Comment by jacquesm 4 days ago
(1) this was a jet, not a turboprop
Edit: changed turbofan into turbprop, which is what I meant.
(2) fuel burned stays burned, you don't 'get it back'
(3) the altitude gained may have been adjusted to account for the low fuel situation
(4) the winds are a major factor here, far larger than the fact that 'what goes up must come down', something that is already taken into account when computing the fuel reserve in the first place.
Nah. You want to land, but you are really not shedding most of your velocity until after touchdown. What you gain by burning fuel is energy, and you can either bank it into altitude, or velocity. You must shed both to land, but not so for go-around. There you shed almost all of your altitude, but you keep most of your velocity -> you still have a lot of energy left. That's why on go-around you spool your engines and start climbing basically right away, unlike typical takeoff, where after spooling up the engines you are still earth-bound until you build enough velocity.
So you only ever really lost your "altitude" component of energy, not "velocity" one. You run your engines at TOGA (Take Off / Go Around = maximum thrust), thrust to gain mainly altitude, only increasing speed a little bit. Then on another approach attempt you use both the altitude and excess velocity bank again.
In flight, ~all your energy losses go to drag. Doesn't matter if you bank it into speed or altitude, both is exchanged to be at minimums (0 altitude above ground, lowest safe landing speed) at touchdown. If you produce extra energy in your engines, it has to go to either speed or altitude, which you then pull out again, usually by maintaining speed while lowering altitude while having engines at idle.
(1) The turbofan category of jet engine seems to inspire a lot of very pretty animated technical diagrams—here’s one set from a German manufacturer [0]. Now if only we could convince Bartozs Ciechanowski to take on such a subject… [1]
(2) I know glider pilots who fly without any fuel at all, once aloft… sounds not unlike the 150-200km glide range that @MaxikCZ mentions at idle from cruising altitude.
[0] https://aeroreport.de/en/good-to-know/how-does-a-turbofan-en...
[1] e.g. https://ciechanow.ski/airfoil/
Aircraft that are designed as gliders are much lighter and thus have much longer glide range than aircraft that aren't. They're so lightweight that they can climb on thermals. A 737 is not going to be able to do that, but a regular glider can't fly at 400 knots.
> thus have much longer glide range
Im gonna be a little pedantic, but the weight has surprisingly small effect on glide range, actually none of the weight affect the range directly, its all from secondary effects.
The glide is given mainly by drag and lift (so body and wing geometry), correlated to certain speed. The weight isnt in the equation at all. What weight does, is increases the speed in which the aircraft achieves this maximum glide ratio, and in higher speed you have higher drag, which finally reduces the range.
Thats why many modern gliders have water tanks in wings, to increase the weight of the glider, moving planes speed of best glide ratio higher, allowing for more efficiency at higher speeds. Its worth it if the atmospheric condition provide strong lifts. Pilot can then dump the water in flight to reduce the wing load, allowing them to land with less speed, or just keep in the air longer as thermals get weaker in the afternoon/evening
(source, I used to be a glider pilot)
It should also be noted that gliders have crazy aspect ratios. Airliner wings are designed for completely different flight envelopes than gliders, it’s all a game of what you optimize for and what trade offs you are willing and/or required to make.
But of course that doesn’t mean that airliners can’t glide well, the Gimly Glider and Air Transat flight come to mind. But gliders can definitely beat an airliner in terms of performance.
You are, of course, correct, and thanks for clarifying.
Re: (2): There's a difference between sailplanes and gliders. Sailplanes are gliders that can “soar”, i.e. gain altitude just from the air that is moving up for some reason. Your friends have licence that says „Sailplane Pilot Licence”, not „Glider”.
The distinction is less pronounced nowadays, because there is no mondern aircraft designed as gliders-but-not-sailplanes, but historically there were planes that fit this niche, mostly military transport of WW1 and WW2 vintage.
Passenger jets (with engines turned off) are relatively decent gliders, but incapable of soaring. So no, you can't get more that about 20:1 glide ratio no matter how good is the weather (for sailplanes).
Regarding the turbofan and [0], above...if you're communicating to a non-engineer (me), how does the design get to the point of such complexity? I would love to learn the design story behind such an incredibly complex piece of machinery.
I am being serious, if you cannot tell.
For the same thrust it's more efficient to accelerate a large mass of air a small amount than t accelerate a small mass of air a large amount. The fan is what gives you that.
I rough guessed the cost of fuel over a 737's life as $150 million. Where the engines cost something around $30 million. That pushes the engineering economics towards maximizing the engines efficiency.
I'm suspicious that bypass ratio's for turbofans are close to maxed out. The diameter of the fan gets unwieldy. That was the design issue that the 737 Max was trying to get around. With bad results. Possible the future is hybrid designs with two engines and 4 or more electrically driven fans.
1 - a turbofan is a subset of jet engine, and there are no 738s running anything other than a turbofan.
Actually, nothing in civil aviation that has a "jet engine" has used anything but a turbofan (or turboprop) since the early 70s with the exception of Concorde and some older business jets.
(Turboprops are jet engines, too, to be precise, with the jet of exhaust gases powering the propeller.)
> Turboprops are jet engines
They are certainly turbine engines, but I thought "jet" was reserved for those engines that propel the vehicle solely by their exhaust stream and bypass air. I am willing to be told I'm wrong, though.
I think you meant turboprop there, but the distinction I notice is that one has all propulsive airflow inside the nacelle, and one does not.
No, you don’t magically get the fuel back. But you do get a lot of the _kinetic energy_ back, and that energy keeps you flying without having to burn yet more fuel. You burn a lot of fuel while climbing, but then hardly any at all while descending. And that descent might cover 100 miles across the ground.
The 737-800 uses CFM56-7 turbofan engines.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56#CFM56-...
1) Yea, sorry, turbofan, not turboprop nor a jet.
2) It stays burned, but the energy is banked in potential energy of the aircraft, namely in a form of altitude. If you run out of fuel 5 feet above ground, you dont get to fly far. When you run out of fuel 35000 feet above ground, you can still choose where to land from multiple options.
3) huh? I dont get what you trying to say, but: Its always more economical to climb, and the faster the better. Ofc you cant climb too high when you intend to attempt to land in 5-10 mins, but nontheless, every feet gained is "banked", and the aircraft is more economical to run the higher you are.
4) I am not saying the winds arent a factor, and in no way I was arguing about how fuel reserves are calculated. My only claim is that: yes, by spending more fuel to gain altitude, you can then "glide" down almost for free later. Its not 1:1, because of constant losses like drag, but its being compensated by higher engine efficiency and less drag at altitude, that its always worth it to climb if you can.
There was a flight that was low on fuel diverting to alternate between 2 islands. The pilot panicked and chose slower climb to intuitively save fuel. They had to ditch the plane in water because of it - if they initiated full climb, they would have made the jump.