Aicraft weight does not directly affect fuel consumption,just because you have a lot of bags it doesn't mean you need a lot of fuel...at all.
Aicraft weight does not directly affect fuel consumption,just because you have a lot of bags it doesn't mean you need a lot of fuel...at all.
Can you explain this further? I'm not a pilot so I don't understand how weight won't affect fuel consumption. I would assume its like a car, when I have a trunk load of stuff I burn more fuel moving the car forward.Originally Posted by Informant
I'm confused by that as well.
If two planes are flying the same distance, one a ferry flight and the other just under the MTOW, you're saying that both would burn the same amount of fuel?
Email me anytime at [email protected].
Wow, as someone who used to W&B 747's daily to Tokyo, I highly disagree with that statement. Please explain Mr. Informant.
I would agree , payload has a direct affect on fuel consumption.
It does indeed have a direct affect. Espesially when you are forced to step climb due to your weight.
Southwest Airlines-"Once it pop's it's time to stop" Southwest Airlines-"Our Shamu's are almost real" Southwest Airlines -"We blow our top real easy" Southwest Airlines- "You can't top us..... really"
Well let me explain it all to you.
You have an aircraft a 747 better yet, make it two.The first aircraft has its tanks all 10 tanks full and no payload except for a two-man crew. The second has full fuel as well but also is filled with cargo.
Both aircraft are the dsme make and model,both aircraft will fly the same route, both have the same amount of fuel.
Why will one burn up more than the other?
We all agree that the higher you cruise the less drag you encounter, the aircraft's limit on that is speed and weight, if you have the speed you can have the altitude..ie the concorde.
The second 747 being heavy will not be able to climb to that cruise altitude in the same time it will take the first one, even so, it will have to spend time at a lower altitude to burn off enough fuel to reach its desired cruise altitude. Sometimes when we fly to Asia form the east coast we may have to make a stop up north ot get more fuel because we won't have enough to continue due to our being too heavy to get up to our preferred/planned cruise level, and sometimes density altitude will just have us wasting gas on the tarmac because we will be too heavy to take off.
So weight does not directly control the amount of fuel you are required to have. Its the effects of what you are carrying/ how much you weigh which will determine how much fuel you burn.
How about this , I have two flightplans in front of me , same aircraft going MIA-VCP . Each flightplan has different payloads. There is a 7 ton (15,432lbs) difference in the two. exactly the same flightplan route , same alternate , holding fuel and cruise altitude. The enroute winds are exactly the same. The enroute fuel burn is 12117kg (26,713lbs) per hour for the higher payload , while the lower payload has a fuelburn of 11803kg (26,020lbs) per hour.
The min fuel required for the heavier flightplan 104965kg
The min fuel required for the lighter flightplan 102498kg
2467kg difference :borat:
Further proof payload's affect on performance , for every 1000kgs of payload increase over the flightplan payload , our crews add 206kg of fuel
The pax 747 actually has 9 tanks (including one in each horizontal stabilizer), the freighter has 7
So weight does not directly control the amount of fuel you are required to have. Its the effects of what you are carrying/ how much you weigh which will determine how much fuel you burn.
How do these 2 statements not contradict each other?
No offense, but you seem to be twisting words to try and stir something up and make others wrong who are actually just saying the same thing as you. I don't understand why.
ahahahahahah :borat:
um...YES IT DOES, PERIOD! I do not care how you word what ever sentences you want, the above statment is not true. Please tell me you are not doing weight an balance.
The three most common expressions in aviation are, "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh Crap".
No Mel not at all, wasn't my intention. A direct effect or direct correlation,meeans that there is an exact positive or negative relationship based on two givens, for example, the price of a steak, to how much it weighs.The price of the steak will go up, as the weight goes up-positive correlation/ a direct effect.
When I say there is no direct effect/'+'(positve) correlation between weight and how much fuel you need I am saying, there is no set equation where one adds a specific amount of fuel for every bag or piece of cargo added- that's what I feel is being said here and that makes no sense at all. Weight does have an effect on fuel consumption, but not directly- as I said before the weight will restrict you to a to certain altitudes and speeds which in turn will give you range and fuel burn issues.
Fred, I hope I don't have to do weight 'an' balance either', and ahahahahahaha x 2 because No it doesn't!
HUH?
THUS More Weight is More fuel burn! :borat:
If I overload my car so it can not do more than 35mph, my fuel burn is going to be high with my peddal on the floor, but it is not my altitude that is affecting me that much, it is the fact that my car is overloaded. It is hard to move things, The more you need to move, the more power needed and the more power needed, will determine how much fuel you need. It is simple as this holds its weight in ANY application....even in space! If your space ship is 2x heavier, it will take more fuel to push it the same speed as a vehicle with less mass. I hope that is easier to understand. :borat:
The three most common expressions in aviation are, "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh Crap".
Fred, did you read the beginning of my last post where I explained what a direct effect was? For arguments sake okay, if you have more weight yes you will burn more fuel because of the effects of that weight on the performance of the aircraft. What I am arguing(and check my original unedited post) is you don't put on more fuel when, when you add more weight- if you're flying Memphis to Dubai your gonna have almost full tanks,if you add more cargo, you can only add so much more fuel. What happens when the tanks are full, and you still have more cargo to load?
You leave cargo behind. Hence the corollary of more weight = more fuel. When you run out of room for fuel OF course you cannot add more weight, AND get to your planned destination.What happens when the tanks are full, and you still have more cargo to load?
I don't know how much simpler we can make this.
Well then please do, I don't know how much more I can explain it.And im not gonna try, anyone at JFK? I'm thinking of heading down to P.R for the day.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks