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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Conserving fuel on 4 engine planes?
Just watching a movie with a 4 engine prop plane running out of fuel over
the ocean. So what would be the best way to conserve fuel. I'm thinking throttle back all four engines and let them loaf along. Or would you cut two engines and let two carry the load. Two would have to work harder, but would they use less fuel then 4? Of course, range becomes more important then speed. Any opinions? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Conserving fuel on 4 engine planes?
"Chief McGee" wrote in message news:JSMNf.1522$oL.225@attbi_s71... Just watching a movie with a 4 engine prop plane running out of fuel over the ocean. So what would be the best way to conserve fuel. I'm thinking throttle back all four engines and let them loaf along. Or would you cut two engines and let two carry the load. Two would have to work harder, but would they use less fuel then 4? Of course, range becomes more important then speed. Any opinions? Recently saw a History channel show about Lindbergh and his job as a civilian consultant to the Army Air Corps in WWII. His major accomplishment in the Pacific was in teaching the P-38 pilots how to get remarkably greater range out of the two engines on that twin engine Fighter. Chances are the same info he taught might have helped extend the range of the 4 engine plane of which you speak. Harold Burton |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Conserving fuel on 4 engine planes?
Just watching a movie with a 4 engine prop plane running out of fuel over the ocean. So what would be the best way to conserve fuel. I'm thinking throttle back all four engines and let them loaf along. Or would you cut two engines and let two carry the load. Two would have to work harder, but would they use less fuel then 4? Of course, range becomes more important then speed. Any opinions? Any four engine aircraft I have been involved with has an optimum speed that gets you the most distance vs fuel burned called Long Range Cruise (LRC). For instance on the B-707 that speed was M82, the B-757 is M80. 3 engine LRC on a 707 is also M82, but range would suffer slightly because of the increased drag with a windmilling engine and all the trim you had to crank in. Back in the cold war days, the Navy P-3's would loiter and chase subs with 1 amd 4 shut down. That got them the most time on station, but I doubt that helped the range. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Conserving fuel on 4 engine planes?
When it comes to fuel conservation, you should consider whether you want
time aloft or distance covered. The choice determines how you conserve. If you are going for distance, you must consider the most efficient operation of the engine along with the winds aloft. If there is a headwind, you will want to go faster than normal optimum range. When you run out of fuel in the middle of a big ocean, it is often more than just knowing how to get 3% better fuel economy. Colin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Conserving fuel on 4 engine planes?
Just a wild guess, but I'd think shut down and feather 1 and 4, drop to
50 feet or so to get in ground effect, throttle back to best L/D and lean untill 100 degrees past peak or the engine will barely keep running, whichever comes first |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Conserving fuel on 4 engine planes?
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 02:38:22 GMT, "kd5sak"
wrote: "Chief McGee" wrote in message news:JSMNf.1522$oL.225@attbi_s71... Just watching a movie with a 4 engine prop plane running out of fuel over the ocean. So what would be the best way to conserve fuel. I'm thinking throttle back all four engines and let them loaf along. Or would you cut two engines and let two carry the load. Two would have to work harder, but would they use less fuel then 4? Of course, range becomes more important then speed. Any opinions? Recently saw a History channel show about Lindbergh and his job as a civilian consultant to the Army Air Corps in WWII. His major accomplishment in the Pacific was in teaching the P-38 pilots how to get remarkably greater range out of the two engines on that twin engine Fighter. Chances are the same info he taught might have helped extend the range of the 4 engine plane of which you speak. I believe this was using a very high MP + a low RPM setting? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Conserving fuel on 4 engine planes?
"Chief McGee" wrote in message news:JSMNf.1522$oL.225@attbi_s71... Just watching a movie with a 4 engine prop plane running out of fuel over the ocean. So what would be the best way to conserve fuel. I'm thinking throttle back all four engines and let them loaf along. Or would you cut two engines and let two carry the load. Two would have to work harder, but would they use less fuel then 4? Of course, range becomes more important then speed. Any opinions? Just ask "Old Whistling Dan"... If it is a reciprocating engine, you'll do better at a low RPM, adjust MP to hold your best L/D(or your best glide speed), and lean it all you can without detonation.(Make the most out of each "piston push", intake each cylinder as few times as possible, best L/D=most efficient airspeed, see Lindberg) If it was a Turbo charged engine, you'd do better up high, up to the mid 20's.(high true airspeed) It you are Eastbound, you'd usually do better up high, up to the mid 30's(Tailwinds, use a slightly lower glide speed, aim for best endurance to take advantage of the wind) In most aircraft, Keep them all turning. After you've ditched all the weight you can, close all the cowl flaps, vents, doors & windows. Get rid of external stores. Think clean thoughts. Move the CG slightly aft.(Won't help much, but what the hey. It reduces elevator download & drag) Don't run windshield wipers and reduce the electrical load.(wipers produce drag, electrical load eats horsepower) If you're John Wayne, coming from Hawaii to Oakland, in the High and the Mighty, don't worry, it will work out. Al (US National Economy Record Holder) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Conserving fuel on 4 engine planes?
"Nathan Young" wrote in message ... On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 02:38:22 GMT, "kd5sak" wrote: "Chief McGee" wrote in message news:JSMNf.1522$oL.225@attbi_s71... Recently saw a History channel show about Lindbergh and his job as a civilian consultant to the Army Air Corps in WWII. His major accomplishment in the Pacific was in teaching the P-38 pilots how to get remarkably greater range out of the two engines on that twin engine Fighter. Chances are the same info he taught might have helped extend the range of the 4 engine plane of which you speak. I believe this was using a very high MP + a low RPM setting? Don't remember the details, not being a pilot myself, but remember that the pilots were taught to use certain engine and fuel settings on peril of destroying their engines. Lindbergh taught them to use different settings and supposedly the squadron tried his methods for a period of time on a single plane, tore down the engines and found they had suffered no excessive wear. The entire squadron then used his settings and this alllowed the P-38s a much extended range. I did a little net search after writing the previous sentence. The URL below gives details on a 30% or better fuel range resulting from Lindberghs advice. http://p-38online.com/lindy.html Harold KD5SAK |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time, running out of fuel and fuel gauges | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 29 | February 3rd 08 07:04 PM |
Is Your Airplane Susceptible To Mis Fu eling? A Simple Test For Fuel Contamination. | Nathan Young | Piloting | 4 | June 14th 04 06:13 PM |
What if the germans... | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 119 | January 26th 04 11:20 PM |
Long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids (was: #1 Jet of World War II) | The Revolution Will Not Be Televised | Military Aviation | 20 | August 27th 03 09:14 AM |
Hot weather and autogas? | Rich S. | Home Built | 33 | July 30th 03 11:25 PM |