Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Difference In Costs Betw Flying High/low Altitude  
User currently offline330lover From Belgium, joined Jul 2008, 576 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4159 times:

We were wondering what the difference in costs is between flying at high and low altitude.
Specifically, we are talking about small regional planes in Africa. Climbing to altitude or staying at lower altitude (sightseeing-like altitude).
What factors have an influence on the costs of such quite short flights?

Thanks for any info on this.

To the mods: if this is better suited for another forum, please move accordingly. Thanks.


Britten Norman Islander VP-FBR on Falkland Islands. THAT'S FLYING!
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4079 times:

Quoting 330lover (Thread starter):
We were wondering what the difference in costs is between flying at high and low altitude

It can be very large (factor of 2 or more) for large airliners. The differential probably isn't as large for smaller regional aircraft.

Quoting 330lover (Thread starter):
Specifically, we are talking about small regional planes in Africa. Climbing to altitude or staying at lower altitude (sightseeing-like altitude).
What factors have an influence on the costs of such quite short flights?

The big trade is climb performance vs. stage length vs. weight. Almost all aircraft burn less fuel at altitude but they spend more to get to altitude and they can't go as high when they're heavy. The FMC will compute the optimal profile for any chosen balance of fuel cost, time cost, and speed.

Piston prop planes typically have terrible climb performance, relative to jets, so their optimal altitude will tend to be lower over the same stage length. With turboprops they tend to be slower so, even though they're jets from a thermodynamic point of view, they also tend to want to be lower than jets.

Tom.


User currently offline330lover From Belgium, joined Jul 2008, 576 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3996 times:

Thanks Tom.

So the difference is mainly in the climb performance?
I suppose on higher altitude, the air resistance is lower than flying on low, warmer flight levels?



Britten Norman Islander VP-FBR on Falkland Islands. THAT'S FLYING!
User currently offlineTW From Germany, joined Jul 2011, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

There's a PDF document from ATR that shows how the flight level affects fuel consumption. Here the link: http://www.atraircraft.com/media/downloads/fuelsaving2011_1.pdf
According to this document, flying higher saves fuel, but takes a bit longer. You have to take into account what the increased flight time costs you in terms of personnel costs, engine maintenance (under a PBH contract), and maybe fewer flights per day.

Airlines who operate in sandy regions have more wear and tear on their jet engines. Maybe this would be a factor as well if you fly at lower altitudes in such regions than higher in cleaner air.


User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3388 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3932 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 1):
The differential probably isn't as large for smaller regional aircraft.

Not sure what you identitify as small, but the E145 burns up to 50% more at FL250 versus FL370 (approx 2400 pph vs 3500 pph)


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3805 times:

Quoting 330lover (Reply 2):
So the difference is mainly in the climb performance?
I suppose on higher altitude, the air resistance is lower than flying on low, warmer flight levels?

Yes, air resistance goes down (lower density). This also takes power from the engine (lower density again) but it's also colder (helps offset) and the drop in drag is bigger than the drop in engine power so you end up ahead.

Quoting Flight152 (Reply 4):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 1):
The differential probably isn't as large for smaller regional aircraft.

Not sure what you identitify as small, but the E145 burns up to 50% more at FL250 versus FL370 (approx 2400 pph vs 3500 pph)

I meant more stuff like Dash-8's and ATR's...I'd expect an E145 to behave the same way as any other twin jet airliner with respect to fuel vs. altitude.

Tom.


User currently offline330lover From Belgium, joined Jul 2008, 576 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3743 times:

Thanks for the answers.
The reason I asked is because one of our clients had a charter flight booked in Africa on a small prop airliner.
When asking the flight crew if they could lower their flight level to be able to make some nice film shots of the landscape, they had to pay extra because it is more expensive to fly at 1000 ft than higher. At least, that's what the flight crew explained.

Does this makes sense, or is it an example of using tourists as money source?



