Close

Logging In

### not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Rate it! or

The best way to stretch fuel is to slow down.
It can be a case of diminishing returns, but
sometimes a few extra miles means a lot.

You might guess that the minimum-­drag speed ought naturally to be the best range speed as well, but it isn’t. The reason is that, as you increase power from the minimum required to stay aloft, speed at first increases more rapidly than fuel flow does. Just how much higher the best-range speed is than the minimum-power speed depends on airframe, engine and propeller characteristics, but it’s going to be somewhere around 40 or 50 percent above the clean stalling speed. Like most aerodynamic curves, the speed-power curve is pretty flat at the bottom, and so you might as well err on the high side and call it 50 percent, especially because “half again” is easier to calculate in your head than “four-tenths more.” An airplane with a 54-knot clean stalling speed would have a best-range speed — this is an indicated, not a true, speed — of 54 plus 27, or 81 knots, and one with an 80-knot stalling speed, 120 knots. Most single-engine airplanes have clean stalling speeds below 70 knots, and so the best-range speed of the faster ones would be around 100 to 105 knots.

This is an indicated airspeed, and it is intolerably slow. That is why the choice of a speed to fly is complicated by a headwind: A low cruising speed is more strongly affected by wind, and for a longer time. A common rule of thumb is that the best-range speed should be increased by a quarter of the headwind component. Something analogous would apply to whatever reduced speed you choose in order to conserve fuel. In any case, a strong headwind is going to take a painful bite out of a reduced cruising speed.

As I mentioned before, the speed-power curve is quite flat at the bottom, and so the difference in range between the theoretical best-range speed and a speed 10 or 20 knots above it is comparatively small. In fact, even the difference between the mileage you get at best-range speed and what you get at maximum cruising speed is less than you might hope. The gain in miles per gallon between 75 percent power and best-range speed is typically around one-third; it’s something like the difference between city and highway mileage in a car. The greatest gains will be seen by pilots who habitually cruise at 75 or 80 percent of power. Reducing power from 75 percent to 55 percent might yield them a 20 percent improvement in miles per gallon for only a 10 percent loss in speed. On the other hand, the difference between cruising at 110 kias and at a throttled-back 130 kias, in an airplane capable of 150 kias, will be just a few percent.

The important number to remember is one-third. Take that as the absolute outside limit of what you can gain by slowing down. You cannot double your range, or even increase it by half; just to improve by a full third will require a huge sacrifice in speed. If you’re down to the last hour of a trip and you’re doing 180 knots at 75 percent power, even the most drastic slowing will gain you only 60 extra miles.

Besides wind and speed, another means the pilot of a nonturbine airplane has to increase range is leaning the mixture. How effective leaning can be depends on how the pilot normally does it; if you normally cruise as lean as possible, there’s nothing left to gain.

There is, and has always been, a great deal of mythology about mixture. Many pilots believe that they can harm an engine by leaning past peak EGT, and they consequently run on the rich side, blowing some unburned fuel out the exhaust pipe. It is generally untrue that lean operation is harmful, and it is particularly untrue at the kinds of reduced power settings you would use to extend your range. A pilot who habitually leans to 50 degrees F on the rich side of peak can save a gallon or two an hour, for the loss of a few knots, by leaning to 50 degrees on the lean side. Contrary to widespread belief, the cylinders will run cooler, not hotter.

When reducing power on airplanes with constant-speed propellers, reduce rpm as much as possible; at reduced power there is no problem with going “oversquare” — that is, setting the manifold pressure higher than the first two digits of the rpm. Reducing rpm both improves propeller efficiency and reduces friction losses in the engine, but these gains are comparatively slight.

A well-planned flight should not require stretching range. But in the context of modern general aviation operations, legal fuel reserve requirements — 30 minutes at cruise power VFR, 45 IFR — are minimal. At the same time, most airplanes are designed in such a way that payload and range must be traded off against one another, creating, on occasion, a powerful temptation to either overload the airplane or skimp on fuel. While it is generally best to go by the book, the potential consequences of being too heavy at the start of a flight are not nearly so grave as those of being too light at the end.

During WWII the U.S. Navy flew PBYs for max range using tables that had recommended power settings for the engines at specific weights. The flight engineer (remember those guys) would keep track of the fuel consumed, calculate the aircraft weight and reduce the power settings at least once an hour. They were flying very slow near the end of a mission. I'm guessing they were trying to fly at best L/D as the weight decreased.

Later, my Dad flew PV-1s and PV-2s without flight engineers, but the pilots used similar procedures ferrying across the South Atlantic.

I have a C340 Ram VI and a T-34B with IO-520s. Both are fitted with GAMIjectors and JPI electronic monitors. I do run the T-34 LOP for ~5 years and use ~10.5 gph compared to ~12.5 gph ROP without problems. I have made flights at 9 gph, but the airspeed really drops off.

I do not run the 340 LOP. When the ROP/LOP discussions started, I spoke with the RAM people. They said they had no experience doing LOP and implied that if I wanted to, I could do the experiment for them. Naah, those engines and turbos are expensive and nearly new.

I operate the 340 at ~55% power, getting average GPS logging of 182 Kts over the past 10,000 Nms at 16,500' - 17,500' burning 31-32 gph at cruise. I could burn a LOT more, but don't see a reason to.

It mentions minimum drag speed, which makes a lot of sense. But then compares this to clean stall speed. To my understanding, min drag speed is Vglide, which has no apparent correlation to clean stall (Vs1). For example, with a C172N, Vs1 is 47; but for a C172P, Vs1 is 44. Both have a Vglide of 65, which is far more than one third over Vs1 as the article suggests as min drag speed. The same goes for a C152 -- Vs1 is 40, and Vglide is 60, far more than one third over Vs1.

It then goes on to state that the minimum drag speed (Vglide) is NOT the best range speed. This also makes sense, but the article then states that the best range speed is approximately 1.5 times clean stall speed (Vs1). For the above-mentioned C152, this is Vs1 (40) times 1.5 = 60, which IS Vglide. For a 172N, 44 * 1.5 = 66, which is one knot over VGlide; and for a C172M, 47 * 1.5 = 70.5, which is 5.5 knots over Vglide.

So, for two of these planes, calculating the "best range" speed as 1.5 times "clean stall" (Vs1) it gives a result that matches Vglide (minimum drag speed), which the article says is NOT the best range speed.

So what is the correct starting point? Minimum drag or clean stall?

You need to consult your Pilot's Operating Handbook for your specific aircraft for the exact numbers for various weights and density altitudes. You would then need to adjust this number up/down to factor in headwind/tailwind.

Use the POH but, Your best glide is a little faster than minimum sink (minimum drag), again adjusted for headwind/tailwind. This is akin to best endurance (handy in Holding Patterns) is a slower speed than Maximum Range.

What Peter was giving was handy 'rule-of-thumb' generalities to use, your POH gives you the best information to follow for your specific model and again it is affected by weight and winds.

Altitude has less effect in piston powered aircraft and winds would drive that choice.

In a turbine powered aircraft, max range is primarily affected by cruise altitude and it is very rare to find a headwind that increases enough at higher altitude to not get best range at highest altitude. Slowing cruise power settings for increased mpg's rarely saves you enough to make up for the increased airframe/engine hours put on by the reduced speeds.