2000 FM 16

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

2000 FM 16

Indian Institute of Science

Fluid Mechanics Report

AIRPLANE PERFORMANCE : RANGE AND ENDURANCE

by
M. R. Ananthasayanam

Report 2000 FM 16
Ananthasayanam. M.R.

December 2000
Bangalore 560 012, INDIA

1
 AIRPLANE PERFORMANCE: RANGE AND ENDURANCE

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 4

INTRODUCTION 5
Analysis of Performance 5
Design Sizing Studies 5
Operational Practices 8
Special Cases 8

RANGE AND ENDURANCE CALCULATIONS 8

RANGE AND ENDURANCE FOR A JET AIRPLANE 12

Constant Altitude and Constant Angle of Attack Program 12
Constant Altitude and Constant Velocity Program 13
Constant Altitude and Constant Thrust Program 14
Cruise-Climb at Constant Angle of Attack and Speed 15

RANGE AND ENDURANCE FOR A PROPELLER AIRPLANE 16

Constant Altitude and Constant Angle of Attack Program 16
Constant Altitude and Constant Velocity Program 17
Constant Altitude and Constant Power Program 18
Cruise-Climb at Constant Angle of Attack and Speed 19

COMPARISON OF CONSTANT hα, hV, hT/hP AND αV PROGRAMS 19

RANGE OF JET AIRPLANES 22

Endurance of Jet Airplanes 24
Range of Propeller Driven Airplanes 24
Endurance of Propeller Driven Airplanes 25

CRUISE CLIMB TECHNIQUE 25

Cruise-Climb in Troposphere 26
Cruise-Climb in Stratosphere 28
Range Correction for Small Climb Angles 30
Airframe-Engine-Atmosphere Iteraction 31
Range of Turboprop and Turbofan Airplanes 32

OPERATIONAL RANGE VERSUS PAYLOAD DIAGRAM 33

EFFECT OF WND ON THE RANGE OF AIRPLANE 35

Importance of Wind 35
Climatology of Wind, Jet Streams and Persistence 35
Range With Wind 36
2
Range of Jet Airplane with Wind 37
Range of Propeller Driven Airplane with Wind 38
Relative Effect of Wind on Propeller and Jet Airplanes 39

OPERATIONAL CRUISE CONTROL TECHNIQUES 40

Constant Power 40
Constant Speed 40
Scheduled Ground Speed 40
Long Range Cruise 40
Endurance Flying 41

PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSING RANGE AND ENDURANCE 41

RANGE AND ENDURANCE FOR DESIGN SIZING STUDIES 43
THE ROLE OF RANGE AND ENDURANCE CALCULATIONS IN DESIGN
AND OPERATIONAL PRACTICES 43
FUEL CONSERVATION IN OPERATIONAL PRACTICE 44
GENERAL REMARKS AND COMMENTS 45
REFERENCES 46

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1a. Fuel Consumption in Different Segments for a Subsonic Low Level
Tactical Airplane.
Figure 1b. Fuel Consumption in Different Segments for a Subsonic Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi
Attack Airplane.
Figure 1c. Fuel Consumption in Different Segments for a Combat Air Patrol
Aircraft.
Figure 1d. Fuel Consumption in Different Segments for a High Altitude Transport
or a Bomber Airplane.
Figure 2. Comparison of the Trajectory in the Drag - Velocity Plane for Different
Range Programs.
Figure a. With Compressibility Effect on Drag. Maximum (ML/D) = 14.8
Figure b. No Compressibility Effect on Drag. Maximum (ML/D) = 14.8

Table a. Variation of Flying Conditions in Different Programs.

Table b. Comparison of Various Programs for Range and Endurance.

3
 AIRPLANE PERFORMANCE: RANGE AND ENDURANCE
ABSTRACT

The range and endurance are two important performance characteristics for any
airplane. The analysis can be made at various levels namely to obtain insight into
the effect of airframe, engine and atmospheric characteristics, or for the purpose
of design where the detailed flight segments in terms of speed and altitude are
specified or to study the operational features or even an optimization of the
flight profile for a given airplane to provide substantial fuel savings. Lastly some
high performance airplanes at high speed and altitude need the consideration of
acceleration along flight path, curvature of the earth, variation of the acceleration
due to gravity, or buoyancy effects. The present treatment deals mainly with only
the first level. The equations of motion for the cruising flight of an airplane,
shows that there are four independent variables namely, the altitude h, angle of
attack α, forward speed V, and the thrust or power (T/P) from the engines. Hence
any two of the above variables are held fixed for ease of mathematical analysis of
the range and endurance. Thus out of the six possible combinations only the
constant αV, hα, hV, hT/hP are feasible. The specific fuel consumption of a jet or
a piston prop airplane is assumed constant with forward speed. It follows that for
a jet the best range program is constant αV also known as `cruise-climb' followed
by hα, hV and hT in that order. For the endurance of jet and range of piston prop
airplane the constant αv and hα are equal followed by constant hV and hT in that
order the latter being somewhat less efficient. For a piston prop airplane the
cruise-climb endurance is less than constant hα followed by constant hV and hP.
All the above relative performance features of various programs can be easily
inferred from the appropriate drag or power versus speed diagrams. Subsequently
the operational range versus payload variation is discussed. Though the cruise
altitude and speed of aircraft have increased enormously the atmospheric weather
conditions play an important operational role. In particular the mean wind to the
flight speed at various altitudes has remained nearly a third thus giving a ratio of
range for the tail wind to head wind of two. The effect of wind is studied based on
the Breguet `cruise-climb' technique. For piston prop airplanes large variations in
airspeed at various altitudes with wind does not lead to undue penalty and cruise
altitude is chosen to provide best ground speed with small fuel penalty. In the
case of jets the advantages through changes in wind is not sufficient to off set the
penalty of departing from the optimum altitude and the wind information is
utilised to estimate flight time, the fuel needed and the payload. Finally many
operational flight programs are briefly discussed.

4
INTRODUCTION

In general any airplane performance characteristics can be worked out at various

levels with varying accuracy for different purposes. These can be

(i) to have an insight into the effect of engine and airframe combinations,
atmospheric conditions, and flight programs.

(ii) to obtain estimates for the design sizing of an aircraft, to meet a given
specification with a desired flight mission profile.

(iii) to study of the operational practices of an existing type of aircraft under

a given mission profile or optimization studies to obtain a flight profile for
minimum time, or fuel conditions.

(iv) to account for conditions of flight at high speeds at high altitudes.

