A330 Fuel Burn???

[Flyboy-F33]

What is the approximate fuel burn on an A330 at both 38000' and also at 28000' (or FL 380 and 280 if you prefer)?

GG

[TurboJ]

You saw the same programme about the A330 en route to Orlando !!!

He was rather upset at crossing the pond at FL280 instead of FL380 but only ended up using an extra tonne of fuel.

Is the extra fuel burn so substantial that he would have had to have diverted ?

[Localiser Green]

I was surprised that the increase in burn was only 1,000kg on the whole trip, for a typical 4 hour NAT track that would suggest an increase of just 250kg/hr in burn rate at FL280 compared with FL380 (presumably maintaining M0.82 at both levels).

I just don't see how it can be such a small difference.

Also I think the Captain was playing it a bit for the cameras on shutdown in SFB with his "surprise" at the block FOB. As soon as they went to FL390 at the other side of the pond the FMGS would have been giving them accurate fuel predictions for arrival for the last 4 hours or so of the flight, so can't see how he was that surprised personally as he must have been monitoring it!

If it were me I would have had my eye on that destination fuel prediction all the way down the eastern seaboard!

Interesting issue nonetheless. Any of you guys been given FL280 across the pond before? Lowest I have ever been is FL310 in a B763 which generally seems to like FL320 for a Florida flight or maybe FL340 for a JFK, stepping to 350/390 at the other side.

[Hot Rod]

No way the difference for 4 hours can be only 1000 kg if the speed is 0,82 at BOTH FL380 and FL280...
What programme was this, what channel and when?

[jstew15]

The programme was 'Holiday Airline' and was shown last night (3/6/03) on ITV1 at 2000. I think the captain was acting a little bit for the camera too!

[Notso Fantastic]

I would guess that maybe as he was travelling west, the lower levels kept him out of the jetstreams' worst effects. The flight planners obviously correctly calculated better to be higher up, although in a stronger headwind (by a ton).
On a B747 MIA-LHR, we had a problem on taxi out which meant we could no longer maintain the MNPS requirements and had to be below FL290 all the way. So instead of being at FL370 for most of the flight, we were at FL280 all across the Atlantic. Our 2500kgs extra fuel(fuel consumption 10,000kgs/hour) for holding became quite a serious deficit, especially with protracted LHR arrival procdures, and we only had just over 7,000kgs left (instead of the original planned 10,500kgs+extra fuel). So the lower level cost us dearly in lower speed, higher fuel consumption, and loss of much of jetstream tailwinds......and stress.

[00 Chopper]

Does anyone know what the Captain meant about the airbus being more fuel efficent than a car? (Surely jet engines burn more fuel per mile than my car). ???

[HZ123]

I would be interested to know which a/c would be the best option as the new fuel tanker. Even with my limited knowledge the projected life span of 27 years surely creates long term very costly maintenance for both A/C but more so for the 767. Futhermore the prospect of the 767 being leased if required for passenger revenue flights is a tad optimistic even 5 years down the line, assuming the industry is back on the up & up.

Perhaps the RAF/government would have learnt some costly lessons from the Nimrod and the vast costs that have been associated with it ever since.

[White Knight]

Yesterday with a 3 hr flight at FL410, the FMGS showed 6.2 tonnes on arrival once we got into the cruise. It then got very bumpy, and FL370 wasn't available. Just playing arond with the box showed that if we went all the way down to FL330 we would have arrived with only 3 tonnes.
A drop of 8'000 feet in this case would have been about 3.2 tonnes extra !!
We took the rough ride instead.

[SimJock]

I thought that he asked for a speed reduction at FL280, was this not granted then ? I must have missed that bit. Reduced speed would have cut fuel consumption.

[G-AZUK]

I think he was referring to the fuel burn per pax, assuming your average motor burns X amount of fuel per person based on 4 POB.

Dave's a thoroughly nice bloke BTW, most Mon f/d management are.

[Kestrel_909]

SimJock,
Your are right, they did ask for a speed reduction but because their was an aircraft behind them and must have been at the same level.
The a/c would have to have been a considerable distance behind though as usualy horizontal serparation is 5m, but then over the Atlantic it is increased due to no radar coverage. Say they were both doing mach .82 but the Monarch ahead slowed to .78, over a 4hour flight across the pond I'd say the traffic would catch up, no necessarily overtake but most likely close the miniumn serparation.

Still, nice programme but they are becoming all the same to me, problems with drunk passengers, late passengers various other problems.

Don't know if any of you have seen the other programme with Dave Stealy as captain in the series FlightDeck on a flight from Gatwick to Malaga in the A320. It is usually replayed on Discovery Wings if you keep and eye out for it.