Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (B737 & CFM56-7)  
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 25
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Hey Guys (& Girls)

I'm putting together a spreadsheet of TSFC's for different engine types. I'm also trying to put together a crude range calculator for engines on different aircraft.

I've just started to see if it can even be done and i'm not getting the ranges i would expect. My workings are as follows, does anyone see where i'm going wrong?




CFM56-7B20 is rated at 91.6kN of Thrust. At 100% N1, it burns 0.91KG of Fuel per second. This gives it a TSFC of 0.035752

TSFC = FF per Hour (KG/HR) / Force Of Engine Produced (N)

Fuel Flow Per Hour @ Cruise = TSFC * Force Of Engine @ Cruise

FFPH @ Cruise = 0.035752 * 77.8kN (Force @ Cruise = 80% of Max Force Avail)

This now means that the FFPH at cruise is around 2784.6kg per hour which when you multiply by two (for 2 engines) is equal to 5569.2.

Eurocontrol produce figures of average fuel burns of aircraft flying through their airspace. For the B737-700 series, i can expect to burn 43 kg per engine per minute at cruise, 450kts, FL330.

Which when calculated is 43 * 60 (FF Per Hour) multiplied by 2 (for 2 engines) and that comes to 5160. This means my numbers are not that far from the Eurocontrol data (and could be closer just by reducing the cruise N1)

Now to calculate range at cruise divide total fuel available (Max Fuel Capacity) by the FF Per Hour to get the Time that you can fly... Which when multipled by your speed will give you range.

My problem lies here, I've got data which says the B737-700 series engine has a fuel capacity of 21000kgs which at 5569kgs per hour gives the aircraft a mission time of 3hrs 46mins and at 450kts a total range of 1711nm (Which is WAAAAY off the actual range of 3100nm).

Technically, i should be calculating ranges further than what the manufacturer say because i'm assuming the aircraft to be in flight with full tanks.

Anyone help me out?


Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

The main problem lies in the fact that you don't know what cruise thrust is and assume it is 80% of take off thrust. In fact it will change throughout the flight and will depend on the takeoff weight too.

Also tsfc is not constant and varies with power setting, flight condition, etc.

That's not to say approximations aren't possible, but it would be better to take several conditions for which you know the range, then using your tsfc figures, work out a cruise thrust factor which gives you the same answer. Note how this cruise thrust factor varies. If it's fairly constant use that figure for other estimate, or take an average.

That would give you a better estimation for other types, but it can only be a rough estimate at best.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9236 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/TableB3.html


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10344 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Thread starter):
FFPH @ Cruise = 0.035752 * 77.8kN (Force @ Cruise = 80% of Max Force Avail)

I'm not quite sure how this applies to the actual FFPH, but it should be noted that the engines will not be producing 77.8 kN at cruise altitude. You're using 80% of the engines' SLST, which would only be applicable were the engine at sea level.

The thrust available reduces as the altitude increases. I can't remember actual numbers, but engines at cruise altitude are actually producing under 50% of their rated thrust, if I remember correctly.

~Vik

EDIT: Meant to say that thrust at altitude is approximately your thrust at sea level multiplied by the ratio between density at altitude and sea level density. This means that at 30,000 feet, jet engines would be able to produce ~37% of their rated thrust (this is just an approximation).

[Edited 2006-07-05 15:35:51]


How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 1):
Also tsfc is not constant and varies with power setting, flight condition, etc.

TSFC is a constant, its a ratio between fuel flow per hour and the amount of force produced from that fuel.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 3):
The thrust available reduces as the altitude increases. I can't remember actual numbers, but engines at cruise altitude are actually producing under 50% of their rated thrust, if I remember correctly.

~Vik

EDIT: Meant to say that thrust at altitude is approximately your thrust at sea level multiplied by the ratio between density at altitude and sea level density. This means that at 30,000 feet, jet engines would be able to produce ~37% of their rated thrust (this is just an approximation).

Now that is one idea that i was thinking about... Thanks! I'll whack that into my equations and see what i can get...  Smile



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 3):
The thrust available reduces as the altitude increases. I can't remember actual numbers, but engines at cruise altitude are actually producing under 50% of their rated thrust, if I remember correctly.

Well under 50%, thrust reduces with the ratio of static air pressure. At 35,000 feet this will be about 24% of sea level thrust. Also the assumed 80% for cruise is a bit high I'd guess.

If Kaddyuk derives his thrust factor empirically as I suggested in the first reply he could get a reasonably close answer.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10344 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 5):
Well under 50%, thrust reduces with the ratio of static air pressure. At 35,000 feet this will be about 24% of sea level thrust. Also the assumed 80% for cruise is a bit high I'd guess.

If Kaddyuk derives his thrust factor empirically as I suggested in the first reply he could get a reasonably close answer.