Analysis of Performance

This is generally carried out with the assumptions of a parabolic drag polar, the
specific fuel consumption at a given altitude is constant with forward speed and
varies with altitude through the air density. This is elaborated in later sections.

Design Sizing Studies

The design sizing studies utilise the estimates in the previous case, for the various
flight segments specified in terms of altitude, speed and thrust which could vary
quite differently among many types of airplanes as shown in Figure 1.

For a transport aircraft on a long haul or for a bomber the cruise distance to the
destination is much larger when compared to the distance traveled during taxi,
take-off, align along the required runway direction, approach, divert, descend and
land. For civil airplanes usually the distance in climb and descent are credited to
range. In addition allowances are made to carry fuel for diversion to alternate
destination, ‘loiter' or ‘stacking’ before obtaining Air Traffic Control (ATC)
permission to land. But for a fighter aircraft though the range is important as an
operational distance which it should be able to fly, the amount of fuel it has to
carry depends significantly also on other phases of flight such as take-off, climb,
cruise, decent under radar, search, attack, escape, loiter, decent and land. For
military aircraft which is required to return to its base after completing its mission
at a distance, called the radius of action the range will be equal to around twice
the radius of action. It has combat and target area attack phase as well as diversion
and prelanding loiter which are not reckoned as contributing to the operational
radius, but may require as much fuel as during the cruise phase and thus these
calculations must be handled as accurately as the rest of the phases.

5
+

SUBSONIC LOW LEVEL TACTICAL

TAKEOFF 2% 6% LOITER

25%
CRUISE AT SL 21% CRUISE AT SL

ACCELARATE 1%

15% DASH
DASH AT RATED THRUST
20%

10% COMBAT MAX. RATING

Figure 1a. Fuel Consumption in Different Segments

for a Subsonic Low Level Tactical Airplane.

SUBSONIC HI-LO-LO-HI ATTACK

TAKEOFF CLIMB 7% 5% CLIMB

4%
CRUISE
16%
CRUISE AT OPT. V AND H

17%
DESCENT UNDER RADAR
6% ESCAPE

FAST CRUISE
7%
15% ATTACK

DASH AT SL
14%
8% SEARCH

Figure 1b. Fuel Consumption in Different Segments

for a Subsonic Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi Attack Airplane.

6
 COMBAT AIR PATROL

6% 6% DESCENT AND LOITER

TAKEOFF CLIMB
9% 13%
CRUISE
ECONOMIC CRUISE

PATROL 25%

ACCN. AND CLIMB TO SUPERSONIC

42%

Figure 1c. Fuel Consumption in Different Segments

for a Combat Air Patrol Aircraft.

HIGH ALTITUDE TRANSPORT OR BOMBER

TAKEOFF AND ACCN 5% 13% CLIMB DIVERT DESCEND

14%
CLIMB 4%DESCENT

28% CRUISE-CLIMB
CRUISE-CLIMB:BOMB DROP
37%

Figure 1d. Fuel Consumption in Different Segments

for a High Altitude Transport or a Bomber Airplane.

7
Operational Practices

This considers the operational practices of an aircraft in fleet service. Such

practices widely vary depending on the prevailing enroute wind conditions, the
ATC regulations necessitating the aircraft to report at certain points which may
not necessarily be on the shortest route between two points, the take-off and
approach path may depend on the wind conditions, noise abatement procedures,
or even the take-off thrust setting (and thereby the fuel used) based on engine
maintenance practice, and further even the in-service specific fuel consumption
varying slowly with time and through each and every engine overhaul. It may be
useful to fly an optimised minimum time or minimum fuel flight program, which
would be beneficial in particular for short haul aircraft. Once again energy-height
concept as is used in the climb performance of high speed aircraft has been used
here to simplify and solve the complex problem. Though these are small for a
fleet of aircraft operated by the airline over many years can lead to substantial fuel
saving.

Special Cases

Here the range and endurance are affected by finite rate of climb, net acceleration
along the flight path due to speed variations, nonaligned thrust with respect to
forward speed, variation of the acceleration due to gravity with altitude, latitude
and longitude, centrifugal force due to the curved aircraft path over the surface,
aircraft buoyancy and the curvature of the earth. Generally these are small but for
aircraft flying at high Mach numbers and at high altitudes like Concorde these
must be accounted for in the calculations.

RANGE AND ENDURANCE CALCULATIONS

For the range and endurance calculations the equations of motion for the quasi-
steady cruise conditions are

1
L=W= ρV2 S CL
2

and

1 1
D=T= ρV2 S CD or equivalently P = DV= ρV3 S CD
2 2
The independent variables are

(i) Altitude h (through density ρ)

(ii) Angle of attack (which govern CL and CD),
(iii) Speed V and
(iv) The thrust (T) or power (P).

8
 TABLE A. VARIATION OF FLYING CONDITIONS IN
DIFFERENT PROGRAMS.

No. Program of Altitude Angle of attack Velocity or Thrust or Remarks

Constant Mach number Power

1. hα Constant Constant Decreases Decreases Not

such that such that followed
W W W W currently
2
or 2 = 2
or 2
V M V M
constant = constant

2. hV Constant Decreases Acceptable

Constant Decreases
such that for ATC.
such that
W Useful for
= constant W
= holding
CL
CL operations.
constant

3. hT or hP Constant Decreases Sometimes

such that Increases such
Constant acceptable
C that
W D = CDV2 =
CL constant
constant

4. αV Increases
such that Constant Provides a
Constant Decreases
W such that standard
= and more
ρ T
= range for
constant ρ jet, simple
constant expression.

5. αT, αP
These programs may not be realizable
VT and hence not of practical interest.
VP
MT
MP

9
and since there are only two equations with four unknowns, any two are held
fixed for ease of mathematical analysis and the effect of the variation of the other
two quantities are then studied. This leads to six possible programs:

1. Constant altitude and angle of attack (hα)

2. Constant altitude and velocity (or Mach number) (hV or hM)
3. Constant altitude and thrust (or power) (hT or hP)
4. Constant angle of attack and velocity (or Mach number) (αV or αM)
5. Constant angle of attack and thrust (or power) (αT or αP)
6. Constant velocity (or Mach number) and thrust (or power) (VT, MT, VP, MP)

The first program would demand continuous throttle control and due to the
decreasing speed the flight time would increase and hence is not followed in
practice. The second program is the one that ATC would permit for safe flying
but the thrust or power has to be decreased which can be achieved if an auto pilot
is coupled to the engine. The third program leads to a constant throttle setting but
the speed increases which may be acceptable if within limits. The fourth program
is known as the `cruise-climb' technique though unrealistic provides estimates
which are algebraically simpler to understand the effects. The last two programs
lead to infinite possibilities for speed and altitude variations and no general
treatment is possible and hence not considered further.

