Choosing most optimum altitude/FL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere along the equator
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choosing most optimum altitude/FL
For the Citation Excel, is there any technique to calculating the most optimum altitude/FL, given the trip distance? I understand that we've got to factor the winds at altitude; however, I was wondering if there is a certain bracket of cruise altitudes/FLs for a given trip distance.
Also, what is the best way to calculate the total trip fuel required?
Thanks
Also, what is the best way to calculate the total trip fuel required?
Thanks
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: at the whim of people I've never met
Age: 46
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally go for the same level number as you trip distance (eg 267nm = FL300, 800nm = FL430 (or as high as you feel comfortable)
Fuel burn approximate 1800lbs in first hour, then 1600 for 2nd hour and 1200 thereafter.
Fuel burn approximate 1800lbs in first hour, then 1600 for 2nd hour and 1200 thereafter.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Holding over GIPOL
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if Cessna did it for the Excel, but, for the CJs, they made some booklets called "Flight Planning Guide" that include relevant information for trip planning.
bral There isn't such an entry in either the OM or AFM. Climb, cruise and descent tables, yes (OM). Mission planner, no.
matthewgamm Cessna's "Mission Planning Guide" (read: sales literature) for the XLS includes the following snippet:
Distance (nm) .............. Typical Cruise Altitude (ft)
0 - 99 .......................... 6,000 - 18,000
100 - 199 .................... 17,000 - 31,000
200 - 299 .................... 29,000 - 39,000
300 - 499 .................... 35,000 - 41,000
500 - 999 .................... 39,000 - 43,000
1000 + ........................ 41,000 - 45,000
Along with more comprehensive figs and a pretty (useless) graph. Fwiw, Flight Safety includes the following similar table (for the XL) in their recurrent notes:
Distance (nm) .............. Typical Cruise Altitude (ft)
0 - 100 ....................... 10,000 - 18,000
101 - 200 .................... 17,000 - 33,000
201 - 300 .................... 31,000 - 39,000
301 - 500 .................... 37,000 - 41,000
501 - 900 .................... 39,000 - 43,000
901+ .......................... 39,000 - 45,000
Cessna do publish Flight Planning Guides for the XL and XLS. You need to order pub. code 56XPP (ser -5001 to -550) or 56XPPA (-5501 and on) or 56XPPB (-6001 and on) - each are quoted at USD 43.00 in the publications catalogue. HOWEVER, if these are just a reprint of OM sec. IV (as is the case with the FPG for the C550), there won't be a mission planner in there, either.
edit/ For working out your fuel burn, don't rely on shonky mission planning guides - work out your route to find the total trip distance then use the proper climb/cruise/descent tables. Even better, get your Ops to use some form of computer-based planning tool. Just about all of the operators (all EU AOC) that I have driven for have used PPS - and I find it works just fine. Others may disagree. /edit
Cheers.
matthewgamm Cessna's "Mission Planning Guide" (read: sales literature) for the XLS includes the following snippet:
Distance (nm) .............. Typical Cruise Altitude (ft)
0 - 99 .......................... 6,000 - 18,000
100 - 199 .................... 17,000 - 31,000
200 - 299 .................... 29,000 - 39,000
300 - 499 .................... 35,000 - 41,000
500 - 999 .................... 39,000 - 43,000
1000 + ........................ 41,000 - 45,000
Along with more comprehensive figs and a pretty (useless) graph. Fwiw, Flight Safety includes the following similar table (for the XL) in their recurrent notes:
Distance (nm) .............. Typical Cruise Altitude (ft)
0 - 100 ....................... 10,000 - 18,000
101 - 200 .................... 17,000 - 33,000
201 - 300 .................... 31,000 - 39,000
301 - 500 .................... 37,000 - 41,000
501 - 900 .................... 39,000 - 43,000
901+ .......................... 39,000 - 45,000
Cessna do publish Flight Planning Guides for the XL and XLS. You need to order pub. code 56XPP (ser -5001 to -550) or 56XPPA (-5501 and on) or 56XPPB (-6001 and on) - each are quoted at USD 43.00 in the publications catalogue. HOWEVER, if these are just a reprint of OM sec. IV (as is the case with the FPG for the C550), there won't be a mission planner in there, either.
edit/ For working out your fuel burn, don't rely on shonky mission planning guides - work out your route to find the total trip distance then use the proper climb/cruise/descent tables. Even better, get your Ops to use some form of computer-based planning tool. Just about all of the operators (all EU AOC) that I have driven for have used PPS - and I find it works just fine. Others may disagree. /edit
Cheers.
Last edited by Sepp; 29th Jul 2010 at 12:05.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, that was the XLS FPG I was talking about.
Don't forget to add your required reserve to the fuel burns quoted!
Don't forget to add your required reserve to the fuel burns quoted!
bral Yes, I agree that "proper" flight planning (climb, cruise, descent, hold) data exists, but in the OM rather than the AFM.
I was talking about the rather more blunt-pencil trip fuel/time tables. Now, when someone is sure of their facts, it causes me to go check mine and - I'm happy to stand corrected - having done so, the OM does indeed include trip fuel/time tables. I maintain, though, that the AFM (which is sitting on the table in front of me) only includes t/o and ldg data plus the enroute climb grads.
Hopefully, though, the distinction is not really an issue over which to fall out.
I was talking about the rather more blunt-pencil trip fuel/time tables. Now, when someone is sure of their facts, it causes me to go check mine and - I'm happy to stand corrected - having done so, the OM does indeed include trip fuel/time tables. I maintain, though, that the AFM (which is sitting on the table in front of me) only includes t/o and ldg data plus the enroute climb grads.
Hopefully, though, the distinction is not really an issue over which to fall out.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he already did:
What about the Electronic Operationg Manual, that is not a bad thing to use either. Did a 2350nm trip last week, the EOM would suggest a fuel burn of 9200lbs with a 30 kts HW and 43000 ft cruise.
We used 9200 lbs and were 9 minutes faster than predicted. Not bad IMO.
That was in a C680, but I trust there is the same thing available for the XL/XLS/XLS+
bral Yes, I agree that "proper" flight planning (climb, cruise, descent, hold) data exists, but in the OM rather than the AFM.
We used 9200 lbs and were 9 minutes faster than predicted. Not bad IMO.
That was in a C680, but I trust there is the same thing available for the XL/XLS/XLS+
"Yes, bral, I do." Happy?
