# ULH flights burn much more fuel

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.*

Join Date: Feb 2012

Location: USA

Posts: 229

umm... I believe he's saying that longer flights use more fuel

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.

**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.

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.

Unless you have detailed fuel plans for each scenario under identical conditions, I don't think you can generalize.

Join Date: Jan 2008

Location: Reading, UK

Posts: 11,121

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 don’t (can’t) 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.

Depending on the efficiency of the airframe, there will be a point where adding more fuel has mathematically virtually no effect on range. We don’t (can’t) 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.

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;-)

Join Date: Feb 2012

Location: USA

Posts: 229

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....

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....

Join Date: Feb 2012

Location: USA

Posts: 229

**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*

Join Date: Jan 2008

Location: Reading, UK

Posts: 11,121

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.

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.

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

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