A380 LOOOOOOOONGest Flight Challenge

What is the longest flight with the New A380?

As the A380 is released, it’s time to test the longest possible non-stop range for the Super Jumbo!

See max flight range of other aircrafts

Under M0.85 and FL320 unless otherwise stated

A318/A319/A320:9hrs
A321:12.5hrs
A33F:18.5hrs
A333:22hrs
A339:22.5hrs
A346:15.5hrs
A359:24.5hrs
OldA388:21.5hrs
NewA388 (4 engine):22.5hrs
NewA388 (3 engine):26.5hrs
BCS3(A220-300):9hrs(M0.78)
B737:18.5hrs
B738/B739: 10.5hrs
B742:19hrs
B744:17hrs
B748:20.5hrs
B752:11hrs
B763:22.5hrs
B772/B77W:25.5hrs
B77F:29hrs
B77L:30hrs
B788:22.5hrs
B789/B78X:20.5hrs
C17:12hrs(M0.68)
CRJ2:6.5hrs
C750(Cessna Citation X):12.5hrs
DC10/1F:20hrs
MD11/1F:15hrs
C130H:16hrs(M0.54)

Attending this challenge you would need to config your A380 with the:

  • Max Fuel
  • Zero Pax & Cargo

Your response should contain:

  • Your departure airport, “midway” airports (See Example), and Destination.
  • Your time of flight and range in nm (check your flight plan in the map)
  • Your cruise speed (in Mach) and height (in FL)
Example (Invalid though)

This is my flight plan,

My response (currently completely made up)

FPL: HAAB-(OMDB)-(VTBD)-(YPPH)-(FMSD)-(FNLU)-HECA
Time: 25h42m; range: 13845nm
M0.85, FL320.

Remember, you do NOT land at these “midway airports” as we are challenging the jumbo for the LOOOOOONGest non-stop flight!

13 Likes

I have done a 6-hour flight before

1 Like

I did a 12 hour flight with just fuel, no pax and no cargo and it used about half the A380’s fuel capacity.

So with max fuel, I reckon it could probably go around 24 hours or so.

4 Likes

I haven’t flown on the new A380 yet but I’ve done a 12 hour flight from Chicago to Dubai on the old A380

1 Like

I want to do Tokyo Narita to Paris CDG

Midway airports? Why don’t you just file a flight plan with waypoints and VORs/NDBs?

You can do Seoul to New York

Single point data estimate says about 22:20 but I’ll update later

2 Likes

Can you do an A380 guide

Eventually yeah I’ll put out a fuel guide and update the calculator

3 Likes

Flew this last night, and just departed another leg back to ZGGG.

Route: ZGGG-KLAX-LFBO
Flight time: 22:12
Cruise: FL330, M0.85
Fuel used: 251,084kg (landed with 1% fuel remaining lol)
Distance: Around 12300nm (couldn’t check since I cleared my flight plan alrdy)

4 Likes

Just did the numbers, looks like a theoretical maximum is around 22:32. Although, the A380 does have some very weird burn characteristics so I could be very off.

This aircraft also looks like it could be a good candidate for 2 engine ops, would expect 30+ hours @ 0.85 but have not tested.

6 Likes

To increase it even more, and this seems counterintuitive, but for an aircraft of this size and weight, I think carrying 2-7% less fuel than the maximum would make it last a tiny bit longer, since fuel is needed to carry fuel, and the less weight (without a significant loss in fuel capacity) would help it fly longer.

2 Likes


Just started this. I’ll end up ending 10 hrs in anyways. Casual Server time building.

5 Likes

Tokyo to Hawaii

That’s counterintuitive for a reason.

Plane A: 100% fuel
Plane B: 95% fuel

Plane A takes off and uses 1% of its fuel to get to cruise. Plane B does the same.

Plane A flies and burns 5% more of its fuel, at which point it has 94% fuel and thus is burning the same amount as Plane B which has just gotten to TOC. The two planes weigh the same and have the same fuel onboard meaning they have the same remaining flight time. However, Plane A has already flown for 5% fuel (excluding climb) before this point, so its overall flight time is longer.

I get where your notion comes from but it doesn’t hold up.

5 Likes

Maybe 5% is too much, however there probably is an amount that is very, very close to 100% that would probably be more efficient. I think the more efficient a jet is, the more this effect is amplified. Speaking of efficiency, especially since there would be two distinct sessions, flying an A380 with two engines at a time could also make a candidate for this.

2 Likes

No. Even if you burn more fuel on takeoff the 100% plane will eventually equalize with the almost 100% plane and it will be higher in altitude. There is no world where this works.

2 Likes

In a very close scenario (say, 99.999%) chance, the extra fuel burn on takeoff would need hundreds of hours of flight time to catch up with the one without 100%. I’d say that even though in an unrestricted simulation with no limits the 100% would always overtake, in a real scenario the aircraft’s limit in range would mean that the 99.999 would keep a lead that the 100 could not overtake in time.

2 Likes

If you can prove this mathematically somehow then please do let me know, but I think I’d wait for a 1+1 = 3 proof first.

Regardless of burn amount, the 100% plane will have an inherent lead on the 99.999% plane, at which point they are the same plane. The only difference is, the 100% plane has already flown 1 minute or whatever and thus would have 1 minute more range.

Provide me a list of fuel burns against fuel percentage that results in the 99.999% plane having more range.

3 Likes