Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Glide ratio

Old 9th Apr 2014, 04:55
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,406
Glide ratio

What minimum glide ratio, if any is established for transport category aircraft?
From deep in the recesses, I remember 12:1, yes/no?

Yes, I did a cursory google search, didn't find what I was looking for.
West Coast is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2014, 06:47
  #2 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,362
I have never seen any "requirement" per se.

However, commercial reality dictates that a design have good L/D characteristics (or it will fall by the bean counters' wayside).

A reasonable present rule of thumb for heavies is that they glide (nil engines) somewheres around 2nm/1000ft .. which approximates 12:1.

As design and manufacturing technical capability improves .. so will the glide performance as a sideline consequence of improving L/D values.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2014, 18:00
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 84
Only requirement I ever heard of was for motor-gliders to keep people from selling bog-standard powered airplanes as motor-gliders to get around medical requirments.
island_airphoto is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2014, 03:45
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,598
100-odd nm from 30,000ft at well above best glide speed at idle. More like 15-17:1, methinks.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2014, 03:47
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,406
The 15-17:1 value falls in line with the values I'm finding as well.
West Coast is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2014, 12:57
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Seattle KBFI
Posts: 103
20:1 was what I was initially taught to expect.

But straight turbojet should be a bit higher that modern turbofan......
bigduke6 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2014, 13:08
  #7 (permalink)  
PBY
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 172
With A320 I am doing at green dot around 200 Knots and descend rate around 1200 fpm.

If you divide 200 by 12 (1200 fpm descend) you come up with 16.6.
That is roughly the glide ratio 1:17
PBY is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2014, 09:56
  #8 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,362
I had presumed that the OP was looking for all engine out gliding performance due to his reference to 12:1.

2nm/1000 is reasonably typical for that situation clean approximating 12:1 .. with quite a bit extra accruing for all engines at idle .. typically 3nm/1000 which approximates 18:1.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2014, 20:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Middle Europe
Posts: 76
A320 QRH states the aircraft can fly up to approximately 2.5NM per 1000ft at green dot in case of dual engine failure. this will make a glide ratio of around 15:1
sierra_mike is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2014, 20:55
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,406
John is correct, but all input is appreciated.

15:1 at green dot. Does green dot represent best L/D, or close to it?
West Coast is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2014, 23:56
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,041
We always used a rule-of-thumb that you could glide 100 miles after the loss of all engines at 'typical cruise' altitudes. I've never bothered to figure out what sort of l/d that would work out to. IIRC, for all engine out Boeing tells you to maintain an airspeed consistent with the windmill start envelope (which would depend on the aircraft/engine combination). Granted, for fuel exhaustion that won't help...


I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about anything in the FARs regarding l/d or glide ratio - just that the airplane had to be controllable (hence the need for a RAT on many installations).
tdracer is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 01:09
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 1,926
B767-200 17.9:1 AFM had it.


B727 - supposedly 17:1 (I'm guessing it was just an estimate).


B757-200W and 737-800W - approx. 19.5:1 calculated sink rate/TAS in the airplane.


B777-200 - guessing close to 19:1. It seems to be similar, but slightly less, than the 757W and 737W performance




B787-8 - 21-22:1 per Aviation Week and Space Technology






18:1 is simple math - FL(minus one zero) x 3 = glide distance. Eg FL300 - 30 x 3 = 90.


30,000' = 5 nm. 5 x 18 = 90.




10,000'/250 kts/no wind - 35 nm away should make the runway. 40 nm is tougher and wouldn't be worth the risk in real life(IMO)(simulator profiles).
misd-agin is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 08:14
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by misd-agin View Post
B757-200W and 737-800W - approx. 19.5:1 calculated sink rate/TAS in the airplane.
This is a fact that is easily overlooked when discussing Glide Ratio.
Aerodynamically the correct glide Ratio is sink rate/IAS. When calculating how far you can glide with regard to Mother Earth, it becomes sink rate/TAS.
When starting the glide at >40k this will make quite a difference, so with an aerodynamic glide Ratio of 12 an effective glide Ratio regarding the Earth of ~16 - 17 could be expected.
henra is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 09:14
  #14 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,362
Aerodynamically the correct glide Ratio is sink rate/IAS

Might we ask you to amplify this a little .. ?
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 10:29
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine View Post
Aerodynamically the correct glide Ratio is sink rate/IAS

Might we ask you to amplify this a little .. ?
I'm, afraid I need to, because after re-reading I see it can be a bit misleading/un-precise...

