Why is econ climb faster than econ descent
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is econ climb faster than econ descent
Quick question for those on the know. Why econ climb speed is faster than econ descent speed for the same cost index?. Some of the variation can be explained by the heavier weight on climb and even on a given day by differences in wind or temperature. Still in short sectors the weight difference is small and the wind quite similar.
For a low cost index econ climb and econ descent should roughtly equate to best rate of climb/ best glide speeds. In my A/c climb is usually 285kts but descent 255.
Any ideas?
For a low cost index econ climb and econ descent should roughtly equate to best rate of climb/ best glide speeds. In my A/c climb is usually 285kts but descent 255.
Any ideas?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United States of Europe
Age: 40
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us take CI 0 as an example for clarity: CI 0=minimum fuel
(CI 19 will be the same idea, but ofcourse less pronounced)
Then:
Climb will give you max rate of climb: around 250 kt.
Descent will give us green dot.
For minimum fuel you want to be at your cruise-level in the minimum time, hence the max ROC climb speed.
Green dot will give you the best glide angle, so at the same time also the earliest possible TOD in idle.
In other words:
descent=most fuel efficient flight phase (idle)
cruise=2nd most fuel efficient flight phase
climb=least fuel efficient flight phase (high thrust)
So we want to minimise our time in CLB, maximise our time in Descent and just accept the cruise bit in between.
Cheers
(CI 19 will be the same idea, but ofcourse less pronounced)
Then:
Climb will give you max rate of climb: around 250 kt.
Descent will give us green dot.
For minimum fuel you want to be at your cruise-level in the minimum time, hence the max ROC climb speed.
Green dot will give you the best glide angle, so at the same time also the earliest possible TOD in idle.
In other words:
descent=most fuel efficient flight phase (idle)
cruise=2nd most fuel efficient flight phase
climb=least fuel efficient flight phase (high thrust)
So we want to minimise our time in CLB, maximise our time in Descent and just accept the cruise bit in between.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to make sense but...
I like Open Des's argument. However something in me is a bit skeptical that CI = 0 would be green dot speed. Can anyone verify this, for airbus or boeings? There's been suggestions in other topics that descent at green dot saves sector fuel, but unless mistaken, I haven't seen anyone actually put CI = 0 descent speeds in a pprune post.
Anyone with access to CI = 0 descent speeds versus altitude?
Anyone with access to CI = 0 descent speeds versus altitude?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dorset
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CALYPSO,
I think that the answer is in the bottom line of your post
".......econ climb and econ descent should roughtly equate to best rate of climb/ best glide speeds. In my A/c climb is usually 285kts but descent 255."
Best glide range speed is Vmd and for jets best rate of climb speed is faster than Vmd.
Using your figures, if 255 Kts is Vmd then 285 Kts is about 1.12 Vmd. These figures fit the general theory.
I think that the answer is in the bottom line of your post
".......econ climb and econ descent should roughtly equate to best rate of climb/ best glide speeds. In my A/c climb is usually 285kts but descent 255."
Best glide range speed is Vmd and for jets best rate of climb speed is faster than Vmd.
Using your figures, if 255 Kts is Vmd then 285 Kts is about 1.12 Vmd. These figures fit the general theory.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing taken into account is the weight loss due to fuel burn.
Yeah well though there are some guys picking up enough ice to make their craft heavier upon landing than at take-off
live 2 fly 2 live
Yeah well though there are some guys picking up enough ice to make their craft heavier upon landing than at take-off
live 2 fly 2 live
Climb speeds vs. Descent speeds:
Normal climb speeds are generally higher than descent speeds because during climb, the engines are producing thrust and are not part of the overall aircraft drag. During descent, the engines are being dragged along. To minimize increased drag, the descent speeds are normally lower than the climb speeds
Normal climb speeds are generally higher than descent speeds because during climb, the engines are producing thrust and are not part of the overall aircraft drag. During descent, the engines are being dragged along. To minimize increased drag, the descent speeds are normally lower than the climb speeds
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting...