Thus we work out the range and endurance for the constant hα, hV, hT/hP, and
αV programs to understand the effect of

(i) Airframe Characteristics specified by Cdo, and K

(ii) Engine Characteristics represented by the Variation of thrust T or
power P and the specific fuel consumption (sfc) C with speed at a
given altitude and
(iii) Atmosphere affecting the variation of thrust T or power P and C
with altitude.

The range and endurance calculations show the need to match the airframe and
engine characteristics with cruise flight conditions for a good design. For a jet as
well as propeller driven airplane, we can assume that the specific fuel
consumption varies like

1. C = Constant
2. C = C0 + C1 M
3. C = C* Mβ θ1/2

where Co, C1, C* , β are suitable constants, and θ is the temperature. There are
some more involved expressions depending on thrust, Mach Number and altitude.
The third relation can represent the whole range from pure jets, through turbofans
of increasing bypass ratio and turbo props to the piston props for varying values
of β. Typically for

10
 Jets β=0
low BPR turbofans β = 0.2-0.4
high BPR turbofans β = 0.4-0.7
turbo props and piston props β = 0.4-0.7

Thus turbo props and piston props can be treated alike and the turbofans span the
range from jet to turboprops based on the value of the bypass ratio for which a
suitable value of β has to be chosen. For the present we consider the extremes
namely pure jets and piston props with a constant C. Further one should carefully
note that the units of sfc is different for these two types of aircraft engines. For a
jet engine it is pound per pound of thrust per hour and for a piston engine it is
pounds per horsepower per hour. The respective units are

C ~ 1/time
C ~ 1/distance

Thus the change of weight in these cases can be specified respectively when
developing a thrust T or power P output as the case may be, with the propeller
efficiency being ‘η‘.
dw = -C T dt

dt
dw = -C P
η
For a jet engine airplane the range

dw V dW
R(..) = ò Vdt = ò V. = ò−
− CT C D
and the endurance
dw dW
E(..) = ò dt = ò = ò−
− CT CD

and for a propeller driven airplane the above are

η dw η dW
R(..) = ò Vdt = ò = ò−
− CP CDV
and the endurance
η dw η dW
E(..) = ò dt = ò = ò−
− CP CDV

with the limits of integration being Wi and Wf, respectively the initial and final
weights. The suffixes (..) helps to denote the specific program in an appropriate
context and also distinguish it from E, the lift to drag ratio. The quantities

dR V 1 ηV
= . or
dW C D CP
11
and
dE 1 1 η
= . or
dW C D CP

are known respectively as specific range and endurance.

The variables occurring in the above equations are explicitly

(i) the thrust T or power P,

(ii) the speed V and implicitly,

(iii) angle of attack and altitude.

The trick that one employs in range and endurance calculations is that no matter
what the variables are, try and reduce the integration of the equations such that
only a function of the weight W alone remains under the integral sign.

RANGE AND ENDURANCE FOR A JET AIRPLANE

Constant Altitude and Constant Angle of Attack Program

We utilise the level flight cruise conditions

æC ö
L = W and D = ç D ÷W
è CL ø
from which
1

− V dW é 2W ù 2 dW C L dW
Rhα = ò = òê ú . . =(.) òW
D D ë ρ SC L û CW CD 1/2

where (.) denotes the constant quantities which can be taken outside the integral
sign. Completing the integration between limits we get,

1
é 1
ù
æ 2 ö æ 2Wi ö æ C L ö ê æ Wf ö ú 2Vi
[
E 1 − (1 − ζ ) ]
2 2
Rhα = ç ÷ çç ÷ ç ÷ 1− ç ÷÷ =
1/ 2

è C ø è ρ SC L ÷ø çè C D ÷ø ê çè Wi ø úú C
ëê û

where E is the (CL / CD) ratio and Vi is the initial speed. For a jet airplane the
optimum speed is such that

æVö
(Rhα)Max ~ ç ÷
è T ø Max

12
which can be interpreted as maximising the distance traveled for the fuel spent
that is proportional to the thrust. Also from the lift and drag equations

æ CD ö
V ~ CL-1/2 and T = D ~ çç ÷÷
è Lø
C
obviously
æVö æVö æC 1/2
ö
(Rhα)Max ~ ç ÷ ~ ç ÷ ~ çç L ÷
÷
è T ø Max è D ø Max è CD ø Max

Thus one may note the operating point corresponds to a speed so that the tangent
to it from the origin to the drag curve has minimum slope.

In the expression for the range the product of terms which do not include the C or
the weight are of order of VCL /CD which can be considered at a certain altitude as
of order M(CL /CD) where M is the Mach number which is just the reason why in
the design of wing sections for high subsonic transport airplanes, this quantity is
not only maximised but also to be flat over a range of cruise Mach numbers.
Further the range of a jet can be seen to increase with decrease of density, which
means it is better for jets to cruise at as high an altitude as possible. This is the
one that leads to the `cruise-climb' technique to be discussed later.

The endurance of a jet is given by

dW C L æ 1 ö æ C L ö æ Wi ö E 1
Ehα = ò − CW C =ç ÷.ç ÷lnç
è C ø çè C D ÷ø çè Wf
÷÷ = ln
D ø C 1−ζ

is maximised when
æ CL ö
çç ÷÷ ~ Dmin ~ Tmin
è CD ø Max

because of the assumption of constant specific fuel consumption, the drag curve
becomes the fuel consumption curve to a different scale. So the maximum Ehα
occurs when drag or fuel consumed is minimum. Further since DMin is the same
for all altitude the endurance of jets do not change with altitude.

Further it may be noted that for optimum range and endurance the flight speed is
not dependant on the `initial' and `final' weight of the airplane in the constant
angle of attack program.

