A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fuel efficient freight planes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 14th 03, 02:25 AM
Jonas Heisenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fuel efficient freight planes

Hi all.

Looked around a bit for fuel efficient (big, commercial) airplanes.
The best ones I found were the Tupolev TU-330 and the Antonov AN-70.
They had cruising speeds/fuel consumption of 780-850 km/h and 118-125
g/t-km. Now my question: would lowering the cruising speed to e.g.
300-400 km/h make them more efficient?

Thanks, Jonas
Ads
  #3  
Old November 15th 03, 03:47 AM
Steve McCroskey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jonas,

At some point you'll reach a point of diminishing returns. As
speed decreases induced drag increases and you need to increase power
to maintain altitude/speed. Most jet aircraft have a maximum cruise
power, long range cruise power and intermediate cruise power setting.
Intermediate gives the best time to burn ratio, but if your prime
concern is fuel savings and extended range, then you could fly at the
LRC setting, which, in some aircraft, could yield up to a 15% increase
in range. The expense, though, is flight time.

P.

(Jonas Heisenberg) wrote in message om...
Hi all.

Looked around a bit for fuel efficient (big, commercial) airplanes.
The best ones I found were the Tupolev TU-330 and the Antonov AN-70.
They had cruising speeds/fuel consumption of 780-850 km/h and 118-125
g/t-km. Now my question: would lowering the cruising speed to e.g.
300-400 km/h make them more efficient?

Thanks, Jonas

  #4  
Old November 16th 03, 01:21 AM
Jonas Heisenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks for your replies.

So as I understand it, these planes are constructed to operate most
economically at ca. 80-90% of their maximum speeds. Has it ever been
tried to build planes that are built specifically for lower speeds and
higher efficiencies (recent - no WWII)?

Jonas
At some point you'll reach a point of diminishing returns. As
speed decreases induced drag increases and you need to increase power
to maintain altitude/speed. Most jet aircraft have a maximum cruise
power, long range cruise power and intermediate cruise power setting.
Intermediate gives the best time to burn ratio, but if your prime
concern is fuel savings and extended range, then you could fly at the
LRC setting, which, in some aircraft, could yield up to a 15% increase
in range. The expense, though, is flight time.

  #5  
Old November 16th 03, 07:53 AM
Pat Barry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes- look at a Twin Otter.



Jonas Heisenberg wrote:

Thanks for your replies.

So as I understand it, these planes are constructed to operate most
economically at ca. 80-90% of their maximum speeds. Has it ever been
tried to build planes that are built specifically for lower speeds and
higher efficiencies (recent - no WWII)?

Jonas
At some point you'll reach a point of diminishing returns. As
speed decreases induced drag increases and you need to increase power
to maintain altitude/speed. Most jet aircraft have a maximum cruise
power, long range cruise power and intermediate cruise power setting.
Intermediate gives the best time to burn ratio, but if your prime
concern is fuel savings and extended range, then you could fly at the
LRC setting, which, in some aircraft, could yield up to a 15% increase
in range. The expense, though, is flight time.


  #7  
Old November 17th 03, 02:24 AM
Jonas Heisenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The Twin Otter seems to be slower, though less fuel efficient than the
planes mentioned above. Probably the Air-Ships of the 30 were? Saw a
documentary about someone who went 1200km with a glider in the Andes.
Maybe Motor-gliders would be most efficient?

Yes- look at a Twin Otter.



Jonas Heisenberg wrote:

Thanks for your replies.

So as I understand it, these planes are constructed to operate most
economically at ca. 80-90% of their maximum speeds. Has it ever been
tried to build planes that are built specifically for lower speeds and
higher efficiencies (recent - no WWII)?

Jonas
At some point you'll reach a point of diminishing returns. As
speed decreases induced drag increases and you need to increase power
to maintain altitude/speed. Most jet aircraft have a maximum cruise
power, long range cruise power and intermediate cruise power setting.
Intermediate gives the best time to burn ratio, but if your prime
concern is fuel savings and extended range, then you could fly at the
LRC setting, which, in some aircraft, could yield up to a 15% increase
in range. The expense, though, is flight time.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
spaceship one Pianome Home Built 169 June 30th 04 05:47 AM
Yo! Fuel Tank! Veeduber Home Built 15 October 25th 03 02:57 AM
Pumping fuel backwards through an electric fuel pump Greg Reid Home Built 15 October 7th 03 07:09 PM
Conspiracy Theorists (amusing) Grantland Military Aviation 1 October 2nd 03 12:17 AM
More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with added nationalistic abuse (was: #1 Jet of World War II) The Revolution Will Not Be Televised Military Aviation 161 September 25th 03 07:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.