Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Speed And Fuel Efficiency - Optimum?  
User currently offlineTheBigOne From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 240 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4843 times:

I was wondering at what cruise speed a large jet like the 747 would gain the best distance vs fuel use? For example most passenger cars, 55 - 60mph returns the best mileage for the amount of fuel burnt, but they can go on to do over a 100mph. Would a 747 cruising at M 0.70 burn less fuel on a trans-atlantic crossing than if were doing M 0.86?


Reach for the stars - they are closer than you think!
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4538 times:

Most older airliners had Long Range Cruise performance charts which probably represented nearly optimum fuel efficiency. New ones this information is in the Flight Management Computers and is not directly accessible for the pilots.

LRC had us begin the cruise phase at a slightly higher mach number than we might have selected if we were doing a constant-mach cruise, but slowing down as fuel burns off and the plane gets lighter. Thus we might have, for some specific airplane, begun cruise at M .79 and ended up at top of descent at maybe M .75 or .76

Of course it often also would call for a step climb for longer flights, as going higher when able is always more efficient.

These Cruise charts were wonderfully accurate. The "box" might have shown you your IAS, TAS, EPR or N1, fuel flow, EGT and mach number. Other than the primary power-setting, these were "target values" but were normally right on the money. If the N1 or fuel flow required to give the charted mach number began to increase over time, you might expect that the engines were nearing overhaul.

As great as FMC is, I miss having access to these charts.





Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 4408 times:

Aerodynamics-wise, a particular aircraft's speed for "best mileage" is that which is associated with the point at which a straight line drawn from the origin of the aircraft's thrust-required graph and tangent to its thrust-required curve touches the curve (pardon the mouthful!). That's the maximum-range speed and it is obviously the speed at which you go the farthest. But in addition to going the farthest at that speed, you also maintain the highest distance-flown to fuel-used ratio - in the original poster's words, you get the best "mileage."

This maximum-range speed understandably varies from aircraft to aircraft, and is much slower than you'd think.

Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4367 times:

Such a rule must be based on some sort of assumption about engine efficiency vs speed, or vs thrust... maybe constant SFC? (Constant with respect to speed, or with respect to thrust?)

But clearly if we want to minimize the work done over a given distance we fly at the speed for minimum drag.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6545 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4357 times:

It is mostly a question about minimizing the drag. Therefore weight and altitude are the most important factors. The optimum thing is to constantly climb and possibly bleed off a little speed at weight goes does with the fuel burn.

Wind is another very important factor. In headwind you may improve overall fuel consumption by speeding up a little, and visa versa. The navigation system will give you an exact ground speed which can be compared to TAS.

But the real jackpot is knowing the altitude where you have the most favorable wind and have that altitude cleared by ATC.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Such a rule must be based on some sort of assumption about engine efficiency vs speed, or vs thrust... maybe constant SFC? (Constant with respect to speed, or with respect to thrust?)

But clearly if we want to minimize the work done over a given distance we fly at the speed for minimum drag.


You don't want to minimize drag, minimizing work is the right answer; however, this is not synonymous to minimizing drag. Hence why Qantas332 is correct about the tangent line approximation. This is better than cruising at best L/D (provided there are no drag divergence problems).

This works because jet aircraft are thrust limited systems, vs. power limited for props. The cruise climb maintaining the work minimization scheme is the most efficient cruise (Mach will increase in this mode, so you may hit the drag divergence limit, in which case you move back down the curve to max L/D). Of course ATC won't give you a true cruise climb; however, a the stepped climb gets you almost all of the same benefit.

P.S. On the first order SFC is assumed to be relatively constant, and thrust produced is solely a function of altitude.


User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

"minimizing work is the right answer; however, this is not synonymous to minimizing drag."

It is if you're measuring the two quantities at the same place-- "work" has no other definition. For all I know the tangent-to-the-curve rule works out best in practice, with jet airliners, but it wouldn't necessarily apply with some other kind of engine.

After all, a 747 burns what, maybe 11-12 kg/km in the cruise? Does a tug burn that much, towing the same-weight 747 on level pavement?


User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4277 times:

It is if you're measuring the two quantities at the same place-- "work" has no other definition. For all I know the tangent-to-the-curve rule works out best in practice, with jet airliners, but it wouldn't necessarily apply with some other kind of engine.

After all, a 747 burns what, maybe 11-12 kg/km in the cruise? Does a tug burn that much, towing the same-weight 747 on level pavement?


Minimizing drag assumes that the only losses are drag based which is not true. The differences are determined by the type of powerplant that is used, be it thrust or power limited. Thrust required (drag) trends with the square of the velocity, but power trends with the cube of velocity. That is why you don't want to fly a thrust limited system at maximum lift/drag (unless MDD is slower than L/D for best range), i.e., min drag (this maximizes endurance but not range). Ideally, with a perfectly ideal jet aircraft and no Mach limit you will fly it at a constant dynamic pressure and a L/D of 0.866 L/Dmax. The reason for doing this is that this is the maximum on the thrust/velocity/range surface.

The tug is power limited, just like prop drive systems are, this indicates that range would be maximized at the minimum drag point. This would not, however, maximize endurance.

Fuel burn is a direct relation to work performed and entropy losses, i.e., system power/efficiency. In powerplants the standard way of measuring fuel consumption is via time. TSFC of PSCF. to move from time to distance you need a velocity.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Speed And Fuel Efficiency - Optimum?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Summer Temperatures And Fuel And Range posted Fri Jul 21 2006 11:00:09 by Oly720man
Fuel Efficiency Of In-flight Refuelling Pax A/c posted Thu Jul 6 2006 08:08:11 by Art
Flight Plans And Fuel Forecasts posted Sun Aug 28 2005 20:49:23 by Johnomaha
Calculating Wind Speed And Direction posted Fri May 13 2005 21:02:54 by TimRees
Measuring Fuel-efficiency posted Sat Mar 26 2005 09:51:10 by DStuntz
Eastbound, Westbound, And Fuel Stops posted Tue Mar 22 2005 05:22:45 by Bruce
Specific Range And Fuel Consumption posted Thu Apr 22 2004 07:21:30 by B2707SST
Increasing Speed And Engine Power @landing? posted Sun May 20 2001 00:28:12 by TurboTristar
757 V-speed And Climbs posted Sun Jan 14 2001 05:08:59 by Trevordl757
Comparing Fuel Efficiency Of JT3D-3/7's & JT8D-9's posted Wed Oct 11 2000 23:44:40 by Happy-flier

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format