Constant Altitude and Constant Velocity Program

We commence with the range equation

13
 dW 1
RhV = ò Vdt = ò V .
−C D
And the relation

1 æ 2KW 2 ö 1
D = ρ SC D V + çç
2
÷÷ 2 = A * + B* W 2
2 è ρS øV
0

where A* = (1 / 2) ρ SC D0 V 2 and B* = (2K/ρSV2) and substituting the above in

the range equation, and after integration we have

W = Wf
−V 1 é W ù
RhV =
C (A * B* )1/2 ò tan −1 ê * * ú
W = Wi ë (A /B ) û
W = Wf
−V 1 é W ù
= ò tan −1 ê * * ú
C KC D 0
W = Wi ë (A /B ) û

which on substitution of limits and simplification becomes

2V æ C L ö ì (1 − ζ )u i 2 ü 2V
R hV = ç ÷÷ tan í
−1
4 ý
= .E Max tan −1 (φ )
C çè C D ø Max î (1 − ζ + u i ) þ C

with ui = (V/VMD)i and ζ = (Wi - Wf) /Wi.

RhV ≈ 2V/C Emaxφ since φ is << 1, and φ is the argument of the above tan-1(.).

Since the velocity is constant, the endurance

2 æ CL ö
E hV = .çç ÷÷ tan −1 (φ ) ≈ Emax(φ)
C è C D ø Max

Unlike in the constant angle of attack program the speed for optimum range and
endurance depends on the 'initial' and 'final' weight of the airplane and while the
former for range needs a transcendental equation to be solved the latter for
endurance gives

æ V ö
U i = çç ÷÷ = (1 − ζ )1 / 4
è VMD ø initial

Constant Altitude and Constant Thrust Program

Once again equating thrust T to drag D as

14
 T = D = A V2 + B /V2

where A = 1/2 ρ S CDo and B = (2KW2 / ρS) provides

1 1

é T ± (T − 4AB) ù
2 é T + (T 2 − 4KC D W 2 )1/2 ù 2
1/2 2
V=ê ú =ê ú
0

ë 2A û êë ρ SC D úû 0

since only the higher speed is relevant, gives

ò {T + (T − 4KC D W 2 )1/2 }dW

1
R hT = 2

C.T.( ρ SC D )1/2
0
0

which after integration leads to

éì ü ì TE 1/2
ù
T 2 E 2 Max W 2 üï ú
2

R hT =
2E Max (VMD ) i êïí2 + 1 − æç W ö
÷÷
ï ï Max
ý.í − − 2 ý
êï ç TE W i þï ú
3C
ë î è Max ø ïþ ïî W W2
û
However a simpler expression can be derived as

E æ Vi + Vf ö
R hT ≈ ç ÷ζ
Cè 2 ø

which is an approximation to the integral where E is the lift to drag ratio and
suffixes 'i' and 'f' denote initial and final conditions. The endurance in this
program is given by

dW 1 C L (Wi − Wf ) 1 æ CL ö E
E hT = ò dt = ò = . . = çç ÷÷ζ = ζ
C.D C CD Wi C è CD ø C

It may be noted that the speed for optimum 'range' depends on the 'initial' and
'final' weights and the optimum endurance corresponds to minimum drag.

Cruise-Climb at Constant Angle of Attack and Speed

Here we have

V dW V C L dW V C L æ Wi ö V æ 1 ö
R = ò− . =ò . . = . .lnç ÷÷ = Elnçç ÷÷
− C CD W C C D çè Wf è1−ζ
V
C D ø C ø

and once again

15
 æ C L 1/2 ö
(R V ) Max ~ çç ÷
÷
C
è D ø Max

The endurance in this cruise-climb at constant velocity is easily seen as

1 C L æ Wi ö E æ 1 ö
E = . lnç ÷÷ = lnç ÷÷
C C D çè Wf C çè 1 − ζ
V
ø ø

and thus both the range and endurance expressions are very simple and very
convenient for studying the effect of wind.

RANGE AND ENDURANCE FOR A PROPELLER AIRPLANE

Constant Altitude and Constant Angle of Attack Program

For this program the range is

η dW C L æ η ö æ C L ö æ Wi ö η æ 1 ö
Rh = ò = ç ÷ çç ÷÷ lnçç ÷÷ = El n çç ÷÷
− C.W C D è ø è D ø è Wf
C C ø C è1−ζ ø

Thus for a propeller driven airplane the maximum range occurs when

æ CL ö
çç ÷÷ ~ D Min
è C D ø Max

because

é Distance ù é Distance/Hour ù é V ù
(R ) Max ~ ê ~ê ~
h ë Fuel û Max ë Fuel/Hour úû êë P úû Max
ú

é V ù é1ù
~ê ú ~ê ú ~ D Min
ë DV û Max ë D û Max

Unlike the jet, here the maximum is independent of altitude. Once again the line
tangent to the power required curve, with minimum slope provides the operating
speed for best range. Though the maximum range is not changed with altitude
propeller driven airplanes fly higher so that the faster cruise help them to make
more trips for increased productivity. Next, the endurance

η dW η dW C L é ρ SC L ù
1/ 2

Eh =ò =ò . = (.).ò W −3/2 .dW

CP − C.W C D êë 2W úû

16
 æ 2η ö æç C L ö÷ æç ρ SC L ö÷
1/ 2
æ Wi ö
1/2
é æW ö
1/2
ù
= ç ÷ç ÷ç ÷ çç ÷÷ ê1 − çç f ÷÷ ú.
è C ø è C D ø è 2Wi ø è Wf ø êë è Wi ø úû

2η E é1 − (1 − ζ )1 / 2 ù
.
C Vi êë (1 − ζ )1 / 2 úû
=

has a maximum given by

ìæ C ö 1/2 ü æ C L 3/2 ö
(E hα ) Max ~ PMin ~ (DV) Min ~ íçç L ÷÷.C L ý ~ çç ÷
÷
îè C D ø þ Max è C D ø Max

As before since the power required curve becomes the rate of fuel consumption
curve to a different scale, the endurance is maximised when the power required is
a minimum. Unlike jets, since the minimum power required increases with
altitude, the endurance falls of with altitude and thus propeller driven airplanes try
to fly at lower altitude and at a somewhat lower speed than for range when above
an airport and awaiting clearance to land.

Constant Altitude and Constant Velocity Program

Here the range equation is

ηdW ηdW η 1
R hV = ò Vdt = ò V =ò = . tan −1 (φ )
− C.DV − C.D C (KC Do )
1/2

η η
= E Max tan −1 (φ ) ≈ E Maxφ
C C

and similarly
η 1 1
E hV = . tan −1 (φ )
V C (KC1/2
Do )

η E Max η E Max
= tan −1 (φ ) ≈ φ
C V C V

where φ is the same as earlier. Here in this constant velocity program, the
optimum condition for range and endurance depends on the 'initial' and 'final'
weight of the airplane. While the former for range has the solution given by

1/4
æ V ö æ W ö
çç ÷÷ = ç1 − f ÷
ç ÷
è VMD ø initial è W ø
17
the latter leads to a transcendental equation which has to be solved.

