B737NG target speed deviation during cruise
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DE
Age: 36
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737NG target speed deviation during cruise
Dear all,
Sometimes I notice that the B737NG starts to deviate from the FMC target speed during cruise, and when the deviation becomes too big it adds thrust to correct for this. Although all settings in the FMC PERF INIT page are set-up correct and there are no significant temperature/wind deviations it tends to do this.
Could anyone of you, maybe a technician, come up with a reason for this (e.g. different FMC thrust/speed schedules).
Thank you for sharing your ideas and inputs.
Sometimes I notice that the B737NG starts to deviate from the FMC target speed during cruise, and when the deviation becomes too big it adds thrust to correct for this. Although all settings in the FMC PERF INIT page are set-up correct and there are no significant temperature/wind deviations it tends to do this.
Could anyone of you, maybe a technician, come up with a reason for this (e.g. different FMC thrust/speed schedules).
Thank you for sharing your ideas and inputs.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible the actual payload weight is different from the planned zero fuel weight input into the FMC? For the 737-200 it was discovered that 1200 kgs overweight from what was the entered ZFW will give a loss of some 10 knots in cruise from planned numbers.
For us no speaky 'strane lingo mate, perhaps Framer could translate his simple fix.
As regards the original question I find some of our aircraft are noticeably worse at holding selected speed in all regimes. As the FMS software and flight planning are otherwise consistent this makes me wonder if there could be other factors at work. Performance of older aircraft is known to deteriorate in areas such as fuel burn. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be an aircraft specific factor at work.
As regards the original question I find some of our aircraft are noticeably worse at holding selected speed in all regimes. As the FMS software and flight planning are otherwise consistent this makes me wonder if there could be other factors at work. Performance of older aircraft is known to deteriorate in areas such as fuel burn. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be an aircraft specific factor at work.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A possible remedy ( if cruel ) might be to turn on the "Seat Belt" sign !
Have a look at :
linktrained toilets
on Google. Then go to #395.
I'm sorry, this is the briefest way for me too redirect you. ( Historical note : A York was also an aeroplane, not unlike a 737 in some basic respects, I think.)
Sometimes it would feel as though a Cabin foot-ball match was being played, probably just a queue for the Loo(s).
Have a look at :
linktrained toilets
on Google. Then go to #395.
I'm sorry, this is the briefest way for me too redirect you. ( Historical note : A York was also an aeroplane, not unlike a 737 in some basic respects, I think.)
Sometimes it would feel as though a Cabin foot-ball match was being played, probably just a queue for the Loo(s).
Last edited by Linktrained; 9th May 2013 at 10:35.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure it is just a question of tolerance on the system - just like thermostats etc, they have an 'operating range' before they either 'switch on' or 'off', so the speed keeping will never be precise. As linktrained says,. pax movement will be one possible cause of changed speed. I have seen a 737 classic 'fail' to throttle back until it would have hit the max mach without manual intervention. There I suspect a knackered A/T system, and of course we all know how rubbish the 737 speed control in descent can be.
In previous times with 25 minute turnarounds, lower fuel price and resultant max speed cruise our aircraft would regularly overspeed into the clacker for example when exiting a jet stream. Our safety pilot and the fuel price have pretty much stopped this. But there are clearly situations the autothrottle cannot cope with.
As far as the seatbelts are concerned I find at least in the short term it makes things worse. It seems to have a pavlovian effect of encouraging people to get up and go to the toilet because they think otherwise they will be stuck seated for a while...not ideal when encountering unexpected turblence.
As far as the seatbelts are concerned I find at least in the short term it makes things worse. It seems to have a pavlovian effect of encouraging people to get up and go to the toilet because they think otherwise they will be stuck seated for a while...not ideal when encountering unexpected turblence.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been wondering this myself. How much of this has to do with the how aggressive the FMC speed/autothrottle is when above the target versus below the target?
Why does it need to be any more involved than a simple wind change? The 737 wanders - get used to it.
Last edited by ImbracableCrunk; 20th Sep 2013 at 04:01. Reason: I was cranky when I wrote the first response
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DE
Age: 36
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question does not relate to the B737NG in general, but to specific aircrafts.
Some aircrafts in a fleet seem to maintain the speed better than others do, so this made me wonder if there could be another explanation for this (except the temperature/wind change).
