Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does Flying Slower Saves Fuel?  
User currently offlineJAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

I know that there are certain speeds an aircraft cruise depending on its type. However if a aircraft was to cruise slower would it help overall fuel economy. For example if a 747 normally cruise at mach .85 and was to cruise at .83 or .84 would it increase its fuel economy.

[Edited 2005-10-17 17:36:36]

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

C
R
U
I
S
E


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4383 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

JAM747,

Vast subject !
I'll start with a few pointers and the rest of us will elaborate, I'm sure.
1/- If by fuel economy, you refer to the trip burn-off, yes , a lower speed wiil improve your consumption.Up to a point. The main parameter is the aircraft incidence/AOA.You will then fly an incidence that would maximize your fuel flow.That incidence, identified on the "polar" graph means thatr your speed will decrease along with your weight. The catch is the bottom of that graph is a hard limit, flying slower means increasing your AOA,thus increasing the drag,thus your fuel burn-off.
On a 744, that speed normally gives you a .86/87 Mach at max weight, going down to .81/82 at the end of your flight.
2/-Economics are a balance of costs....Direct operating cost takes in all the expenses incurred for an average hour of flight.And very often, flying too slow will in fact increase your expenses (maintenance,crew,....). That's the reason why we'd input a cost index into our flight computers (its a formula that balances fuel price with DOC -and that statement is very simplistic).

That's the bulk of it, without going too far into flight aerodynamics and economy.

Regards.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineJAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
Vast subject !
I'll start with a few pointers and the rest of us will elaborate, I'm sure.
1/- If by fuel economy, you refer to the trip burn-off, yes , a lower speed wiil improve your consumption.Up to a point. The main parameter is the aircraft incidence/AOA.You will then fly an incidence that would maximize your fuel flow.That incidence, identified on the "polar" graph means thatr your speed will decrease along with your weight. The catch is the bottom of that graph is a hard limit, flying slower means increasing your AOA,thus increasing the drag,thus your fuel burn-off.
On a 744, that speed normally gives you a .86/87 Mach at max weight, going down to .81/82 at the end of your flight.
2/-Economics are a balance of costs....Direct operating cost takes in all the expenses incurred for an average hour of flight.And very often, flying too slow will in fact increase your expenses (maintenance,crew,....). That's the reason why we'd input a cost index into our flight computers (its a formula that balances fuel price with DOC -and that statement is very simplistic).

That's the bulk of it, without going too far into flight aerodynamics and economy.

Regards.

Thanks for your explanation. I did not realise that the the topic was so vast and technical.
Regards.


User currently offline727EMflyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Even a NW DC-9 thread could get vast and technical in this forum!

The aircraft manufacturers are nice enough to work out the math, and verify with test flights, what speeds will offer the best fuel economy. Even a little ole' C172's POH offers charts and graphs to help the pilot choose a speed. While working on my PPL my instructor advised me to fly at 2300 rpm, claiming it was best economy, and like a buffoon I took his word. However on my checkride, the DPE took me throught the tables and we worked out some math determined that operating at 2400 RPM gave a negligible increase in fuel consumption while providing a noteworthy increase in airspeed. Surely the airlines will care about a few hundred pounds of jet fuel, but like Pihero said, that fuel may be less expensive than the salaries that are being paid so long as the plane is moving. In the case of my wet rental rate though... hmm, which do I want more, a few tenths of an hour more in my log book or a couple ten dollars left in my pocket?????


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2740 times:



The total drag is shown in red, as a product of parasitic and induced drag. The maximum endurance (and hence least fuel use for a given unit of time) is at the turning point of the total drag curve. This is the maximum L/D airspeed point.

As fuel is burnt and the aircraft becomes lighter, the induced drag decreases and the maximum L/D occurs at a lower airspeed, and at a lower value of total drag. Bear in mind though that the actual value of L/D is only a funtion of angle of attack, not aircraft weight.

Commercial aircraft fly at a point on the positive gradient part of the total drag curve (the maximum range speed is the point at which a line drawn from the origon of that graph intercepts the total drag curve. So yes, commercial aircraft will use less fuel if they fly slower, up to a point, when the induced drag increases.


User currently offlineHiFi From Brazil, joined Apr 2005, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

L/D is not the best way to rate comercial flight efficiency.. It does not take the time variable into account!

