Effect of altitude on range and endurance - piston engine aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Effect of altitude on range and endurance - piston engine aircraft
I've been looking at the AFM for the DA40-180 and noticed that for a particular power setting, the TAS increases with increases in pressure altitude. So would I be right in saying that;
1. Range (nil wind) increases with increase in altitude
2. Endurance is not affected by altitude?
1. Range (nil wind) increases with increase in altitude
2. Endurance is not affected by altitude?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Too Low, Terrain.
Age: 38
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Higher altitude = thinner air = less energy required to travel at a certain speed, or for the same energy as at lower altitudes, you can travel faster, ie further for the same time period.
Apologies if you meant something different
JB
Apologies if you meant something different
JB
2. Endurance is not affected by altitude?
* The minimum power required has a dependence on TAS, because power is TAS x drag. Thus minimum power required increases slightly with altitude.
* Engines are slightly more efficient at higher altitude because pumping losses are avoided.
Which effect wins depends on the details.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: VMC on top
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a normally aspirated piston a/c:
range (NOT allowing for the fuel used during the climb) increases with altitude
endurance (a/c flown at minimum power required to fly level) is greatest at low altitude.
Not familiar with the DA series however, ?some are turbocharged? which will have an effect, also I wonder if the diesel engines respond any differently?
PS wind will affect range but not endurance!!
range (NOT allowing for the fuel used during the climb) increases with altitude
endurance (a/c flown at minimum power required to fly level) is greatest at low altitude.
Not familiar with the DA series however, ?some are turbocharged? which will have an effect, also I wonder if the diesel engines respond any differently?
PS wind will affect range but not endurance!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we look back many years to the piston engine airliner era, we find that, if the weights are identical, and further considering that we are talking about altitudes higher than 10,000 msl, the fuel consumption, for the exact same power (BMEP) setting (and these engines were nearly always cruised at the same BHP, for enhanced engine longivity), will be the same for 10,000 msl as it would be for FL210.
However, the true airspeed will increase at the higher flight level, on the order of two knots per 1000 feet (approximately).
Piston engines (in general) are far less affected with regard to fuel consumption that are turbine engines.
However, the true airspeed will increase at the higher flight level, on the order of two knots per 1000 feet (approximately).
Piston engines (in general) are far less affected with regard to fuel consumption that are turbine engines.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. Endurance is not affected by altitude?
Even so, the difference in endurance for something simple like the C172 is minute; we're talking less than 20 mins on a 6 - 7 hour flight. Either way, that's far longer than my boredom limit...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Q! *thinking* Doesn't that apply more to range than to endurance though?
When looking at the endurance charts for the aircraft I fly (C172R&S), it says the chart allows for the fuel used for engine start, taxi, takeoff and climb, and the time during climb. It says nothing about descent. So maybe the chart would look different if it did...
It would take about 15 mins to descend from 12,000 ft at idle power, and about twice that long to climb up there. You'd use 5 USG for the climb, which is 1.2 USG more than you'd use in half an hour at 55% power at SL. If you were to shut down the engine at 12,000 ft and glide to landing, you'd save the 2 USG you'd have used for about 15 mins of SL cruise. So it seems you're right, it does appear to roughly add up!
When looking at the endurance charts for the aircraft I fly (C172R&S), it says the chart allows for the fuel used for engine start, taxi, takeoff and climb, and the time during climb. It says nothing about descent. So maybe the chart would look different if it did...
It would take about 15 mins to descend from 12,000 ft at idle power, and about twice that long to climb up there. You'd use 5 USG for the climb, which is 1.2 USG more than you'd use in half an hour at 55% power at SL. If you were to shut down the engine at 12,000 ft and glide to landing, you'd save the 2 USG you'd have used for about 15 mins of SL cruise. So it seems you're right, it does appear to roughly add up!
Last edited by bjornhall; 17th Jun 2008 at 19:22. Reason: Thought some more
If you were to shut down the engine at 12,000 ft and glide to landing, you'd save the 2 USG you'd have used for about 15 mins of SL cruise. So it seems you're right, it does appear to roughly add up!
There's an inefficiency in turning fuel into energy:
a) at low powers, where the engine is relatively inefficient
b) at high powers and low airspeeds, where a richer than optimum mixture is required for cooling
Hence I think there's some offsetting of fuel burn in the climb and descent, but on balance you use more fuel than flying level for the same time.