long haul fuel efficiency
"Raj Nangia, an aeronautical engineer who has analyzed the issue for Britain's Royal Aeronautical Society, says that flying 18 hours in one hop could double the cost of flying the same route with three stops. To fly far, a plane needs lots of fuel onboard, and to carry all that fuel, it needs even more fuel -- just as a car burns more fuel when it is heavily loaded."
Quote, Wall street journal online
Interesting concept given the price of fuel.
Try taking all of the variables out of it, i.e. remaining on the great circle route for stopovers, no ATC vector delays, all of the same passengers remain onboard and are all going to and from the same origin/destination. What do you all make of this?
Interesting to think that an airline could save fuel by having 3 hops to a destination instead of non-stop.
What tipping point is there on the amount of climbs and descents to/from altitude?
Anyone done any research along these lines?
fuel weight as a percentage of total weight charted:
500,000lb loaded without fuel,
375,000lbs fuel carried with 20,000lbs rsv, vs 125,000 carried(x3) with 20,000lbs rsv.
.............1st third........2nd third........last third of trip
direct.........44%.............34%................22%
----------395,000.......270,000...........145,000
3stop.........22%.............22%................22%
----------145,000.......145,000...........145,000
direct plane would have to climb 895,000 lbs to altitude
3 stop plane would have to climb 1,935,000 lbs to altitude (645,000 x 3)
So it is all a matter of evening out the climb fuel in cruise savings at that point.
*above chart didn't account decrease cruise burn in lighter, 3-stop aircraft