the coast of
Newfoundland at Botwood where they refueled the aircraft, prior to it
continuing its flight to Montreal (due to the possibility of ice during
the winter months?)