APU fuel burn on the B777
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UTC + 5.30
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APU fuel burn on the B777
Why is it that the APU fuel burn changes with weight at a fixed altitude.I can understand that it changes with altitude due to the drag on the APU door but cant seem to figure out with different weights and at the same altitude.
weight 300t. 260t. 220t
FL 310 230kg/hr. 220. 195.
FL100. 240. 240. 230.
weight 300t. 260t. 220t
FL 310 230kg/hr. 220. 195.
FL100. 240. 240. 230.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18% burn rate change seems way too large for the AOA difference to be the cause, and the boundary layer is pretty thick at the door anyway. I suspect it may be electrical load difference related somehow. Are the numbers for engine out operation?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It can, but not in a specific way. If the center tank is empty those pumps are off, but the weight at which that occurs varies. If you have a lower payload maybe fewer ovens are used to heat meals, but I think galley loads would be shed if you were engine out. It would help to know the condition the burn numbers are for. Engine failure? IDG out dispatch?
I don't know the answer to the OP's question - I'm speculating.
I don't know the answer to the OP's question - I'm speculating.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Texas
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience with APU design (I understand, can be different use case) is it is brute force, I.e. the entire design is not optimized other than to support power or cooling needs. Installation is a fallout. I understand as pointed out it is way back in the thick boundary layer, but given that there is nothing else detailed in the manual other than weight, seems it has to do with AoA. I am also speculating...
Last edited by First IFE; 25th Mar 2020 at 02:19.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UTC + 5.30
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the late response.Numbers are from the FCOM.
Normal figures for APU fuel burn
No non-normal associated with the numbers
Normal figures for APU fuel burn
No non-normal associated with the numbers
Last edited by Analyser; 17th May 2020 at 18:22.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the great thing about web forums where you don't pay by the word, you can enjoy the exploration of questions you find interesting, that aren't "the greatest concern," or even any practical concern.
It doesn't matter.
The fuel tank gauges aren't that accurate anyway.
The fuel tank gauges aren't that accurate anyway.
I would be wary of dismissing things like this as irrelevant, as they sometimes expose significant errors on investigation. Some time ago I was looking at the QRH, in the cruise, at some of the tables, including stopping distances and pitch/power for UAS. There were bits that just seemed odd and I found difficult to understand, so I queried them with our tech guys. Some time later they said that they’d got back to Boeing, who’d gone *whoops* and published new (correct) tables...
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While for the Bus...this has some good information....(page 21 for APU)
ECS rules?
https://ansperformance.eu/library/ai...el-economy.pdf
ECS rules?
https://ansperformance.eu/library/ai...el-economy.pdf