Constant Altitude and Constant Power Program

The range for a piston prop airplane

η dW.V η
R hP = ò Vdt = ò − =−
CP ò
VdW
C.P

requires the speed V to be expressed in terms of constant power P and varying

weight W from
B
P = AV 3 +
V

does not in general have a closed form solution. Hence

−η
R hP =
C.P ò
f(P, W)dW

where f(.) formally expresses the integrand and the integration has to be carried
out numerically. Notice the difficult integration for the constant thrust case of a jet
airplane and this one is not integrable in general. Hence these are carefully
avoided in most text books! However an approximation can be had as

η æVi + V f ö ηE æVi + V f ö
RhP ≈ ç ÷(Wi − Wf ) = ç ÷ζ
CP è 2 ø Cè 2 ø

of the kind should be helpful, where the suffixes 'i' and 'f' denote initial and final
conditions respectively. In fact an approximate estimate can be made for all the
programs by taking an average value of specific range dR/dW or specific
endurance dE/dW as the case may be at the midweight or average based on the
initial and final weight for the above and multiplying them by the fuel weight.

The expression for the endurance is much simpler and given by

η η ηE
E hP = − ò dW = (Wi − Wf ) = ζ
CP C.P C

Here once again in the constant power program it may be noted that optimum
range speed depends on initial and final weight and the optimum endurance
corresponds to minimum power condition as is clearly evident.

18
Cruise-Climb at Constant Angle of Attack and Speed

Here again we have

−η dW −η C D dW η C L æ Wi ö ηE æ 1 ö
R αV = ò . =ò . . = . .lnç ÷÷ = lnç ÷÷
C D C CL . W C C D çè Wf ø C çè 1 − ζ ø

an expression that is identical to the constant altitude and constant angle of attack
program since in both their equations the velocity does not explicitly occur. Thus,

æC ö
(R αV ) Max ~ çç L ÷÷
è C D ø Max

The endurance in this cruise-climb at constant velocity is

η 1 C L æ Wi ö ηE æ 1 ö
(R αV ) = . . .lnç ÷÷ = lnçç ÷÷
V C C D çè Wf ø C V è1−ζ ø

Since the above range and endurance expressions are very simple, as we will see
later they are useful for studying the effect of wind.

COMPARISON OF CONSTANT hα, hV, hT/hP AND αV PROGRAMS

We now compare the various range and endurance programs discussed earlier.
For such a comparison it is very useful to get back to our drag or power versus
speed curve to explain the various results for jet and propeller driven airplanes
and in particular the optimum conditions and also compare all the programs. For
this we first obtain the trajectory of these programs in the drag or power versus
speed plane using the relations

1
L=W= ρ V 2SC L
2

1 æC ö
D=T= ρ V 2SC D = çç D ÷÷ W
2 è CL ø

1 æC ö
P= ρ V 3SC D = çç D ÷÷.W.V
2 è CL ø

from which the changes in α, V and T as the case may be in various programs can
be easily derived and Table B provides such an information. The trajectories in

19
 TABLE B. COMPARISON OF VARIOUS PROGRAMS FOR
RANGE AND ENDURAMCE
Program Jet airplane Propeller Airplane
Constant
Range Endurance Range Endurance

2E [1 - (1 - ς ) 1/2 ]
hα 2EVi E æ 1 ö E æ 1 ö η
[1 − (1 − ς )1/2 ] ln ç ÷ η ln çç ÷ CVi (1 − ς )1 / 2
C C çè 1 - ς ÷ø C è 1 - ς ÷ø

hV 2E Max V 2E Max 2E 2E
tan -1 (φ ) tan -1 (φ ) η Max tan -1 (φ ) (η Max ) ⋅
C C C CV
2E Max V 2E Max 2E i
≅ φ ≅ φ ≅η φ
C C C tan - 1(φ )
2E
≅η φ
CV
i
E æ Vi + Vf ö E
ς
E æ Vi + Vf ö η
E
ς
hT or hP ç ÷ς η ç ÷ς
C è 2 ø C C è 2 ø C

αV EV æ 1 ö E æ 1 ö E æ 1 ö E æ 1 ö
(Cruise- ln çç ÷÷ ln çç ÷÷ η ln çç ÷÷ η ln ç ÷
Climb)
C è1- ς ø C è1- ς ø C è1- ς ø CV è1-ς ø

General Comments on the Performance and Optimums

Increasing
altitude Increases Independent Independent Decreases
Optimum
at or near (C1/2
L / C D ) Max
(CL / CD ) Max (CL / CD ) Max (C3/2
L / C D ) Max

Optimum (V/T)Max DMin DMin PMin

at or near
Optimum VMax VMD VMD VMP
at or near
Relative RαV>Rhα> RhV >RhT EαV = Ehα > EhV RαV=Rhα> RhV >RhP EαV < Ehα
Performance > EhT > EhV > EhP

φ = [(1-ζ) ui2 / (1-ζ + ui4)], where ζ is the fuel fraction ratio = Fuel weight/Initial
weight and uI is the ratio of initial speed to the initial drag speed. E = Ratio of lift
to drag; Suffix i denotes initial conditions; C = sfc.
Note: The range and endurance expressions are independent of the type of drag
polar expect for constant hV and hT programs. It may be noted that E = (CL/CD)
depends on the cruise speed implicitly. The optimum speed is independent of W
for constant hα and αV program and depends on WI and Wf for constant hV and
hT programs.

20
the drag versus velocity plane are compared for changing weights in various
programs for range and endurance for jets and propellers are shown in Figure 2.

It is interesting to see that based on the drag or power versus speed diagrams not
only the level flight performances can be discussed for piston prop or the jet
airplanes but also their climb and turn performances as well. Further with the
assumption of constant specific fuel consumption either for a piston prop or a jet
their range and endurance performance characteristics can be treated once again
with the power or drag versus speed diagrams.

Higher
Initial Altitude
Initial Best Range Altitude
Condition
DRAG

Constant hT

Constant hα Constant hV, αV

AIR SPEED V

Figure 2. Comparison of the Trajectory for Different Range Programs

for a Jet in the Drag - Speed Plane.