All I was saying is that if the engines are producing 80% thrust at cruise, they're actually producing 80% of your thrust available, which, at cruise, will be somewhere in the range of 20-40%. so (0.8)(0.3) = 24% (not the same 24% that you mentioned). I'm a bit foggy on this stuff, but I was taught that jet engine thrust is proportional to density ratio as opposed to pressure ratio. I might be wrong on that though. Either way, there's no way those engines are producing 70+ kN at altitude.

I think we are saying the same thing. Maybe?

~Vik



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Bingo... I get sensible numbers now coming out of my equation... My range is higher than the actual but only by about 100nm... Which i guess i can put down to the fact that i'm assuming the cruise distance from full tanks (Which the aircraft will never have full tanks to start a cruise)


Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 6):
I think we are saying the same thing. Maybe?

Exactly, I was only trying to show it that 50% was conservative, and of course as you say it is 50% of the 80% or whatever.

I'm not sure if it's density or pressure. But there's not a huge difference when we are dealing with such approximations. Engine thrust data is usually normalised with ambient pressure ratio, but of course that doesn't mean it varies exactly like that, so you could well be right on the density relationship.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineLiedetectors From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

This would be a no brainer if someone here who works for GE can go run the engine deck/engine cycle model for a range of cruise power settings or match to a hand full of thrusts.


If it was said by us, then it must be true.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9118 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Hey,

it looks pretty close to the real, but at some point I guess you mixed up pounds and Kilogramms!

I flew 737-700s and we calculate with an average fuel flow during cruise of 2400 KGS/hour for BOTH engines, so 1200 KGS per hour per engine...

Sometimes it is a bit higher, when you fly faster or lower!

Quoting Kaddyuk (Thread starter):
This now means that the FFPH at cruise is around 2784.6kg per hour which when you multiply by two (for 2 engines) is equal to 5569.2.

So, if you take pounds here, then you are close enough!

WILCO737
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

You really ought to be using the Breguet range formula, which is:
Range = V*(L/D)* ln (Winitial / Wfinal) / (g*SFC)
This formula properly accounts for the change in aircraft weight due to fuel burn, and should get you closer to realistic numbers.

At FL330/Std. Day the CFM56-7B20 burns closer to .517 Kg/sec at about 26 kN thrust.



"He is risen, as He said."
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6902 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 4):
TSFC is a constant, its a ratio between fuel flow per hour and the amount of force produced from that fuel.

Where'd you hear that? Jane's used to give SFCs for engines; at 35000 ft, cruise thrust the SFC they gave was maybe 70% more than at sea level, maximum thrust.


User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Thread starter):
CFM56-7B20 is rated at 91.6kN of Thrust. At 100% N1, it burns 0.91KG of Fuel per second. This gives it a TSFC of 0.035752

That TSFC is only valid at that thrust rating, and only at the flight condition at which the rating occurs.

As Jetlagged and Timc have stated, TSFC is not constant; it varies with altitude, flight Mach number, ambient temperature, and throttle setting. To calculate aircraft range at FL330/cruise, you must use the TSFC calculated for that flight condition and throttle setting. I gave you the numbers you need: .517 Kg/sec @ 26 KN thrust. Now you need to go find the Lift/Drag ratio for the aircraft in cruise configuration, and aircraft weights at begin and end of cruise.
Plug those nums into the Breguet formula to obtain a meaningful range answer.



"He is risen, as He said."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (B737 & CFM56-7)
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...
A319/320 Specific Fuel Consumption posted Wed Aug 29 2007 04:53:29 by 0NEWAIR0
Specific Fuel Consumption Of Jet Engines posted Sun Jun 16 2002 23:11:43 by YoungDon
Looking For CFM56-7b Specific Fuel Consum. Chart posted Sat Apr 8 2006 22:41:03 by Rsbj
Effect Of Temperature On Fuel Consumption & Height posted Sat Dec 24 2005 16:48:29 by Julesmusician
Specific Range And Fuel Consumption posted Thu Apr 22 2004 07:21:30 by B2707SST
Redeye Flights And Fuel Consumption posted Sun Feb 24 2008 12:49:12 by GentFromAlaska
A380 And B748i Fuel Consumption posted Wed Aug 29 2007 16:05:25 by TKV
Regional Jet Fuel Consumption? posted Wed Jun 13 2007 04:24:36 by Pacifica
A340-300 Vs. A330-300 Fuel Consumption posted Fri Jun 1 2007 03:33:46 by CPHGuard
Fuel Consumption Question posted Fri Dec 22 2006 16:30:00 by Jcavinato
Specific Range And Fuel Consumption posted Thu Apr 22 2004 07:21:30 by B2707SST
TLV-HKG Engine Fuel Consumption Calculation posted Sun Nov 20 2011 02:08:29 by An225
Engine Fuel Consumption posted Sat Nov 19 2011 06:48:13 by An225
Super Jumbo Fuel Consumption posted Mon Jul 4 2011 11:53:33 by BOEING747400
Fuel Consumption Measurements posted Fri Apr 22 2011 03:28:40 by pylon101

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format