Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

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

Extending Your Fuel Efficiency

By Peter Garrison / Published: Aug 22, 2012
Rate it! or
Extending Your Fuel Efficiency

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.

It ought not to be true, but it is: In every pilot’s life there comes a moment when he wishes he had a little more fuel.

Perhaps the headwind was stronger than forecast; the gauges have dropped below a quarter sooner than you hoped they would; the descent and climb for an en route stop to drop off a passenger used up more fuel than you expected; you took a detour around weather; or your planning was careless in the first place. Whatever the reason, you find yourself in that awkward spot: a certain distance from your destination, with a certain amount of fuel and with a nagging worry about where those needles will be pointing when you arrive.

The cautious thing to do is to land at the next opportunity and get more fuel. But that is not always possible or convenient. There may be no intermediate place with suitable weather; you may have told someone to meet you at a certain time. And there is always the reluctance to lose time, and to give up altitude and then to have to claw it back — a reluctance so strong that many a pilot has run out of fuel rather than overcome it.

But nothing can be done about extreme pigheadedness. Let us stipulate that there are situations in which a pilot of normal maturity, competence and regard for safety might feel concerned, even conflicted, about his or her remaining fuel, but in which a decision to continue might depend on rational analysis rather than, say, how lucky he or she was feeling that day. These are the situations in which it is not irresponsible to “stretch” range.

How far an airplane can go on a given amount of fuel is principally determined by four factors: propeller efficiency, fuel consumption, speed and wind.

The role of wind is obvious. Any headwind, and even a side wind, increases the time to fly. The chart of wind components is familiar to pilots, though roofers, who have to cut their two-by-fours to match the run and rise of rafters, are more likely to remember the precise numerical relationships. But in the era of GPS no chart is needed; the wind component is obvious from the groundspeed.

Your flight time will be lengthened in roughly the same proportion as the headwind component stands to your airspeed. If you cruise at 150 knots and the wind component is minus 15 knots, your flight time will be increased by about one part in 10; it will take you 66 minutes — actually, 66 minutes and 40 seconds — to go as far as you would normally go in an hour. That is not likely to be a problem. But a component of 30 or 40 knots might be. To maximize your range you want as little headwind as possible, and so you should pick an altitude — if you haven’t already done so — where the wind component is least.

A headwind component works against you in two ways. First and more clearly, it increases the time needed to go a certain distance. Less obviously, it complicates the choice of a speed to fly.

Speed is a pilot’s most powerful tool for increasing range. The amount of speed you get in exchange for a given fuel flow — in other words, your miles per gallon — varies across the speed range. It is worst at very high and very low speeds, owing at the high-speed end to parasite drag and at the low-speed end to lift-related induced drag. Parasite drag increases with speed, and induced drag increases with slowness; they are equal at the speed for minimum drag. This is the speed at which the least power is needed to stay aloft, and therefore it is the speed for greatest endurance. It is typically about a third greater than the clean stalling speed.

Comments (3) Post a comment

All Comments

Edd Weninger's picture

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.

Av8r_dave's picture

For someone trying to calculate an appropriate "best range" speed, this article is a bit confusing.

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?

pilotart's picture

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.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use