We can commence with the drag versus speed for a jet at a given altitude. During
cruise the weight decreases leading to a change in the drag versus speed curve
both at a constant and higher altitude for the various programs as indicated in
Table B and shown in Figure 2. If one were to commence the cruise at the same
optimum speed for all the programs, the constant angle of attack would be better
than the constant velocity which in turn would be better than constant thrust, as
there later two more further away in speed from the optimum as the fuel is
consumed. However since generally the best range speed is at high speeds there
is not much of a slope difference for the line from the origin and thus the range
performance of all these are nearly similar and comparable. But a gain in altitude
moves the drag curve to the right and thus an improved range performance is
obtained. Hence

RαV > Rhα > RhV > RhT

The endurance performance of a jet can be similarly dealt with the trajectories for
the various programs commencing from the minimum drag. For the piston prop
airplane the comparison can center around the power required versus speed
variation at different weights and altitudes. Among the programs the Breguet
program is the easiest for integration. Hence this can be used as a first
approximation say for a preliminary design calculation. We will see later that the
effect of wind is also more easily analysed in terms of the Breguet equations.
21
EFFECT OF AIRFRAME PARAMETERS ON THE RANGE OF JETS

æVö æVö
Here the maximum range corresponds to R Max ~ ç ÷ =ç ÷
è T ø Max è D ø Max

and thus a line drawn from the origin to the drag curve with minimum slope
denotes the speed condition for maximum range. In terms of CL and CD

æ C 1/2 ö
R Max ~ çç L ÷÷
è CD ø Max

and it is easy to manipulate the above to obtain the maximum value as

1/4
æ C 1/2 ö 3 æ π Ae 3 ö
çç L ÷÷ = çç ÷÷
è CD ø Max 4 è C Do ø

where A is the aspect ratio, e is the Oswald's efficiency for and CDo is the zero lift
drag coefficient. Now it is interesting to see that the benefit of increasing the
aspect ratio A varies like the one fourth power whereas decreasing CDo various
like three fourths power and thus for jets the aerodynamic cleanliness is more
important than larger aspect ratio. Hence jet airplanes need not have such large A
as piston engined airplanes. The range equation for a jet shows that it is better to
fly at as high an altitude as possible since the effective wing loading (W/ρS) is
increased with decreased density. Hence jet airplanes fly at the higher possible
altitude of around 25,000 to 35,000 ft and also at as high a speed as is possible
since (C1/2L /C D ) Max corresponds to higher flight speeds near the maximum
possible level flight speed. The above flight condition is limited only by the
possible rise of specific fuel consumption with flight Mach number which may be
close to the drag divergence Mach number MDD. Also the optimum operating
condition is unreachable due to insufficient thrust or outside the permitted
operating envelope. Figure 3 reproduces the plots from Torrenbeek (1976) which
illustrate the above nicely. In the absence of compressibility effects the range
dependent on (M.L/D) increases with Mach number. However when
compressibility effects are accounted for with drag rise around MDD there is a
maximum achievable value. Also in actual practice the condition for specific
range also gets modified due to the variation of sfc with altitude and speed which
is generally assumed to be constant with speed. Further to have speed stability the
operational flight speed will be somewhat higher than the minimum drag speed.
The point A denotes 98% of the maximum specific range speed. The point B
refers to the high speed cruise at a lower altitude when fuel consumption is not an
important factor. Here the maximum cruise rating of the engine decides the speed
though some 20 counts drag is acceptable. An intermediate position is the cost
economic speed optimising between fuel and block operating costs.

22
 40
WEIGHT 750,000

ALTITUDE ~ 1000 FT
35
max. cruise thrust A
99.5 100

30
97 B
buffet 95

25
boundary
n = 1.3 92
90
20
(L/D)max
82
% of (ML/D)max
15

max. ML/D
10 11 12 13 14 15
ML / D

ALTITUDE 25,000 FT
9

.6 .7 .8 .9
MACH NUMBER

Figure 3a. With Compressibility Effect on Drag. Maximum (ML/D) = 14.8

40
ALTITUDE ~ 1000 FT

35

max. cruise thrust

106
30

104
102
100
25

98
96
93
90
(L/D)max
20

82
(ML/D)max
% of (ML/D)max
15
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
ML / D

.6 .7 .8 .9
MACH NUMBER

Figure 3b. No Compressibility Effect on Drag. Maximum (ML/D) = 14.8

23
Endurance of Jet Airplanes

In general the endurance is maximised corresponding to

æC ö
E Max ~ çç L ÷÷ ~ D Min ~ TMin
è CD ø Max

and thus the minimum point of the drag curve provides the best operating flight
speed at various altitudes. Hence jets can be stacked at any altitude without fuel
penalty before landing. The trajectories of the various programs are compared in
Figure 2. As in the earlier case of range it may be noted that the drag value as the
weight decreases during cruising shows the relative performance. Since the
minimum drag at various altitude for the changed weight is same the constant αV
and hα programs provide identical results except in the former the speed
decreases during cruise. The constant hV has only a slightly lower endurance
since the speeds are around VMD and the constant hT leads to a modest decrease
due to higher speeds and consequently larger drag relative to the other programs.
Hence the relative efficiency of the various programs is given by

E αV = E hα > E hV > E hT

Range of Propeller Driven Airplanes

æC ö æPö
Here the maximum range corresponds to R Max ~ çç L ÷÷ ~ D Min ~ ç ÷
è D ø Max
C è V ø Min

and again the optimum operating airspeed is obtained by drawing a straight line
from the origin to the power required curve with minimum slope. The above
condition when expressed in terms of the parameters in drag polar as,

1/2
æ CL ö 1 æ π Ae ö
çç ÷÷ = çç ÷÷
è CD ø Max 2 è Do ø
C

Thus the gains from increasing the aspect ratio (which decreases the induced
drag) as well as improving the aerodynamic clearliness (which decreases the
parasite drag coefficient CDo) are both equally substantial, since the propeller
driven airplanes fly for maximum range around the minimum drag condition
unlike the jets which fly at much higher speeds wherein more drag arises mainly
due to parasite drag and to a lesser extent due to the induced drag. The Figure 2
shows the various programs in the drag versus velocity plane. It is preferable to
use drag for the range discussion on a propeller driven airplane since the optimum
speeds are around VMD and for very similar reasoning of the best endurance

24
 Higher
Initial Altitude
Initial Best Range Altitude

POWER REQUIRED
Condition

Constant hT

Constant hα Constant hV, αV

AIR SPEED V

Figure 4. Comparison of the Trajectory for Different Range Programs

for a piston prop in the Power Required - Speed Plane.

