WorldTraveler

That's why I thought ETOPS now means:

Entrees To Offer Pacific Sharks

dojetdriver

Why do people think that ETOPS means over water? Aircraft that operate from the middle east to west Africa are ALSO dispacted under ETOPs. Has NOTHING to do with being over water, just that aircraft may be on a route where a suitable field is outside the normal criteria and ETOPs dispatch is required.

What exactly is "pacific long haul"? Would you consider 12 hours "long haul"?

Both QA (A330) and AZ (777) operate non stop from LAX to AKL.

Phantom Flyer

Once again III Corps, you're correct. The P-51 was a great example as Tony Williams said. There were a number of fatal accidents with low pass attempts made by inexperienced "piston pounder pilots" who poured the coals to a Mustang and were late with the rudder application. Opps.

I was thinking more along the lines of transport category aircraft that had an inordinate amount of power for the wing they were attached to. The -8 with the CFM's was the best example although the 727 with -17R engines could get dicey at altitude as well.

G'Day Mates

(Old I Corps guy)

Photon

Most important feature: Trijet is more sexy =)

rickair7777

I know what ETOPS means. Most of the routes which are too long for the historical ETOPS are in the pacific area, and the absence of divert fields is due to all that water.

I don't know if "long haul" has an actual definition, but I would say it's longer than 12 hours.

Twin Wasp

You ought to see a Seven Two with a 219,17,219 combo! Performance charts? We don't got no performance charts! We don't need no stinking performance charts.

BoilerUP

Question about "overpowered", "underwinged" airplanes:

What about these airframes (CFM-powered DC8, -17 powered 727) makes them a handful at altitude?

Obviously the available thrust lets them get to altitude and get up to speed...does it just put the airplane closer to the coffin corner due to the wing?

I very often hear the Lear 60 is vastly underwinged and mildly overpowered, preventing the plane from taking full advantage of the available thrust for altitude/speed efficiency.

W0X0F

It has more to do with distance to an alternate (207 minutes) A 767ER cannot do that much, but the 777 is certified for that range. I know nothing about the 330. There are not a lot of divert fields in the south Pacific which is why the 747 is a good candidate for those routes (assuming the economics work) The 787 will probably be a big player in this arena assuming it ever goes into production. Anyway, the point is, the total length of the flight is not the issue here, it is the distance to alternates.

dojetdriver

Yeah dude, I know. Hence the very FIRST sentence I wrote. Has NOTHING to do with water, just the distance to a suitable alternate. Whether you're crossing the pacific or tranversing northern Africa.

For some reason, people think the O in ETOPs means overwater.

tuna hp

If you have engines that are "overpowered" for a given flight level, could you just build the plane to fly higher to get better efficiency than you could at a lower FL with smaller engines?

Why do huge airliners fly so low, anyway? I've read that typical intercontinental flight paths are in the FL350 to FL400 range. New intercontinental business jet usually start from MTOW at FL410 and reach FL490 at some point.

In another related aeronautics question about wings:

If you wanted to fly at M.80 speed and wanted to improve efficiency at that speed by flying higher, would the wing you build for M.80 at some higher altitude give better takeoff and climb performance than the wing you would build to fly M.80 at a lower altitude?

I understand that for slower flying, a higher aspect ratio lower sweep wing is preferable while you want a lower aspect ratio and more sweep for faster flying at a given flight level. This is because of the incidences of induced vs parasitic drag. Also, I understand that for a given speed, the higher you are flying, the more you deal with induced drag versus parasitic drag. It seems to me that airframers should be leveraging the strength of composite materials to change game as far as how high airliners are flying. Yes your pressure vessel needs to be stronger but if you can improve efficiency, low speed handling (and hence probably safety), while decreasing turbulence, it seems like a win.

I say "improved low speed handling" based on my guess that a wing designed to fly M.80 at FL500 should be better when flying low and slow than a typical airliner today that is designed to fly M.80 at FL350.