ULH flights burn much more fuel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ULH flights burn much more fuel
As much as 20% more according to a simple comment I read.
Is it really that much?
Example....Perth-London versus Perth-Dubai-London.
Is it really that much?
Example....Perth-London versus Perth-Dubai-London.
I think BOAC would agree, I mean 6 fuel stops down to Joburg is obviously the right thing to do. Non-stop would be a ridiculous idea.
Only half a speed-brake
Not ULH, but for illustration: a quick look into integrated planning tables for A333 suggests 11% difference in favour of 2x 4000 NM instead of 8000. (how niche is 8k with 333 I do not know)
Last edited by FlightDetent; 8th Jan 2017 at 21:45.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
umm... I believe he's saying that longer flights use more fuel per mile.... but then again what do I know.
Related news: Shipping the kerosene needed for the second half of the flight, to the midway point, is more efficiently done by truck or boat than by airplane. Or so I've been told.
Related news: Shipping the kerosene needed for the second half of the flight, to the midway point, is more efficiently done by truck or boat than by airplane. Or so I've been told.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you also have to add in the fuel for terminal operations, taxi, and climbout form the stopover point.
Unless you have detailed fuel plans for each scenario under identical conditions, I don't think you can generalize.
Unless you have detailed fuel plans for each scenario under identical conditions, I don't think you can generalize.
Yes.
Depending on the efficiency of the airframe, there will be a point where adding more fuel has mathematically virtually no effect on range. We don’t (can’t) operate in this area but the curve is beginning to steepen in the latter half of ULH sectors, so the increase in total fuel burn to go an extra hour at the end is considerably more than you might expect assuming linear behaviour.
Depending on the efficiency of the airframe, there will be a point where adding more fuel has mathematically virtually no effect on range. We don’t (can’t) operate in this area but the curve is beginning to steepen in the latter half of ULH sectors, so the increase in total fuel burn to go an extra hour at the end is considerably more than you might expect assuming linear behaviour.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't done the sums, but it seems likely that there is a point where adding more fuel actually reduces the range. That assumes sufficient fuel tank capacity, of course.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if you load an infinite amount of fuel the airplane becomes infinitely heavy. So you need infinite thrust just to get it to move. And for that you need an infinite amount of fuel - all the fuel you loaded will be gone the moment you attempt to start taxiing;-)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The devil is, of course, in the details, and this doesn't take into account taxi, climb, terminal ops, etc. but....
If for a given airplane the cost of tankering fuel is x% per hour (say f'rinstance 3%), meaning that it takes 3 lbs per hour incremental burn to carry 100 incremental lbs of fuel, then a hard theoretical limit of flight duration is going to be 1.0/x hours (say f'rinstance 33 hours).
Fuel your aircraft for 33 hours endurance. Add 1,000 lbs of fuel, and, at the end of 33 hours you'll still be bingo fuel because you will have burned the whole 1,000 lbs carrying the extra fuel.
Mumble, mumble, double integrals, diffe-q, mumble mumble this is, as is the "x% per hour for tankering" rule of thumb, an oversimplification.
Will you ever get to the point that adding fuel reduces your range? I dunno, the only experience I have with Calculus these days is that recurring dream in which you show up for the final exam, only to realize that you didn't go to any of the lectures, didn't read the book, are stark naked, and forgot to bring a pencil....
If for a given airplane the cost of tankering fuel is x% per hour (say f'rinstance 3%), meaning that it takes 3 lbs per hour incremental burn to carry 100 incremental lbs of fuel, then a hard theoretical limit of flight duration is going to be 1.0/x hours (say f'rinstance 33 hours).
Fuel your aircraft for 33 hours endurance. Add 1,000 lbs of fuel, and, at the end of 33 hours you'll still be bingo fuel because you will have burned the whole 1,000 lbs carrying the extra fuel.
Mumble, mumble, double integrals, diffe-q, mumble mumble this is, as is the "x% per hour for tankering" rule of thumb, an oversimplification.
Will you ever get to the point that adding fuel reduces your range? I dunno, the only experience I have with Calculus these days is that recurring dream in which you show up for the final exam, only to realize that you didn't go to any of the lectures, didn't read the book, are stark naked, and forgot to bring a pencil....
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q: "If you had a pie, and an infinite number of people lined up, and each person in line, when it was his turn, took half the remaining pie, when would the pie be gone?"
A: "When the whole line had had their turn!"
Last edited by Gauges and Dials; 9th Jan 2017 at 20:54. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tankering fuel means arriving with the extra weight. That is not the same as arriving having burned it.
You need to add the fuel to the start of the flight not the end.
However, every aircraft will have a sweet design spot and simply adding more fuel tanks and reducing traffic for the same weight will of course use more fuel per passenger mile.
You need to add the fuel to the start of the flight not the end.
However, every aircraft will have a sweet design spot and simply adding more fuel tanks and reducing traffic for the same weight will of course use more fuel per passenger mile.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right hand seat of a 777
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough I was talking about this the other day. On some (extremely rough) calculations on the DXB-AKL vs DXB-SYD-AKL
DXB-AKL- 231T
DXB-SYD-AKL 225T
Like I said, rough calculations, but the 6T of fuel saved is roughly 30 minutes of flying.
Perhaps someone could give more accurate figures
DXB-AKL- 231T
DXB-SYD-AKL 225T
Like I said, rough calculations, but the 6T of fuel saved is roughly 30 minutes of flying.
Perhaps someone could give more accurate figures