Airbus performance factor MINUS
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minus per factor
Does it mean that the engines will burn less fuel than what the flight plan depicts ? I have seen this on A330 with rather old engines a little hard to swallow
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a generic FMGC model for each aircraft type. i.e. A320, A330 etc. In order to tailor each engine type and airframe this is adjusted slightly. An A321-211 (CFM-56 5B3 with singular annular combustion chamber) may be 1% more efficient than the generic model. It will have a bias of -1. The dual annular combustion chamber version may have different bias. Add on top of this the degradation from engine and airframe wear/drag as the aircraft ages, you get the the FMGC bias. So, aircraft/type bias (contained in the FCOM) + increase in drag/fuel burn % = FMGC bias.
Google 'Getting to Grips with Performance Monitoring' from Airbus.
Google 'Getting to Grips with Performance Monitoring' from Airbus.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Land of everlasting thirst
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very rare to see a '-' performance factor on a bus, if the performance blokes are constantly monitoring and updating. Not a single plane on EK's inventory with a -. There were a few A330's a few years ago but all in the + now. Even the new A380's are starting with 0.
Maybe the Perf guys just want to be conservative.
Maybe the Perf guys just want to be conservative.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Holding at DESDI
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@LongJon:
I used to be an engineer at EK. They had a couple of old 777s, MIKE series, where they wanted us to do a complete re-rig of ALL the flight controls.
Directive was not just to get the values within AMM tolerances, but to rig everything as perfect as was possible. And we did... and apparently they got somewhere between 1% and 2% better fuel burn than before.
Mind you... those two airframes were singled out - or doubled out
- for poor fuel consumption anyway.
So it is possible for an airframe to go in for a major check, and have everything re-rigged, (not just flight controls, but doors too... pax, cargo, gear) AND the airframe polished back to it's factory shine, AND the engines washed, and you could get a -ve perf factor.
LOL! Dunno why, but the term cougar-town comes to mind! he he he...
I used to be an engineer at EK. They had a couple of old 777s, MIKE series, where they wanted us to do a complete re-rig of ALL the flight controls.
Directive was not just to get the values within AMM tolerances, but to rig everything as perfect as was possible. And we did... and apparently they got somewhere between 1% and 2% better fuel burn than before.
Mind you... those two airframes were singled out - or doubled out
- for poor fuel consumption anyway.So it is possible for an airframe to go in for a major check, and have everything re-rigged, (not just flight controls, but doors too... pax, cargo, gear) AND the airframe polished back to it's factory shine, AND the engines washed, and you could get a -ve perf factor.
LOL! Dunno why, but the term cougar-town comes to mind! he he he...
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: UAE
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I haven't bothered to check, EK may not currently have any aircraft with a negative performance degradation. Despite other comments here that wasn't always the case, especially on the GE powered 777's.
Most of the early 300-ER's were running degradations in the range of over -3.0% and still burning substantially (tons not hundreds) of kilos less fuel than the -3% flight planned. Let's face it, TC ordered the aircraft on the back of published performance specs so it's little wonder that he went on to order 170+.
They seem to have sorted out the true performance figures and Boeing are delivering aircraft with 0 which just means they have the data to sharpen the pencil to an accurate number.
Can't speak for the bus, but the 380 economics obviously work as well otherwise they wouldn't be clogging up the pavement.
Most of the early 300-ER's were running degradations in the range of over -3.0% and still burning substantially (tons not hundreds) of kilos less fuel than the -3% flight planned. Let's face it, TC ordered the aircraft on the back of published performance specs so it's little wonder that he went on to order 170+.
They seem to have sorted out the true performance figures and Boeing are delivering aircraft with 0 which just means they have the data to sharpen the pencil to an accurate number.
Can't speak for the bus, but the 380 economics obviously work as well otherwise they wouldn't be clogging up the pavement.