I would imagine that green dot equates to minimum sink speed, that is also quite close to best angle of climb and only good if you are looking for maximum endurance (ie holding, descending with a dual engine failure, etc) For econ descent we are looking for best glide speed and this should be quite close to best rate of climb speed. Hence the question.
Wether the engines are producing thrust or not should not negate their own drag. Surely the drag is still there even if they are producing lots of thrust. I do wonder about the increased efficiency from the ram air effect on the engines at higher speeds though?
I would imagine that green dot equates to minimum sink speed, that is also quite close to best angle of climb and only good if you are looking for maximum endurance (ie holding, descending with a dual engine failure, etc) For econ descent we are looking for best glide speed and this should be quite close to best rate of climb speed. Hence the question.
Wether the engines are producing thrust or not should not negate their own drag. Surely the drag is still there even if they are producing lots of thrust. I do wonder about the increased efficiency from the ram air effect on the engines at higher speeds though?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climb at less than Max rate
We aften climb at less than max rate in our regional jet- ie at high speed climb.
When light and climbing at max rate our cabin crew would be unable to move their trollies due to the high deck angle - and providing a full service on short sectors this is necessary.
When light and climbing at max rate our cabin crew would be unable to move their trollies due to the high deck angle - and providing a full service on short sectors this is necessary.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: FL 410
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is econ climb faster than econ descent?
One answer that explains the difference between the two:
The wind.
ECON Climb IAS is adjusted for the Top of Climb (TOC) winds entered (PERF INIT page Boeing). A strong headwind component entered gives a very high IAS for the climb segment, with the opposite for a tailwind.
ECON Descent IAS is NOT variable with winds entered. Headwind, tailwind, no wind, the planned IAS does not change.
I can't find the document right now, but Boeing or Airbus has a PDF document available on the internet that explicitly states the above.
Jonny
The wind.
ECON Climb IAS is adjusted for the Top of Climb (TOC) winds entered (PERF INIT page Boeing). A strong headwind component entered gives a very high IAS for the climb segment, with the opposite for a tailwind.
ECON Descent IAS is NOT variable with winds entered. Headwind, tailwind, no wind, the planned IAS does not change.
I can't find the document right now, but Boeing or Airbus has a PDF document available on the internet that explicitly states the above.
Jonny
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is econ climb faster than econ descent?
It very much depends on the individual airline, and how they want the 'econ' selection programed.
Case in point.
SV with L1011's and dual Hamilton-Sundstrand FMS's...the first widebody to have a true FMS, by the way.
Econ climb had several EPR settings and in addition, the speeds were 350 knots/M.85.
Cruise M.865, normally.
Descent (normally) M.85/350 knots.
Why? SV has very cheap fuel, so the airline wanted the fastest forward speeds.
OTOH, other airlines used slower descent speeds as their 'econ' selection.
As it is in most things in flying...sometimes it just 'depends'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had not thought about the head/tail wind effect changing the climb but not the econ descent speed. It makes sense but in that case econ climb would be sometimes faster (headwind during the climb) and some times slower (tailwind during the climb) than the descent speed, in my experience however climb speed is consistently faster.
The price of fuel is included in the cost index and my question was about cost index generated speeds rather than generic (airline generated) descent speeds. Can and do airlines especify a particular cost index logic? I thought the FMC had just one cost index program?. Airlines just choose the number that suits their operation at any particular time. Operators who don't care about the cost of fuel just choose a very high cost index and the speeds will be very close to VMO/MMO. In that particular case I guess my question is not relevant.
The price of fuel is included in the cost index and my question was about cost index generated speeds rather than generic (airline generated) descent speeds. Can and do airlines especify a particular cost index logic? I thought the FMC had just one cost index program?. Airlines just choose the number that suits their operation at any particular time. Operators who don't care about the cost of fuel just choose a very high cost index and the speeds will be very close to VMO/MMO. In that particular case I guess my question is not relevant.