Some aircrafts in a fleet seem to maintain the speed better than others do, so this made me wonder if there could be another explanation for this (except the temperature/wind change).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure it is just a question of tolerance on the system - just like thermostats etc, they have an 'operating range' before they either 'switch on' or 'off', so the speed keeping will never be precise
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A further item from the past:
Google
"fuel economist"flight 75
When fuel was cheaper, I HAD been taught that " The Cheapest Thing in Aviation is PETROL." And pressure pattern looked like the near future.
At Majendie's lecture on "Comet Navigation" to the Institute of Navigation, not then yet Royal, where Mach Cruising looked likely to be added to the Constant Power, Constant Speed and Long Range Cruise that we had studied, for Constellations 049, I think.
"fuel economist"flight 75
When fuel was cheaper, I HAD been taught that " The Cheapest Thing in Aviation is PETROL." And pressure pattern looked like the near future.
At Majendie's lecture on "Comet Navigation" to the Institute of Navigation, not then yet Royal, where Mach Cruising looked likely to be added to the Constant Power, Constant Speed and Long Range Cruise that we had studied, for Constellations 049, I think.
Last edited by Linktrained; 9th May 2013 at 19:05.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question does not relate to the B737NG in general, but to specific aircrafts.
Some aircrafts in a fleet seem to maintain the speed better than others do, so this made me wonder if there could be another explanation for this (except the temperature/wind change).
Some aircrafts in a fleet seem to maintain the speed better than others do, so this made me wonder if there could be another explanation for this (except the temperature/wind change).
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEWARE THE MISSING STEP!!
Once upon a time aircraft were placed "on the step", a speed at which the Mach/IAS seemed to be stable and well known by old codgers and F/Es, some of whom were still around in BAs Classic 747s.
If I recall correctly, the CFP cost index Mach for them was .84, but the experienced aviators (not bean-counters) would demonstrate that .86 was a much more stable cruise Mach # and the resulting fuel consumption increase was negligible compared to CFP, with less thrust lever "hunting".
Has the FMC cost index obsession deleted this knowledge from our database as we drive around controlled by desk pilots?
If I recall correctly, the CFP cost index Mach for them was .84, but the experienced aviators (not bean-counters) would demonstrate that .86 was a much more stable cruise Mach # and the resulting fuel consumption increase was negligible compared to CFP, with less thrust lever "hunting".
Has the FMC cost index obsession deleted this knowledge from our database as we drive around controlled by desk pilots?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On #14 I mentioned a Google reference to "Fuel Economist"
The Flight article (from 1975) was entitled "Precision Precedes Profits" ( which sounds a little over the top !). In the article it was stated that flying more economically increased flight times by 1 minute 23 seconds for each hour of flight for one fleet. (IE. not really noticeable in scheduling)
Yesterday Ryanair said that they were ordering their B737NG fleet to reduce their cruising speed to "save 15% of their fuel cost", thus increasing flight times by 2 minutes per hour.
Pprune has a wide readership. Congratulations !
Or was this just a coincidence ?
The Flight article (from 1975) was entitled "Precision Precedes Profits" ( which sounds a little over the top !). In the article it was stated that flying more economically increased flight times by 1 minute 23 seconds for each hour of flight for one fleet. (IE. not really noticeable in scheduling)
Yesterday Ryanair said that they were ordering their B737NG fleet to reduce their cruising speed to "save 15% of their fuel cost", thus increasing flight times by 2 minutes per hour.
Pprune has a wide readership. Congratulations !
Or was this just a coincidence ?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly a further factor in your speed variations could be that you are flying when and where there may be standing waves.
The record altitude for a glider was 50,699 ft. by Steve Fossett over or near to the Andes in 2006. A powered aircraft would tend to climb (or descend) in these circumstances. With the cruising level held by the A/P, this would tend to vary the speed, or the power needed to hold a set speed.
I think "secondary" standing waves may be found on occasion, some distance downwind from the "primary" one.
The record altitude for a glider was 50,699 ft. by Steve Fossett over or near to the Andes in 2006. A powered aircraft would tend to climb (or descend) in these circumstances. With the cruising level held by the A/P, this would tend to vary the speed, or the power needed to hold a set speed.
I think "secondary" standing waves may be found on occasion, some distance downwind from the "primary" one.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes I notice that the B737NG starts to deviate from the FMC target speed during cruise, and when the deviation becomes too big it adds thrust to correct for this.
Yes, the 737 wanders more than a lot of other a/c.
