B777 Cost index
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: FL350
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B777 Cost index
This is a question for B777 pilots. We fly B777-200ERs and the cost index initially started off roughly at around 120. Then some "expert" came in and decided to drop the index to about 18. Then he decided that, that 18 was not working so he took it back to 120.
I do understand that the cost index is variable and has a lot of things involved.....
Im wondering just what rough cost index do most of you fly on the B777-200ER?
I do understand that the cost index is variable and has a lot of things involved.....
Im wondering just what rough cost index do most of you fly on the B777-200ER?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
120 should give you an approximation of M.84.
18 should give you an approximation of MRC.
We presently use 75, this is reviewed every quarter and changed accordingly, we dont use route specific values. If we want to avail of cheap homebase fuel, we can use 450, this gives an approximation of M86.
I would presume that slowing down to CI=18 cost more in flight time than the fuel saving gained, so it makes sense to return to a higher CI value.
Mutt
18 should give you an approximation of MRC.
We presently use 75, this is reviewed every quarter and changed accordingly, we dont use route specific values. If we want to avail of cheap homebase fuel, we can use 450, this gives an approximation of M86.
I would presume that slowing down to CI=18 cost more in flight time than the fuel saving gained, so it makes sense to return to a higher CI value.
Mutt
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutt, would your company adjust it for wind? For eg 100 kt H/W versus 100 kt T/W. I'm thinking the cost savings would be significant over flying at CI 75 at all times. Any calculations on how much?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: FL350
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well interestingly ...try this out on your next flight.. ...say you are flying at 75 C.I. look at the progress page(in crz) check out fuel at destination, then change to cost index of 18 and u get an extra like .5-1ton of fuel at destination.
I guess with a low CI, u fly nose up...causing more drag, u fly lower speeds and therefore you are in the air longer but Fuel at Destination is higher....Thats the confusing part...
I guess with a low CI, u fly nose up...causing more drag, u fly lower speeds and therefore you are in the air longer but Fuel at Destination is higher....Thats the confusing part...
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pstaney,
The ECON mode of the FMS uses the inputted CI value together with the wind values to calculate the cruise speed. That really is the advantage of using Cost Index over a selected cruise speed such as LRC/MRC.
B777Heavy,
The lower CI value is very close to Maximum Range Cruise, so we would expect to have more fuel, however the trade off is between fuel cost and aircraft costs, so just because you saved fuel,it doesnt mean that you made money !
Mutt
The ECON mode of the FMS uses the inputted CI value together with the wind values to calculate the cruise speed. That really is the advantage of using Cost Index over a selected cruise speed such as LRC/MRC.
B777Heavy,
The lower CI value is very close to Maximum Range Cruise, so we would expect to have more fuel, however the trade off is between fuel cost and aircraft costs, so just because you saved fuel,it doesnt mean that you made money !
Mutt
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The ECON mode of the FMS uses the inputted CI value together with the wind values to calculate the cruise speed."
Mutt, so using your suggested CI of 75, what calculated cruise speed spread would you typically expect for a T/W of 100 kts vice a H/W of 100 kts?
Mutt, so using your suggested CI of 75, what calculated cruise speed spread would you typically expect for a T/W of 100 kts vice a H/W of 100 kts?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pstaney,
Some "ball-park" figures for CI=75 on B777-200ER
At Optimum Level, cruise = M0.835, plus or minus M0.001 per 20 knots of Headwind / Tailwind, i.e. for 100 knots Headwind, expect about M0.84, and for 100 kts Tailwind expect about M0.83.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Some "ball-park" figures for CI=75 on B777-200ER
At Optimum Level, cruise = M0.835, plus or minus M0.001 per 20 knots of Headwind / Tailwind, i.e. for 100 knots Headwind, expect about M0.84, and for 100 kts Tailwind expect about M0.83.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Last edited by Old Smokey; 4th Jul 2007 at 05:20. Reason: I can't count
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Smokey, For 100 kts headwind I get 100/20 = 5 times .01 = .05 mach. plus .835 = .885 mach.
Would that be .001 mach per 20 kts wind? But even that seems awfully small increment for a headwind.
Would that be .001 mach per 20 kts wind? But even that seems awfully small increment for a headwind.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pstaney,
Arrrrgh!
I never could count, yes, I did mean .001, and not .01!
For the sake of clarity, I'll go back and amend my previous post (which should keep future thread readers wondering what I said)
Yes, the increment is quite small as a comparison against the wind component, it's all about tangents to graphs with a sliding base-line for speed as wind component varies, which does not necessarily lend itself to simple corrections for wind component, hence my qualification that they were "ball park" figures.
Thanks for keeping me honest, constructive criticism always welcome!
Regards,
Old Smokey
Arrrrgh!
I never could count, yes, I did mean .001, and not .01!For the sake of clarity, I'll go back and amend my previous post (which should keep future thread readers wondering what I said)
Yes, the increment is quite small as a comparison against the wind component, it's all about tangents to graphs with a sliding base-line for speed as wind component varies, which does not necessarily lend itself to simple corrections for wind component, hence my qualification that they were "ball park" figures.
Thanks for keeping me honest, constructive criticism always welcome!
Regards,
Old Smokey