Lift and drag are dependent purely on IAS/CAS. The L/D will thus only be a function of IAS (leaving Mach aside). However, the distance travelled in a certain time will be greater when TAS > IAS. So while sinking at the same rate per second (Edit: Wrong assumption!), the distance travelled will be greater. The 'apparent' glide Ratio will be greater, while L/D still remained the same). So what I was trying to say is that with an L/D of 12 you might (Edit: not) achieve a glide Ratio of 16 to 17 regarding distance travelled from a defined Altitude.
Edit:
Please ignore this calculation. Thanks to @JT (I didn't read the signs and digged deeper, sorry!) and @Owain for pointing this out!

Last edited by henra; 14th Apr 2014 at 22:08.
henra is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 17:02
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 556
To contribute a real world perspective...

I once did a demonstration of a DC-8-72 where I reduced thrust to idle from FL240 @ 74 NM out to a straight-in. Field elevation: 1288'. I was able to land without touching power, within 5 kts of on speed at the threshold just by managing energy with gear and flap extension timing (there are no speed brakes on a DC-8, BTW) The landing weight was ~205,000# on a 350,000# TOGW limit.

When flying the Classic 747, one must adjust idle power descent point depending on TOD weight if planning a min fuel burn descent without ATC interference. The heavier the weight, the longer the glide, and the lower the weight, the shorter the glide. The difference in a no wind situation glide between landing weights of 630,000# and 380,000# could be ~25-30 NM. Airplanes with a lesser delta would obviously be affected by weight to a much smaller degree.

From a small airplane standpoint, gliding distance improved very noticeably when I added flap gap seals to my 185. Descent planning to a VFR traffic pattern required a re-evaluation due to the resulting drag reduction.

Engage in speedbrake-free energy management without a green arc or dot. It's an enjoyable game.
Desert185 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 17:06
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,406
I'm afraid SOP and industry practice won't allow power off descent to touchdown anymore.
West Coast is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 17:33
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 556
I know. Mine was accomplished last summer, and done outside an "industry" circumstance. The point perhaps is that the concept is not necessarily encouraged (or, in fact, is prohibited), which is a negative for pilots today. Why not encourage the practice of energy management to 1,000' AGL in VFR conditions to agree with industry stabilized approach criteria? Being fuel efficient and proficient in your craft can't be a bad thing.
Desert185 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 18:21
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: farmm intersection, our ranch
Age: 52
Posts: 202
Being fuel efficient and proficient in your craft can't be a bad thing.

That would require actual flying skills...
flyingchanges is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2014, 02:57
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 556
flyingchanges:

As an old guy in this business, I'm probably going to retire for the final time the end of this year. I know that there are young guys around, including my son, who feel the same about flying skills, as apparently you also do. Over emphasis on automation is killing the flying skills, which should exist to support the process when the automation fails or is unavailable. I'm lucky to be finishing my career with a talented group of flight test and research pilots who get it. They not only have confirmed the concept for me, they have been an inspiration.

Automation is a good thing if used properly within a defined CRM relationship between that automation and the pilot's skilled inputs and oversight. Unfortunately, we've headed in a direction that compromises the necessary piloting skills that are required to manage or rescue that automation should the time arise when the guy/gal in the seat needs to be a pilot again.

I hope there's enough folks around to preserve the concept and protect and preserve the title and meaning of "pilot", with and without the assistance of automation. Evolve and adapt, don't devolve.
Desert185 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.