Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

ULH flights burn much more fuel

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

ULH flights burn much more fuel

Old 8th Jan 2017, 21:51
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 0
ULH flights burn much more fuel

As much as 20% more according to a simple comment I read.

Is it really that much?

Example....Perth-London versus Perth-Dubai-London.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 22:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,686
I think BOAC would agree, I mean 6 fuel stops down to Joburg is obviously the right thing to do. Non-stop would be a ridiculous idea.
TURIN is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 22:35
  #3 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,703
Not ULH, but for illustration: a quick look into integrated planning tables for A333 suggests 11% difference in favour of 2x 4000 NM instead of 8000. (how niche is 8k with 333 I do not know)

Last edited by FlightDetent; 8th Jan 2017 at 22:45.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 23:37
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,596
There is a rule of thumb that says ~13% penalty for 'tankering' fuel - I'd assume ULH would be similar or perhaps a bit less.
tdracer is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 04:02
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,837
Hang on a minute, you're saying longer flights use more fuel ?
stilton is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 04:06
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,024
There was a thread hereabouts, and from memory the optimum stage distance was about 4,000 miles.
megan is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 04:12
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,436
3% per hour for the tankered fuel, in this case the tankered fuel would be fuel for 4000-8000 nms, so lets say 8 hours x3 = 24% of the fuel.
mutt is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 06:18
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 229
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
Hang on a minute, you're saying longer flights use more fuel ?
umm... I believe he's saying that longer flights use more fuel per mile.... but then again what do I know.

Related news: Shipping the kerosene needed for the second half of the flight, to the midway point, is more efficiently done by truck or boat than by airplane. Or so I've been told.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 06:26
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,130
But you also have to add in the fuel for terminal operations, taxi, and climbout form the stopover point.

Unless you have detailed fuel plans for each scenario under identical conditions, I don't think you can generalize.
Intruder is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 07:21
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,121
Originally Posted by megan View Post
There was a thread hereabouts, and from memory the optimum stage distance was about 4,000 miles.
This one ?

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/14857...g-formula.html
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 08:19
  #11 (permalink)  
CCA
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Up there
Posts: 170
It's exponential, There's no fixed %.

The longer the flight the higher the average percentage.
CCA is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 09:33
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,414
Yes.

Depending on the efficiency of the airframe, there will be a point where adding more fuel has mathematically virtually no effect on range. We donít (canít) operate in this area but the curve is beginning to steepen in the latter half of ULH sectors, so the increase in total fuel burn to go an extra hour at the end is considerably more than you might expect assuming linear behaviour.
FullWings is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 11:09
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 80
Posts: 280
I haven't done the sums, but it seems likely that there is a point where adding more fuel actually reduces the range. That assumes sufficient fuel tank capacity, of course.
Dairyground is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 11:38
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,121
I'd be fascinated to see any calculations that show that.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 11:58
  #15 (permalink)  
jtt
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 19
Well, if you load an infinite amount of fuel the airplane becomes infinitely heavy. So you need infinite thrust just to get it to move. And for that you need an infinite amount of fuel - all the fuel you loaded will be gone the moment you attempt to start taxiing;-)
jtt is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 21:49
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 229
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
I'd be fascinated to see any calculations that show that.
The devil is, of course, in the details, and this doesn't take into account taxi, climb, terminal ops, etc. but....

If for a given airplane the cost of tankering fuel is x% per hour (say f'rinstance 3%), meaning that it takes 3 lbs per hour incremental burn to carry 100 incremental lbs of fuel, then a hard theoretical limit of flight duration is going to be 1.0/x hours (say f'rinstance 33 hours).

Fuel your aircraft for 33 hours endurance. Add 1,000 lbs of fuel, and, at the end of 33 hours you'll still be bingo fuel because you will have burned the whole 1,000 lbs carrying the extra fuel.

Mumble, mumble, double integrals, diffe-q, mumble mumble this is, as is the "x% per hour for tankering" rule of thumb, an oversimplification.

Will you ever get to the point that adding fuel reduces your range? I dunno, the only experience I have with Calculus these days is that recurring dream in which you show up for the final exam, only to realize that you didn't go to any of the lectures, didn't read the book, are stark naked, and forgot to bring a pencil....
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 21:54
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 229
Originally Posted by jtt View Post
Well, if you load an infinite amount of fuel the airplane becomes infinitely heavy. So you need infinite thrust just to get it to move. And for that you need an infinite amount of fuel - all the fuel you loaded will be gone the moment you attempt to start taxiing;-)
Conversation years ago with a mathematically-inclined 12 year old who was enthusiastically learning the concepts of infinity:

Q: "If you had a pie, and an infinite number of people lined up, and each person in line, when it was his turn, took half the remaining pie, when would the pie be gone?"

A: "When the whole line had had their turn!"

Last edited by Gauges and Dials; 9th Jan 2017 at 21:54. Reason: Typo
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 22:20
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,121
Originally Posted by Gauges and Dials View Post
Will you ever get to the point that adding fuel reduces your range?
No, as a simple thought experiment will show.

Hopefully I can leave that to the interested reader.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 22:44
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 50
Posts: 1,609
Tankering fuel means arriving with the extra weight. That is not the same as arriving having burned it.

You need to add the fuel to the start of the flight not the end.

However, every aircraft will have a sweet design spot and simply adding more fuel tanks and reducing traffic for the same weight will of course use more fuel per passenger mile.
FE Hoppy is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 23:11
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right hand seat of a 777
Posts: 116
Funnily enough I was talking about this the other day. On some (extremely rough) calculations on the DXB-AKL vs DXB-SYD-AKL

DXB-AKL- 231T
DXB-SYD-AKL 225T

Like I said, rough calculations, but the 6T of fuel saved is roughly 30 minutes of flying.

Perhaps someone could give more accurate figures
OMAAbound is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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