3 ms·
It is. That is, the difference between a full airplane and an empty airplane in terms of fuel burn is quite marginal, maybe even less than 1% net fuel burn. Thi
by bdamm 8y ago
It is. That is, the difference between a full airplane and an empty airplane in terms of fuel burn is quite marginal, maybe even less than 1% net fuel burn. This is because how heavily an airplane is loaded does not change its drag coefficient. A heavily loaded aircraft will not climb as quickly as a lightly loaded aircraft, but for the airliner, that just means it gets to cruise altitude a minute or two later than it otherwise would.
- TylerE 8y agoIt does change the drag, actually. More weight = need more lift. The way to generate more lift is by increasing the wing's angle of attack on the wing (i.e. point the nose up). In addition to increased lift this also increases drag. Actual numbers are hard to find, but considering the weight of a commercial aircraft can vary by as much as 50% between empty weight and maximum weight, I'd wager it is well over 1%.
- Scoundreller 8y agohttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/urban-expeditions/transportation/urban-expeditions-graphic-V21/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/urban-expedit... Says that a 737 flies on average 4300 miles per day, and that 7lb digital entertainment console costs $216 to carry per year. That's .000019 dollars per lb-mile. JFK-SFO is 2586 miles. That's $10 in fuel for carrying an extra 200lbs. But less passengers could mean more cargo...