How is fuel flow calculated?
#1
Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:18 AM
#2
Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:24 AM
Yes, I laughed too.
Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance
and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u
#3
Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:31 AM
#4
Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:33 AM
#5
Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:36 AM
EDIT: I'm pretty sure Concorde isn't twice as thirsty as the 744 - looking at the maximum ranges and fuel capacities. For instance (BTW I'm not a physicist, so please correct me if I'm wrong)... Concorde has a fuel capacity half that of the 747, it also has a range roughly half that of the 747. Therefore, shouldn't it's fuel consumption be roughly the same as the 747?
#6
Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:49 AM
I believe fuel flow is per hour.
Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance
and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u
#7
Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:55 AM
I believe fuel flow is per hour.
Is that lbs per hour?
#8
Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:33 PM
Concorde also travels twice as fast, so the burn rate over distance is the same, but Concorde burns twice as much per hour. I believe fuel flow is per hour.
I don't get it then, then why is Concorde so unprofitable still?
#9
Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:49 PM
#10
Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:32 AM
Not as far as I am aware.Is that lbs per hour?
SFCxThrustxEngines is the only way to reach the fuel flow number in AE, so we know it's wrong.
Range/Fuel capacity is, I agree, a better system.
Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance
and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u
#11
Posted 18 May 2012 - 08:36 AM
#12
Posted 19 May 2012 - 12:10 AM
Thrust x Number of Engines x SFC.
Yes, I laughed too.
Whats funny?
In answer to the original question:
We use Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption, which is fuel consumed per hour per unit of thrust. Multiply that by the engine's thrust, and you get fuel flow per hour. Multiply that by the number of engines and you have a half-decent approximation, which is what is used in game. I imagine it was set that way as Thrust and TSFC can be far easier to come by than other data.
I am well aware that there's all manner of other things to take into consideration (differences at different stages of flight, amongst other things), and I am spending some time looking up other methods of calculation, but I doubt we'll see changes in some time.
I'm no engineer or mathematician, nor was I involved in setting up the maths that we have inherited here [I just ensure the numbers that go into them are accurate], but this is how the maths makes sense to me:
AE does this calculation:
(Total Fuel Flow) = (Engine Thrust) * [TSFC] * (Number of Engines)
which is:
(Total Fuel Flow) = (Engine Thrust) * [(Fuel Flow) / (Engine Thrust)] * (Number of Engines)
which cancels down:
(Total Fuel Flow) = (Fuel Flow) * (Number of Engines)
which suffices as an approximation for now
And that is pounds per hour, in answer to a question above.
#13
Posted 19 May 2012 - 12:18 AM
Not as far as I am aware.
SFCxThrustxEngines is the only way to reach the fuel flow number in AE, so we know it's wrong.
Range/Fuel capacity is, I agree, a better system.
Fuel flow is not constant throughout a flight, and taking the range/capacity figure would have issues when you have a 777-200LR on a 1-hour flight.
The fuel calculations take into account climb, cruise, and descent fuel and prorate usage accordingly - it does not simply multiply fuel flow and flight hours together.
#14
Posted 19 May 2012 - 01:30 AM
If max fuel/distance is not workable, then disregard it.
I suspect the next variable we may need to add is aircraft weight, which should fix issues with the use of the same engines within a family.
Administrator of UnitedSkies alliance
and also a member of some other ones, but they're 2vip4u
#15
Posted 19 May 2012 - 01:45 AM
If they work, I may have calculations that will affect how range and airspeed are used in game also.
#16
Posted 19 May 2012 - 01:06 PM
Out of interest....would this mean you got a slight fuel saving with a non-maxed plane?
In theory, yes
#17
Guest_Stan_*
Posted 28 May 2012 - 06:13 AM
#18
Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:00 PM
#19
Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:01 PM
#20
Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:39 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users