AF1 range/route/refueling?

"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

David Lesher wrote in message ...
Turkey Dinner Tour

Now, http://gc.kls2.com/ says the Great Circle distance KADW-BGW
is 6200m, and AF1 has a published range of ~~7300 miles.

But Great Circle would have taken them across multiple countries,
including those evil fried potato folks; so I'd assume they did
not use that route.

I'd also assume they would never get near trouble without large
reserves.

Was there an unannounced refueling stop? I know the 747B's have
capability for in-flight refueling but doubt they would do that.


My guess is the flight was filed on a random track to
Portugal/southern Spain and then across the Med and across Turkey.
Given the time frame the eastbound NATs were active so they would have
stayed away from that elephant herd. Besides they would overfly all of
Europe that way. The best option would be to stay well south and go
feet wet immediately.
If they used a generic RCH ICAO (they could have always "borrowed" an
N number) filing it would not have raised any suspicions in the
various ACCs since lots of Reach flights are going to and fro. The
various controlling agencies would have no way of knowing that it
wasn't some scrufty 747 freightdawg from Evergreen or Polar.
A little digression. I would bet there are more than a few security
compromises in the various Middle Eastern ACCs that needed to be
considered.
A refueling just east of Spain somewhere would have been no problem
since its pretty empty out there and Santa Maria is laid back. I doubt
they would have landed anywhere because somebody somewhere would have
gotten on a phone or sent an email telling the tale of what they just
saw, although Lajes, Rota, and Torrejon are candidates I suppose. That
would have given them the fuel to get into SDA (or whatever its called
now) and back out over the Med and a join up with another tanker and
come back to the states.
I sure would like to know where the BA spotted them. My guess would be
in the crossing north-south traffic off of the west coast of Europe
since it was daylight by the time he would have been there.

"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?)

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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.

The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the rear
lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It is an
option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building them
in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a modification
to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming many
baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)

There was a story running around the plant that two Boeing employees were
caught in a 'compromising" postion in one. They fired the man but couldn't
fire the lady. It was her lunch break.

Every British Airways 747-400 had one as well as Quantas

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:knTxb.15767$o9.8859@fed1read07...



The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the rear
lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It is
an
option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building them
in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a
modification
to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming many
baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)


Its an option that isnt fitted to all aircraft and has bunks for 8 and
seats for two.

Keith

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:47:00 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:knTxb.15767$o9.8859@fed1read07...

The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the rear
lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It is
an
option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building them
in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a
modification
to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming many
baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)

Its an option that isnt fitted to all aircraft and has bunks for 8 and
seats for two.

There is also a 747 crew rest area that's between first and business
class. I've forgotten which airline and which model, but the choices
are pretty much United and PanAm.

I have also seen drawings of 747 crew rest areas just aft of the
cockpit. I think this version is a post-9/11 attempt to keep the
cockpit crews completely behind an unbreachable door, as there's a
lavatory in there, too.

I suspect that crew rest facilities are, like all the other options,
airline dependent and vary greatly. I would think that structural
modifications are required for the version in the rear, but even that
might be an aftermarket add-on.

At United, being on the second crew, flying to Oz, is called "Dozing
for Dollars".

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:47:00 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:knTxb.15767$o9.8859@fed1read07...

The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the
rear
lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It
is
an
option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building
them
in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a
modification
to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming
many
baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)

Its an option that isnt fitted to all aircraft and has bunks for 8 and
seats for two.

There is also a 747 crew rest area that's between first and business
class. I've forgotten which airline and which model, but the choices
are pretty much United and PanAm.

I have also seen drawings of 747 crew rest areas just aft of the
cockpit. I think this version is a post-9/11 attempt to keep the
cockpit crews completely behind an unbreachable door, as there's a
lavatory in there, too.


Not post 9/11 I saw this style of Flight crew rest in 1988 when I worked at
the Boeing factory.




I suspect that crew rest facilities are, like all the other options,
airline dependent and vary greatly. I would think that structural
modifications are required for the version in the rear, but even that
might be an aftermarket add-on.

For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many airlines
chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight with the
winglets, the FMS and the wet tail



At United, being on the second crew, flying to Oz, is called "Dozing
for Dollars".

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:knTxb.15767$o9.8859@fed1read07...



The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the rear
lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It
is
an
option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building
them
in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a
modification
to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming
many
baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)


Its an option that isnt fitted to all aircraft

said that

and has bunks for 8 and
seats for two.

Never seen one with seats. Are they jump seats or passenger seats? It is
somewhat cramp up there, I could not stand fully erect and I am six feet
tall



Keith

"Leadfoot" wrote:


For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many airlines
chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight with the
winglets, the FMS and the wet tail



Speaking of which...anyone any idea of how much this feature
actually saves? (wet tail system I mean).


-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Guess who?

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:K16yb.16632$o9.493@fed1read07...



and has bunks for 8 and
seats for two.

Never seen one with seats. Are they jump seats or passenger seats? It is
somewhat cramp up there, I could not stand fully erect and I am six feet
tall

Pass, the option is in the literature but I've not seen one either.

Keith