Britten Norman Islander VP-FBR on Falkland Islands. THAT'S FLYING!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17001 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

Quoting 330lover (Reply 6):
The reason I asked is because one of our clients had a charter flight booked in Africa on a small prop airliner.
When asking the flight crew if they could lower their flight level to be able to make some nice film shots of the landscape, they had to pay extra because it is more expensive to fly at 1000 ft than higher. At least, that's what the flight crew explained.

Does this makes sense, or is it an example of using tourists as money source?

It makes perfect sense. Heck, you can look at a Cessna 172 and 2000ft will use more fuel than 4000ft. Well.. Barely...

[Edited 2012-08-08 02:32:00]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3660 times:

Quoting 330lover (Reply 6):
When asking the flight crew if they could lower their flight level to be able to make some nice film shots of the landscape, they had to pay extra because it is more expensive to fly at 1000 ft than higher. At least, that's what the flight crew explained.

Does this makes sense, or is it an example of using tourists as money source?

That makes perfect sense. Even for an underpowered prop plane, 1000' is going to drive fuel consumption way up (either because you're trying to go fast in thick air or because you slow down and take way longer). I don't think the optimum altitude for fuel burn on any aircraft except maybe an ultralight is down as low as 1000'.

Tom.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2070 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3651 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
but it's also colder (helps offset) and the drop in drag is bigger than the drop in engine power so you end up ahead.

If I remember right, colder air will give you better compression ratio for your engines, so it will make your engine more efficient. Although in the grand scheme of thing, the efficiency difference may be over shadowed by all the other stuff everyone else is mentioning.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3651 times:

On the Morane Saulnier 760 Paris jet (4 seater, two Maboré IV turbojets) it makes quite a bit of difference:

At an N1 cruise setting of 19500 RPM at standard atmospheric conditions under similar climbing and descend conditions (climb: N1 at 21500 RPM, IAS 200 kts up to 20,000 ft, then - 10 kts each 3000 ft / descend: N1 at 17000 RPM air brakes out , IAS 180 kts) I´ll get the following values:

Cruise altitude___________Range___Time to TOC______Time from TOD to GRD_______Total flight time

10,000 ft________________560 mn_______5´_________________6´______________________1h57´
20,000 ft________________720 nm______11´_________________9´______________________2h30´
25,000 ft________________810 nm______16´________________11´______________________2h50´
30,000 ft________________860 nm______21´________________12´______________________3h05´

To account for taxi and circuit fuel subtract 100 - 150 nm from each range figure

Also from the manual:

at 19000 RPM both engines together use 400 l/h at 30.000 ft while they use 640 l/h at 10.000 ft (the manual and aircraft are from the 1950s, they gave fuel consumption in litres per hour)
at 21500 RPM (highest power) fuel consumption is 625 l/h at 30.000 ft and 1075 l/h at 10.000 ft.


The manual advises to climb as high as possible as fast as possible.

Jan

[Edited 2012-08-08 07:28:27]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Difference In Costs Betw Flying High/low Altitude
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...
Ground Effect In High Density Altitude posted Wed Dec 7 2005 23:28:55 by Modesto2
Aural Glideslope High/Low Indication posted Thu Jul 21 2011 03:34:01 by faro
Difference In Aircraft Compression Over Time posted Thu Nov 11 2010 12:57:25 by mrskyguy
Difference In A32X Models posted Wed Dec 23 2009 10:57:33 by UltimateDelta
Flip-down Vs. Over-aisle LCDs - Difference In Cost posted Fri Dec 26 2008 17:19:24 by 1337Delta764
757 And 767 RB211 Is There Any Difference In Size? posted Mon Jun 19 2006 14:38:00 by Edumotoki
High/Low Wing Aircraft Advantages/disadvantages posted Mon Mar 27 2006 22:46:21 by Hcpunx99
Difference In Cowling And Nacelle posted Tue Jan 17 2006 18:03:09 by CaptainJon
Any Difference In Handling This Jet posted Thu Mar 24 2005 19:26:23 by HAWK21M
Difference In 737s? posted Tue May 11 2004 22:45:49 by A340600

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format