View Single Post
Old 05-01-2016, 01:35 AM   #2 (permalink)
skyking
Master EcoModder
 
skyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tacoma WA
Posts: 1,399

Woody - '96 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)

Avion and Woody - '96 Dodge/Avion Ram 2500/5th wheel combo
90 day: 15.1 mpg (US)

TD eye eye eye - '03 Volkswagen Beetle GLS
90 day: 49.05 mpg (US)

Mule - '07 Dodge Ram 3500 ST
Thanks: 743
Thanked 528 Times in 344 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxkang View Post
Most people argue like so, more weight>more lift>more induced drag>more thrust required for cruise flight> more fuel burn, which I think is fair. However, to account for more weight you would fly at a higher speed giving rise to high lift so don't you get to the destination faster? If the optimum range of engine setting allows you to have a higher thrust setting I feel that heavier planes might rather consume less or about the same amount of fuel.

Can you really that simply conclude that heavy planes consume more fuel?
yes you can. It really is that simple. To fly the same speed as a lighter plane, you'd need a higher angle of attack. This takes more thrust. More fuel.
My background is commercial pilot and flight instructor.
__________________




2007 Dodge Ram 3500 SRW 4x4 with 6MT
2003 TDI Beetle
2002 TDI Beetle

currently parked - 1996 Dodge 2500 Cummins Turbodiesel
Custom cab, auto, 3.55 gears
  Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to skyking For This Useful Post:
Cd (05-02-2016), ConnClark (05-03-2016), elhigh (05-03-2016), MkVer (05-08-2016), niky (05-04-2016), Ryland (05-10-2016)