performance of jets occuring around VMD, the range performance of propeller

driven airplanes are very similar as

R αV = R hα > R hV > R hT

Endurance of Propeller Driven Airplanes

The optimum condition for this case is given by

æ C 3/2 ö
E Max ~ PMin ~ çç L ÷÷
è CD ø Max

which can be transformed in terms of the constants in the airplane drag polar as

æ C 3/2 ö 27 1/2 (π Ae)

3/4

çç L ÷÷ = .
è CD ø Max 4 C 1/4
Do

and thus one may note that the benefit of increasing the aspect ratio is much larger
than decreasing the parasite drag. In human powered vehicle, this is just the
reason to use a very large aspect ratio wings due to the limited power output of a
human being. The endurance of propeller driven airplane decreases with altitude
and hence cruise-climb is not useful. A comparison of various program
trajectories are shown in Figure 4 and since the optimal speed is around VMP it is
once again clear that a constant hα, hV and hP are most efficient in that order for
the endurance performance of a propeller driven airplane and since PMin increases
with increasing altitude, cruise-climb reduces endurance, though not range since
the flight would then be faster. Thus

EαV < Ehα > EhV > EhT

25
CRUISE CLIMB TECHNIQUE

We saw earlier that a jet airplane's range is increased when it is cruising at higher
altitude unlike a piston prop airplane, whose range does not change with altitude.
But one basic assumption in the earlier cruise-climb case also has been that the
specific fuel consumption does not change with altitude, but that is relaxed here
and we the estimate the range. Consider a jet to commence the cruise for range at
a certain altitude. As the fuel is consumed, the weight decreases and so the
airplane can climb to a higher altitude and thus obtain greater range. In practice
such a continuous climb is not permissible due to ATC restrictions in that the
cruise flight levels are specified at discrete altitudes. But for the purpose of our
analytical treatment we presume that climb is continuously possible. In actual
practice after cruising for a certain time, and obtaining ATC clearance the jets
climb to the next permissible higher altitude. Such a cruise is most beneficial
during long range transcontinental flights. If the earlier analysis have
demonstrated the effect of airframe and engine interaction, the present analysis
will show the effect of airframe-engine and atmospheric interaction studied with
the assumption of parabolic drag polar, constant engine thrust sfc at an altitude
and its variation with altitude respectively.

Cruise-Climb in Troposphere

Commencing once again from the range equation,

1/ 2
é 2W ù dW
R cct = ò Vdt = ò ê ú .
ë ρ SC L û − C.T

the suffix cct denotes the present cruise climb range calculations in the
troposphere wherein we notice that since ρ and C vary during cruise with altitude
(and thus with weight W) we must express than all in terms of our convenient
independent variable W. Using the relations, which have been found to be
reasonable are

C T C
= σ 0.2 , = σ 0.7 and T = ( D )W
C SL TSL CL

with suffix SL denoting the sea level values we have,

1/ 2
é 2W ù dW
R cct =òê ú .
ë ρ i SC L û ( ρ / ρ i ) .C i .( ρ / ρ i ) o.2 .(C D /C L )W
0.5

Substituting once again for (σ/σi)0.7 in terms of the thrust T and Ti the above
provides the range as

26
 2 ì 2Wi ü
1/ 2
C ìïæ W ö
1/2
üï
R cct = í ý . L íçç
i
÷÷ − 1ý
C i î ρ i SC L þ CD ïîè Wf ø ïþ
2
whence (Rcct)Max corresponds to the (C1/2
L /C D ) Max condition at which KC L = 3Cdo,

which is the same as for constant hα. Similarly expressing Rcct in terms of Vi,E
and ζ we get

2Vi E [1 − (1 − ζ ) 1 / 2 ]
R cct = .
C (1 − ζ ) 1 / 2

and now we see the benefit of cruise climb at constant angle of attack as against
the constant altitude-constant angle of attack program through their ratio

R cc 1
= >1
R hα (1 − ζ )1 / 2

The above result differs from Ashkenhas (1947) who has worked out the range (in
our notation) as
1/ 2
æ Wi ö
2
æ 2Wi ö T æ CL ö
R cct = 2çç ÷÷ . SL çç ÷÷ ç − 1÷.
ç W ÷
è ρ SL .S.C L ø C SL è CD ø è f ø

The difficulty with the above is that one cannot specify the altitude at which the
cruise commences but only the initial weight Wi. Further it may be noted that for
any Wi initial L/D ratio, the initial thrust TI is fixed and thus TSL depends on the
throttle setting and hence varies with the initial conditions and so if one desires to
obtain an optimum cruise speed for best range then TSL is also a variable and not a
constant. In the present derivation by expressing the sfc and T in terms of their
initial conditions, the optimum is once again back to (C1/2 L /C D ) Max as in constant

hα program, but the improved range due to cruise-climb is obtained decreased

thrust and sfc is translated in terms of the factor (1-ζ)-1/2. Lastly it may be noted
that the quantities

T, W, ρV2 ~ σ0.7
and
T/ρ, W/ρ, V2 ~ σ0.3

and thus the thrust setting decreases. Here the speed also decreases unlike in
constant hV cruise-climb program the speed remains constant. For cruise-climb in
the troposphere the endurance.

− dW dW dW
E cct = ò =
C.T ò ò
=
æ ρ 0.2 ö æ C D ö æ T ö æC ö
2/7

C i .çç ÷÷.çç ÷÷ W C i .çç ÷÷ .çç D ÷÷ W

ρ
è i ø è CL ø è Ti ø è C L ø
27
and substituting for T in terms of W and integrating we get

ö éæ Wi ö ù
2/7 9/7 2/7
1 7 æ Ti ö æ CL
E cct = . .ç ÷ çç ÷÷ .êçç ÷÷ − 1ú
C i 2 çè Wi ÷ø è CD ø êëè Wf ø úû

which in terms of E and ζ becomes,

E 7 [1 − (1 − ζ ) 2 / 7
E cct = . . .
C i 2 (1 − ζ ) 2 / 7

Thus the endurance in such a cruise-climb where the sfc decreases with increase
of altitude is higher than when sfc remains constant with altitude.

