Fuel Savings From Cg
 

Hi all,
Can somebody quantify the fuel savings of an aft Cg as opposed to an extrem Fwd Cg? i would really be interested to know what the difference is in real numbers.

we have always been taught that an aft Cg saves fuel and some w&b systems actually suggest an optimal LIZFW (usually around 10pt from aft limit)

Is it worth my while trying to achieve an optimal Cg on a short sector eg dub-fra ??

thanks, john.

I have no figures, but whoever 'taught' you was correct and it is worth it on EVERY sector, and more so with every upward $.

sounds good i`ll continue as such ... anyone got any ballpark figures?

john?

We had correction factors in the old L1011 AFM but I don't recall them off the top of my head. But for sure it was real and on long sectors when loaded aft of that used in the jet plan the savings were considerable.

Hope this helps
 

2%

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...ain_H-2002.pdf

1 1/2% for every 5% of CG shift on a GLEX. Had charts for large types like the C-5, 744. It is significant.

2% on the data from the 310 tests from AB but the figures are different for each type as G flyer states.

GF do you know Mike McCook?

2% ? Wow that is quite significant! Similar to the fuel saved by winglets.

John

conversely some manufacturers offer Forward CoG schedules to improve take off perf. Ideally you would like to have it forwards for take off and then shift it back in flight which is what many jets do now.

Yeah your welcome Hoppy...feel free to go to that Nasa site link I posted..have a nice day..

The pdf you linked talks about a 2% reduction on an A310. so you are welcome.

http://iata.org/NR/ContentConnector/...y_Material.pdf

Pages 10-12

All airbus types

DTG :ok:

ssg might be better off reading this one: http://www.flightlevel400.com/docume...erformance.pdf

or this:http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/flig...ngtechnique/41

FE Hoppy

Nice link to Airbus V1 philosophy. Mike McCook doesn't ring a bell, where might I have met him? I'm an exile from some of ssg's threads.

I recall a presentation from a QF fellow at the RAeS some years ago .. relating to a study (which was driven by a pilot's interest, rather than the engineering folk at it turned out) which looked at rescheduling the tailtank usage on the 744 to constrain the aft cg a little more ... long range it was worth a couple of (fare-paying) extra passengers .. over a year, something in excess of a lot of money.

GF

He was a Galaxy FE and Instructor. But I guess there are many.

I checked out the Nasa link for aft CG...can't say it applies to all planes, but they seem to make it clear that if you can leave the fuel as far aft for the duration of the flight....2% savings is the approximate result.

Begs to ask the question of why we still hang our tails on the end of the plane the way we do...

Angels,

Don't forget that aft CoG is bad for Vmc so it's not always appropriate to have an aft CoG.

Couldn't agree more Hoppy...I guess in some cases trying to save a buck on fuel, or engines, or whatever, we could end up reducing safety...defeats the purpose if the plane goes in.....