Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Total Fuel Consumption For Two Segments?  
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2146 posts, RR: 7
Posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5636 times:

The recent TAAG 777-200ER (D2-TED & D2-TEE) delivery flights made the short hop from PAE-SEA, filled up, and used the longer runway at SEA to fly SEA-LAD. The flight plan took them them over Pennsylvania on the way out.

Which leads me to the following theoretical question. Which would generally be better from an overall fuel economy perspective - one very short segment and one very long one (like PAE-SEA-LAD) or, for example, PAE-PHL-LAD?

Assume ideal conditions - there are no congestion holds, fuel prices, landing&handling fees are the same at either intermediate airport, and that ATC would permit you to fly the ideal flight profile for your weight on either routing.


The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
2 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5620 times:

Quoting WestWing (Thread starter):
Assume ideal conditions - there are no congestion holds, fuel prices, landing&handling fees are the same at either intermediate airport, and that ATC would permit you to fly the ideal flight profile for your weight on either routing.

Might not make a noticable difference, however i'm sure that Boeing wont pay anywhere near the same landing costs at PAE than at PHL...

Costs of Technical Handling and the possibility of Going AOG in PHL. (Hell, even new airplanes break)

Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5525 times:

I have my own theory about this based on scraps of info i've picked up over the years.

Planes have an optimal stage lengths which will vary with payload. Why?

Say one loaded an aircraft to fly 1000nm. Take off is inherently expensive and costs say 10t but cruise costs 1t per 100nm. If you flew 300nm you'd have burnt 13t, so 23nm to the ton. If you flew the 1000nm you'll have used burnt 20t, so 50nm to the ton. So this theory suggest the further you travel and dilute take off costs the better the fuel economy.

However there is another factor to consider, carrying fuel to burn fuel. If you fly for 300nm you would actually only need to load 13t of fuel and the aircraft will be 7t lighter then in the originally. This will work out meaning that you will be burning less fuel in cruise, and ignoring take off costs will improve your fuel economy. So this theory states the shorter the distance the greater the fuel economy.

Now if you superimpose these two factors there will be a point where the stage length means the burn per mile will be at a minimum. And if you move away from this length either way the fuel economy will increase exponentially. This exponential behaviour means when flying a two stage flight it's best to have the tech stop at the mid point even if it means neither sector hits the optimal stage length spot. This way the length from the optimal range will be equal and work out smaller under the exponential behaviour. Eg.

Disparity = 4 = 2+2 or 1+3

2^2 + 2^2 = 8
1^2 + 3^2 = 10

Now the sweet spot will vary with payload so as the 777 was presumably flying near empty it's vastly different to flying with a payload. To be honest it seems like they were more concerned with getting the job done hassle free than costs.

As i've concluded all of this myself some or all of it may be incorrect Big grin

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Total Fuel Consumption For Two Segments?
No username? Sign up now!

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!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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

Similar topics:More similar topics...
CO Going E+..Lower Fuel Consumption? posted Tue Jan 10 2012 01:31:44 by Schweigend
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
Conformal Fuel Tanks For Tatl A320NEO? posted Thu Aug 18 2011 06:08:10 by faro
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
Is It Possible To Trade Fuel Tanks For Cargo Bins? posted Thu Mar 31 2011 19:07:47 by c5load
Fuel Burn For MD-83? posted Thu Nov 18 2010 03:37:17 by racsome
Lufthansa: A388 Vs B744 Fuel Consumption posted Sun Jun 27 2010 07:53:49 by 328JET
Boeing 777 Fuel Consumption posted Tue Jun 15 2010 02:41:26 by dkramer7

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format