vtdl
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:15 am

Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:08 am

I have a feeling that someone must have asked this question before. If so, I apologize. Please point me to it.

I understand that planes fly at high altitude to save fuel. But it also burns more fuel to get to that altitude. Am I right? For a long distance fly, of course. How about for a short flight, let's say 30 to 40 minutes? Does the saving really enough to offset the extra fuel to fly high?
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:32 am

That's correct - for a short flight it's not worth it to climb to a high altitude. Exactly where the break-even is depends on a number of factors, but for a 30 minute flight you're basically never going to climb to 30+kft in an airliner.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:34 am

There's a most efficient altitude for all flights. It does vary based on factors such as length of flight, destination airport arrival conditions and weight of the plane. The dispatchers on here can give you a better idea of when it is most economical to climb to a cruising altitude in the normal 290-410 range and when the flight is too short for that to be economical. It is somewhere around the 40-50 minute mark where planes will climb to a higher cruising altitude. Sometimes it is most efficient to climb to a cruising altitude and only stay there for about 5 minutes. Nowadays software makes those decisions.

To answer your question about a 30-40 minute flight, I would say most jets would climb to somewhere around 170 to 230. Turboprops are obviously different.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Buzz
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 11:44 pm

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:02 pm

Hi VTDL, Buzz here. I prefer to fly with the windows open, lowly and slowly. So I'm in the thicker air down here among the grass airfield airplanes  Smile

The advantage of climbing into the thinner air is that in thin air for the same airspeed you get a higher ground speed. And there are fewer oxygen molecules available for the engine to breathe, so you should lean the fuel-air mixture (or have the fuel control automatically do it for you) So there's less thrust up there because of the thin air, but the fuel burn is less too.

So it depends on the airplane. how heavy it is, and how long you plan to cruise.

g'day
 
Pihero
Posts: 4235
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:23 pm



Quoting Vtdl (Thread starter):
How about for a short flight, let's say 30 to 40 minutes? Does the saving really enough to offset the extra fuel to fly high?



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):
To answer your question about a 30-40 minute flight, I would say most jets would climb to somewhere around 170 to 230.

For a short flight, the optimum is a *no cruise profile*, i.e climb / descent.
As a ball-park simplification, the higher your altitude,the longer your descent and both are equivalent to a cruise at that altitude in terms of fuel. That means, with a modern twin engined airliner, a 30 / 40 min sector could be planned as high as FL 350...even more if the plane is light.
Contrail designer
 
musapapaya
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:02 am

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:35 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 4):
For a short flight, the optimum is a *no cruise profile*, i.e climb / descent.
As a ball-park simplification, the higher your altitude,the longer your descent and both are equivalent to a cruise at that altitude in terms of fuel. That means, with a modern twin engined airliner, a 30 / 40 min sector could be planned as high as FL 350...even more if the plane is light.

Thats right and is routinely done here on Europe on A320 and B737 series.
Lufthansa Group of Airlines
 
QANTAS747-438
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:24 am

Just flew on a 737-700 from OAK-LAX on a 55 min flt and we took it up to 41,000 with 90 paxs on board. Thought that was a little high for such a short flight, but like it's been said, perhaps a dispatcher can fill us in... OPNLguy???
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:40 am

Ideally, even on a short flight you'd want to get up to whatever the optimal cruise altitude is and stay high as long as possible to do an idle descent. This would save the most fuel.

However in the real world this isn't possible espeically when going into a busy airport where they'd be slowing you and dropping you down low early.
DMI
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:55 pm



Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 6):
Just flew on a 737-700 from OAK-LAX on a 55 min flt and we took it up to 41,000 with 90 paxs on board. Thought that was a little high for such a short flight, but like it's been said, perhaps a dispatcher can fill us in... OPNLguy???

Depending upon weight, you're looking at 20-30 minutes cruising at FL410 and that's a whole lot of fuel savings.  Smile

Traffic is another factor to be considered. I've been doing a lot of DFW-TUL and DFW-AUS flights with the outbound legs (away from DFW) at high altitudes and the inbound legs (to DFW) at FL220-230... primarily due to inbound traffic.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
ajd1992
Posts: 2390
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:11 am

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:33 pm

When British Airways first introduced the B757 on the Manchester-Heathrow shuttle, they were getting up to FL410, and it's a 25 minute flight, or about 150 nautical miles. Now that's high Big grin

The B737's that Easyjet used to use on the Liverpool-Luton flight only got up to around FL200, so it depends on how heavy you are as well as all the other factors.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:09 am



Quoting Vtdl (Thread starter):
Does the saving really enough to offset the extra fuel to fly high?

In many cases, yes. But you are right, there is a certain "break even" altitude above which it is not profitable to climb. However, if you loiter high as long as you can and use a continuous descent at idle power as much as possible, your average fuel burn can come down substantially. On long flights we do recalculate the ideal altitude as the weight and temp changes, and try to fly as close to that as possible.
Proud OOTSK member
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:45 am

Looking at the B707-320B series airplanes, PanAmerican had a nice plastic laminated chart, called "Flight conduct, 300 fans" which enabled the pilots to determine the most economical cruising altitude, depending on aircraft weight and the sector length.
Used mostly for weather diversions.

The L1011-500 that I fly now has a similar chart.
Very handy.
 
heinzmahrer
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:31 pm

RE: Altitude And Fuel Efficiency

Sun May 04, 2008 6:01 am

The optimum cruising flight level depends on actual aircraft weight (less weight = higher flight level), the actual air temperature at altitude and to a lesser degree the wind.
For a long distance flight that means as the aircraft gets lighter due to fuel burn the optimum cruising flight level increases and indeed this procedure is used and the crew will climb as soon as possible.
For short flights in high density traffic areas such as central Europe cruising flight levels are determined of what is made available by air traffic control (ATC). This of course is "optimum" for ATC but not for fuel burn. Between London and Zürich for instance the maximum flight level you can get from ATC is usually FL290 even though the aircraft would perform much better at FL 370 or even 390.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Craighagstrom, m1m2 and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos