Currently flying from CYYZ to RCTP @FL380 power 95% and my fuel consumption is still 6335kg/hr that i was seeing @FL340/360.
I do find it odd that it holds that number quite so tightly. More power usually means higher fuel burn.
You also have to account the drag force. Higher altitude means less air density, and that means less drag force. You also have to consider the head/tailwind. I assume you had strong tailwind when you looked at the fuel burn since your numbers are lower than this.
1 Like
I just had a “D’oh” moment as i didn’t think about that. Just felt odd. Not much experience with the 777-200LR as i am just figuring the most efficient way to fly here before i tackle a long range mission.
My numbers are in pounds and 14k lbs/hr is higher than what I have for 360/380
Also tailwind has no effect on fuel burn since Mach is measured on airspeed
2 Likes
is measured on TAS, not IAS
What does the AS in TAS stand for?
3 Likes
Air speed, but its not the airspeed that you have indicated on the pfd.
As far as i understand, its a mix between tas and gs or something like that, im probably wrong here tho
TAS and altitude, you are correct I was just giving you a hard time lol. It’s just the TAS’s relation to Mach 1 at a specific altitude I believe.
2 Likes
If you tell me the airspeed and the altitude then I might be able to work out how the engine got burnt.
1 Like
If you want most efficient the topic linked in the first reply to this topic has the best altitudes based on load. I’ve tested the numbers and it’s within 1% MoE.
1 Like