Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Burn As A Function Of Fuel Consumption 777-LR  
User currently offlineiwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4945 times:

folks,

I am wonder how fuel burn changes for a 777-LR as it consumes fuel over the course of a long flight.

Assuming it takes of at MTOW how does the fuel usage change.

I am not sure how to find this and I've done a search but found nothing.

Your help is appreciated!

iwok

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5054 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4816 times:

From a flight plan , 16hr flight at about MTOW ; Burn at cruise for the first hour was ~8t and for the last hour ~5.6t.

User currently offlineiwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4788 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 1):

From a flight plan , 16hr flight at about MTOW ; Burn at cruise for the first hour was ~8t and for the last hour ~5.6t.

Thanks very much! That really helps me a lot.

That's a long flight!

iwok


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5054 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4777 times:

Quoting iwok (Reply 2):
That's a long flight!

A hypothetical ORD-AKL .


User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

I'm surprised there isn't a bigger difference between the hourly burn rate from the beginning to the end.


Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5054 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4763 times:

[

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 4):
I'm surprised there isn't a bigger difference between the hourly burn rate from the beginning to the end.

The full story, Total fuel load incl. reserves 131.3t ; total fuel burn 110.593t ; total cruise burn 100.171t


User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4756 times:

Is landing with ~40,000 lbs of fuel the norm on a 777? Seems like quite a bit, but perhaps not not so with holding and diversion fuel. This particular circumstancehas about 3 hours of fly time remaining based on landing fuel.


Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5054 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4714 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Is landing with ~40,000 lbs of fuel the norm on a 777?

I am not sure what typical mission rules are . In this instance the 5% contingency (48min./5504kg) is a function of the distance flown. Then there is the fuel to reach the alternate which in this case was CHC ( 58min/ 9729kg) and hold plus final reserve (45min/ 5494 kg). I am sure that there are persons on this list qualified to comment.


User currently onlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6484 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 1):
Burn at cruise for the first hour was ~8t and for the last hour ~5.6t.

= 113.33 kg/min for average of first and last hour. Last hour = 93.33 kg/min.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 7):
5% contingency (48min./5504kg)

= 114.66 kg/min. In line with 113.33 above.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 7):
to reach the alternate which in this case was CHC ( 58min/ 9729kg)

= 167.24 kg/min. Much more than last hour cruise burn. Here some low altitude flight and climb profile must be in the calculation.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 7):
hold plus final reserve (45min/ 5494 kg)

= 122.09 kg/min. And here some low altitude flying.

So after an eventless flight with zero wind component it lands with 45,694 lbs.

I have no specific knowledge about those calculations. Are my assumptions correct?



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5054 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4576 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 8):
I have no specific knowledge about those calculations. Are my assumptions correct?

Your assumptions are probably correct. Really you need an airline pilot to comment .


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6921 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4332 times:

If you want it cheaper in fuel, you can dispatch to Fiji, with AKL as 1st alternate, and CHC as your last alternate, and carry fuel enough to divert from Fiji to CHC.... that way you can save on the 5% contingency (You carry 5% to Fiji not AKL). Cheaper and still legal, and... still safe. Although, this is an oversimplified way of explaining it.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5054 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3958 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10):
If you want it cheaper in fuel, you can dispatch to Fiji, with AKL as 1st alternate, and CHC as your last alternate, and carry fuel enough to divert from Fiji to CHC.... that way you can save on the 5% contingency (You carry 5% to Fiji not AKL). Cheaper and still legal, and... still safe. Although, this is an oversimplified way of explaining it.

Mandala499

Looking at the flight plan , if I am reading it right, it would have saved about 1t in contingency fuel.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2215 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3832 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
it would have saved about 1t in contingency fuel

1t = 10 more passengers


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6921 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3824 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
Looking at the flight plan , if I am reading it right, it would have saved about 1t in contingency fuel.

What ZFW are we looking at here?



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5054 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3767 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13):
What ZFW are we looking at here?