A measure commonly used in the industry is ML/D (Mach*Lift/Drag). Just like Pihero explained, "time is money", and for the vast majority of airliners, the optimum cruise efficiency is at a speed slightly higher than minimum drag.. It represents a very small drag increase for a significant Mach increase.

Refer to some aircraft design bibliography if you want some more details and the maths of it all, it's very well documented.  Wink



no commercial potential
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2685 times:

Good answers already, basically:

1- Certain costs are related directly to flight duration, such as pilot and cabin crew wages.

2- Revenue per aircraft is also tied to flight duration, as additional sectors may be possible in one day by flying faster.

3- The drag curve has a global minimum, so there is a speed that minimizes fuel burn rate, however the minimum fuel burn rate does not mean minimum fuel burn for the trip (if you burn 4% less fuel per hour and fly 5% slower, you are actually spending more fuel).

A frequent parameter used to evaluate performance is ML/D, or mach*lift/drag. This is sometimes called "productivity". Of course it does not bring into the equation the costs I mentioned in (1) and (2), but it describes (3) pretty well.

mrocktor


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 7):
however the minimum fuel burn rate does not mean minimum fuel burn for the trip (if you burn 4% less fuel per hour and fly 5% slower, you are actually spending more fuel).

Which is why for minimum fuel burn per unit distance, you fly at the maximum range speed, which is marginally higher than the maximum range speed (max L/D speed).


User currently offlineRendezvous From New Zealand, joined May 2001, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

I believe the FMC on Boeing aircraft has two options: LRC (long range cruise) and ECON (economy cruise). The LRC burns the minimum fuel per distance I believe, whereas the ECON burns slightly more furl but takes less time. Is that correct?

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 8):
the maximum range speed, which is marginally higher than the maximum range speed (max L/D speed).

Lies! I meant, 'the maximum range speed, which is marginally higher than the maximum endurance speed (max L/D speed).


User currently offlineAviation From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 1143 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

Id say it would, but the greater benifit would be high altitude.

Also you have to think in a car you save fuel by going slower, however on a plane this is less effected because of air density at altitude, Drag in other words is less at high altitude. So, the effect of velocity vs. drag is reduced.

But, heres the big one does an airline what 5 flights a day or 4 flights a day and save a little on fuel costs?
I Know My Answer!

Cheers,



Signed, Aaron Nicoli - Trans World Airlines Collector
User currently offlineDc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2523 times:

During the fuel crisis in 1973/4 airlines flying longhaul often cruised at lower Mach speeds to save fuel. Modern Air was able to fly nonstop trans Atlantic charters using their thirsty CV990s flying at Mach .80.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29784 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2373 times:

All other things being equal you want to be at the bottom of the lift/drag cure that 777236ER put up.

That is all other things.

There really are way too many factors to narrow down fuel economy to a single factor.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Quoting Rendezvous (Reply 9):
believe the FMC on Boeing aircraft has two options: LRC (long range cruise) and ECON (economy cruise). The LRC burns the minimum fuel per distance I believe, whereas the ECON burns slightly more furl but takes less time. Is that correct?

You are correct. However, at higher gross weights, LRC will be a higher speed with slightly lower fuel flow and at lighter gross weights, LRC is slower with again, a lower fuel flow.

ECON is more a constant M cruise and varies less with large gross weight chagnes than LRC does.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Does Flying Slower Saves Fuel?
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...
Airline Pilots: Does Flying Ever Get Mundane? posted Sat Apr 10 2004 10:15:30 by Aguilo
How Much Fuel Does The AN-225 Hold? posted Sat Jul 22 2006 20:31:45 by KDTWFlyer
Does Asthygmatism Impair You From Flying? posted Tue Oct 14 2003 23:44:10 by Bio15
Does Exhaust Speed Change With Fuel Used? posted Sat Mar 29 2003 06:46:30 by Lehpron
Total Fuel Consumption For Two Segments? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 23:32:08 by WestWing
B767-200 Fuel Consumption Question posted Sun Nov 12 2006 07:06:31 by Jetline
Why Does The Tower Give Out Altimetric Reading posted Fri Nov 10 2006 02:58:14 by YULspotter
How Long Does The FAA Keep Records Of Arrivals? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 16:34:55 by Lenbrazil
Routes And A/c Fully Loaded With Fuel. posted Mon Nov 6 2006 06:17:47 by Mirrodie
MIT/Cambridge To Unveil "silent" Flying Wing 11/06 posted Mon Nov 6 2006 02:24:03 by Lemurs

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format