14 comments

[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 14.8 ms ] thread
> In addition, a new galley air cooling system will also be certified, which features lighter and more efficient refrigeration units for very long flights.

I wonder how they work.. considering outside air is way below freezing ar cruising altitude, I guess radiators?

Could the refrigerant be brought close to the plane's skin to cool it?

I think once bleed air is compressed to a suitable pressure it's hotter than room temperature, and has to be cooled down.
> flight times of up to 22 hours

Making flight connections is never fun, but this sounds absolutely brutal.

Yeah but the idea is most folks will fly direct.
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 have a permanent aerodynamics hit.

It's like permanently attaching a cargo carrier to your vehicle to carry more fuel. Fewer fuel stops, but more burn per mile. Can make sense in some situations.

The study of breaking up long-haul flights for reduced fuel burn is usually called: "Intermediate Stop Operations"

Does it actually take 22 hours for a commercial airplane to get to the diametrically opposite point on the globe?
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.
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.
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.
New A350's has better air quality, higher humidity and cabin pressure, and these long haul flits have less seats to reduce weight .. but it's still brutal.
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.
I like stop overs but I wish they counted toward flying time.