198t.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6921 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3724 times:

Yes, I just did a quick calculation using ORD-PPG-AKL-CHC as the routing with PPG as dispatch destination and CHC as the final alternate, yes, saves about 1 ton of contingency fuel... Do that route daily, and you'd be saving 2 tonnes a day which gives it 730 tons a year. That's in contingency fuel savings alone.

Assume that means you land with 1 ton less fuel, how much fuel do you save for the whole trip by not carrying that one ton of contingency fuel? About 230kgs... that translates to 170 tons a year.

So now you save 1000 tons. Where I am, that means over 1 million dollars a year saved.

Is safety compromised? Well, you're still able to go to Christchurch and still have over 2h13mins worth of holding and save 1 million dollars a year... otherwise, you don't save the 1 million dollars and land with 2h22 mins worth of holding.

Unfortunately, there isn't much "eeking out every cent" in terms of dispatch creativity on ORD-AKL, but AKL-ORD am sure there are ways to save more... eg: dispatch as AKL-XXX-ORD, with YYY as a final alternate, but find XXX that would give the fuel remaining at ORD the equivalent of diverting from ORD to YYY and still have a 45min holding.

There's another method of using the destination as a final alternate + X mins holding, eg: AKL-XXX with ORD as destination, and upon getting near XXX, the aircraft would check if the conditions at ORD is good enough to go there with only enough fuel to go to another airport near ORD, but have certain requirements such as it can only be done if conditions at ORD is better than a certain minimum weather requirement, and have at least a second parallel runway to the expected runway. I think QF does this method but I cannot remember the rules clearly for this.



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5054 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3627 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 15):
Yes, I just did a quick calculation using ORD-PPG-AKL-CHC as the routing with PPG as dispatch destination and CHC as the final alternate, yes, saves about 1 ton of contingency fuel... Do that route daily, and you'd be saving 2 tonnes a day which gives it 730 tons a year. That's in contingency fuel savings alone.

Very interesting ! Are these some of the tricks of being a despatcher to eek out savings but still comply with the rules ?


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6921 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3575 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 16):
Are these some of the tricks of being a despatcher to eek out savings but still comply with the rules ?

Yes, subject to regulatory approvals though. If your regulators approve it, do it, if not... tough luck. The reason why this is possible these days is because of the accuracy in flight planning, predicted winds and temperatures.

Quoting iwok (Thread starter):
I am wonder how fuel burn changes for a 777-LR as it consumes fuel over the course of a long flight.

Just to give an idea... Holding is much slower than the cruise speeds... but... at 35,000ft... at 320tons gross weight holding would give you 9950kgs/hour, at 260 tons it's 7250kgs/hour at 200tons it's 5350kgs/hour...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fuel Burn As A Function Of Fuel Consumption 777-LR
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...
Higher/lower Altitudes And Fuel Burn posted Tue Jun 26 2012 23:43:49 by PHX787
Lufthansa 747-8 Fuel Burn posted Tue Jun 19 2012 15:19:45 by trex8
Chicken/beef Fat As Bio Fuel posted Wed Apr 27 2011 04:25:03 by oly720man
Fuel Burn For MD-83? posted Thu Nov 18 2010 03:37:17 by racsome
Icao Fuel Burn Statistics: Accuracy? posted Sat Aug 14 2010 06:48:58 by warreng24
Taxi Fuel Burn Experiment posted Sun Mar 14 2010 15:50:38 by TotalCruise
747-8 Fuel Burn posted Tue Feb 9 2010 17:46:57 by cosmofly
Fuel Burn Difference Between The A346 And 742/3/4? posted Wed Dec 30 2009 08:27:16 by EA772LR
Is The A380 Using As Much Fuel As A 747 1st Gen posted Sat Dec 12 2009 18:53:50 by A380900
Interesting Fuel Burn Numbers From LH posted Wed Nov 25 2009 15:32:59 by Stitch

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format