Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:38:01.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the benefits of lower Mach number aircraft cruise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

A. Filippone
A. Filippone*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical, Aerospace & Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper reviews the issue of cruise Mach number and addresses the benefits of operating subsonic commercial aircraft at speeds below the long-range cruise speed. The case considered is the flight of transport aircraft for flight segments up to 1,000nm. It is shown that the fuel burned is decreased by as much as 1·8% on a nominal 1,000nm stage length for operation around the long-range cruise Mach number, or below. This is achieved at a cost of a marginal delay on each flight segment (less than three minutes). The longer flight time is likely not to affect the daily operation of the aircraft. The fuel saving is compounded, because the gross take-off weight (GTOW) is recalculated to take into account the reduced fuel consumption at each flight segment. The analysis into the environmental benefits includes the reduction in,andemissions, and the heat released in the high atmosphere. Sensitivity analyses are carried out on the take-off weight, on the aerodynamic coefficients, on the transonic drag rise and the weight uncertainty. It is predicted that the optimal operation of the example aircraft over a nominal 1,000nm route can reduce the fuel consumption by as much as 150,000kg per year in comparison with an operation at the long-range Mach number. The aircraft model has a maximum take-off weight of 170,000kg and is powered by two GE CF6-80C2 engines.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 111 , Issue 1122 , August 2007 , pp. 531 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Green, J.E. Greener by design – The technology challenge, Aeronaut J, February 2002, 106, (1056), pp 57–113.Google Scholar
2. Erzberger, H. and Lee, H.Q. Constrained optimum trajectories with specified range, J Guidance, Navigation & Control, January-February 1980, 3, (1), pp 78–85.Google Scholar
3. Visser, W.P.J. and Broomhead, M.J. GSP: A generic object-oriented gas turbine simulation environment, 2000, ASME Paper 2000-GT-0002, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
4. Torenbeek, E. Cruise performance and range prediction reconsidered, Progress Aero Sci, May-June 1997, 33, (5-6), pp 285–321.Google Scholar
5. Filippone, A. Flight Performance of Fixed and Rotary-Wing Aircraft, 2006, Elsevier.Google Scholar
6. Engine emission database, (continuously updated), ICAO doc number 9646.Google Scholar