Flex vs Rated Thrust
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: HK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex vs Rated Thrust
Someone told me that utilizing a flex (derated) thrust will result in a higher fuel consumption compared to burnage with rated thrust settings for takeoff .
I always thought that it would take more energy to achieve a faster acceleration in subsonic conditions . Can anyone elaborate or point me in the right direction please.
I always thought that it would take more energy to achieve a faster acceleration in subsonic conditions . Can anyone elaborate or point me in the right direction please.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 28th Jan 2014 at 22:02.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you spend longer to accelerate more gradually in thick air, then you potentially use more fuel to get to the same speed.
Acceleration is proportional to thrust, but energy expended is the time integral of thrust and velocity, so depends on the speed profile as drag builds on takeoff, and then needs to be tweaked for the relationship between thrust and fuel consumption.
Just along the runway, it seems reasonable that reaching the same take off speed more slowly will consume more fuel, as while the aircraft has the same energy when it leaves the ground, when derated there's a longer track of moving air stirred up behind you.
However, is the motivation for derating is about saving money by protecting the engine from unnecessarily high temperatures? In that case, a few kg of fuel is cheaper than an overhaul.
Acceleration is proportional to thrust, but energy expended is the time integral of thrust and velocity, so depends on the speed profile as drag builds on takeoff, and then needs to be tweaked for the relationship between thrust and fuel consumption.
Just along the runway, it seems reasonable that reaching the same take off speed more slowly will consume more fuel, as while the aircraft has the same energy when it leaves the ground, when derated there's a longer track of moving air stirred up behind you.
However, is the motivation for derating is about saving money by protecting the engine from unnecessarily high temperatures? In that case, a few kg of fuel is cheaper than an overhaul.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering the ROC is less, you spend more time getting to altitude. This MAY (depending on the engines' SFC curve) burn more fuel - again the tradeoff is longer time on wing for your engines.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derated takeoffs & climbs
According to Boeing:
On repeated full-thrust takeoffs and climbs, the parts that suffer the most would be the combustor, hot section seals and HPT airfoils. Below is an interesting presentation given by Rolls Royce on this subject:
Derated Climb Performance
From a fuel consumption perspective, a full-thrust takeoff and a full-thrust climb profile offer the most fuel economy for an unrestricted climb. However, from an airline’s cost perspective, this must be balanced with engine degradation and time between overhauls, as well as guidance from the engine manufacturer. The airline’s engineering department must perform the analysis and provide direction to flight crews to minimize overall cost of operation when using takeoff derates or assumed temperature takeoffs and climbs
Derated Climb Performance
Last edited by Turbine D; 28th Jan 2014 at 15:50. Reason: Added another source of information