Cruise-Climb in Stratosphere

Here the difference from the previous analysis lies in the variation of thrust and
specific fuel consumption which vary in stratosphere as,

T ρ C æC ö
= , =1 and T = çç L ÷÷ W
T35 ρ 35 C 35 è CD ø

with the suffix 35 denoting the values at the tropopause. The cruise climb range in
the stratosphere (denoted by suffix ccs) is

1/ 2 0.5
é 2W ù æ ρ ö dW
R ccs = ò Vdt = ò ê ú .çç ÷÷ .
ë SC L û è ρi ø − C i .(C D /C L )W
1/2
é 2 ù 1 dW
=òê ú . .
ë ρ i SC L û ( ρ / ρ i ) − C 35 .(C D /C L )W
1/ 2

and once again substituting for (ρ/ρi) in terms of the thrust and in turn expressing
it in terms of CD CL and W, we get,

1/ 2 1/ 2 3/2
é 2 ù T 0.5 C 3/2 dW 1 æ 2Wi ö æC ö æW ö
Rccs = ò ê ú . i . 3/2L
. = çç ÷÷ .çç L ÷÷ lnçç i ÷÷
ë ρ i SC L û Ci CD W Ci è ρ i SC L ø è CD ø è Wf ø

where suffix i refers to the initial altitude. From the above equation RMax
corresponds to ( CL1/ 2 / CD ) Max , at which 3KC2L = Cdo, once again as in constant hα
program. Once again our expression for the range and its maximum are different
from Ashkenhas (1948) for similar reasons as mentioned in the previous section
and the results are identical to constant αV program like

28
 T, W, ρV2 ~ σ
or
T/ρ, W/ρ, V2 ~ constant.

In fact the constant αV program (Refer Table 1) was such that T/ρ and V were
both constants. Further the constant velocity program becomes a constant Mach
number program in the stratosphere where the temperature is constant.

Similar to the cruise-climb in troposphere, in the stratosphere the endurance

− dW dW 1 CL W E æ 1 ö
E ccs = ò =ò = . ln i = lnçç ÷÷
C.T C i (C D /C L ).W C i C D Wf C è1−ζ ø

and is thus identical to the constant αV program as it should be since sfc is

constant with altitude.

The initial and final values of weight, thrust, altitude and velocity for the various
cruise climb conditions can be easily worked out. This would indicate as to how
one can deal with many connected variable which are all time varying in a simple
way, using quasi steady approach which means neglecting acceleration forces.
Further some of the expressions for range and endurance lead to finite and some
others infinite values when the whole weight of the airplane is made up of fuel
and burnt out. This is of interest for study!

Range Correction for Small Climb Angles

The cruise-climb range for small climb angles can be corrected as follows. The
equation of motion for shallow quasi-steady climb is,

T = D + Wγ

which leads to the corrected cruise-climb range as

− VdW − VdW R + cc
R *cc = ò =ò =
CT CD[1 + γ (C L /C D )] CD[1 + γ (C L /C D )]

The second term in the denominator accounts for the thrust necessary apart from
the drag to overcome the component of gravity acting along the flight path. The
climb angle αγ can be worked out from the lift equation as,

1
L=W= ρ V 2 SC L
2

Substituting the initial and final values in the above and taking the ratio, we get

29
 Wi 1 ρ i Vi2
=
Wf 2 ρ f Vf2

Using the above relations and assuming an exponential density variation in the
atmosphere as

ρ
σ= = exp(−λ h )
ρ SL

and simplifying it can be shown that

1 æ Wi ö
(h i − h f ) = ∆ h = lnç ÷÷
λ n çè Wf ø

where n = 0.7 in the troposphere and n = 1.0 in the stratosphere from which

∆h
γ =
Rcc
and
CL
R cc* ≈ R cc − ∆h.
CD

Lastly some of the expressions for range and endurance lead to finite and some
others infinite values even the whole weight of the airplane is made up of fuel and
burnt out.

Airframe-Engine-Atmosphere Interaction

The effect of airframe is represented through its drag polar which is parabolic in
general which together with the assumption of constant sfc with forward speed led
to various optimal speed for range and endurance. The effect of engine be it
piston or jet with the constant sfc based on power and thrust respectively
indicated the above optimal speed conditions to be different for airplane with
different types of power plants and thus showed the airframe-engine interaction.

The atmospheric conditions through its density variation with altitude led to
differences in the optimal cruise speed conditions of piston-prop and jet airplanes
for range and endurance. Further the atmospheric density contributing to the
thrust and sfc variation with altitude shows how in cruise climb flights in
troposphere and stratosphere led to further changes in the optimal flight
conditions thereby demonstrating the important of airframe-engine-atmosphere
interaction for the range and endurance behaviour.

30
Range of Turboprop and Turbofan Airplanes

Basically the four types of power plants namely piston-propeller, turboprop,

turbofan and turbojets are used in airplanes that cruise at varying speeds. The
turboprop produces most of its power output from the propeller and only about
10-20 % is from the jet thrust. The turbofan behaves differently depending on the
bypass ratio. When the bypass ratio is zero it is like a pure turbojet and when
large of the order of 10, most of its power output is through the fan and hence a
certain amount of judgement is necessary to consider if a turbofan is nearer to a
turbojet or a turboprop in its behaviour. Thus when part of the power output is
from propeller action and partly from jet action we can combine then in a suitable
fashion as indicated below. The Breguet range for piston prop and jet airplanes
are respectively

η æ 1 ö V æ 1 ö
Rp = E lnçç ÷÷ and R j = E lnçç ÷÷
Cp è1 − ζ ø Cj è1 − ζ ø

where in this section only we use the suffix p and j for range and sfc to denote
piston prop and turbojet engined airplanes. Other than the aerodynamic term E
and the weight fraction in terms of ζ we need to specify the thrust or the power
in terms of the so called

æ TVö η P
Equivalent Power = ç p + j ÷ ; Equivalent thrust = (Tj + p )
ç η p ÷ø V
è

Similarly one can combine the sfc based on the relation

η V V η
a +b = * = *
Cp C j C j Cp

where 'a' and 'b' are appropriate weightages. Hale (1984) recommends

æ3−kö æ k −1ö
a = ç ÷ and b = ç ÷
è 2 ø è 2 ø

where the limits k = 1 denote the piston prop and turbojet respectively. Thus
either Cj* or Cp* can be used to combine with equivalent power or thrust output in
the range and endurance calculations. With a suitable value of 'k' the optimum
speed for range can be expressed in terms of kEMax and the speed m = (V/VMD) as

2m 1/2 éæ 3 − k ö η æ k − 1 ö m VMD ù æ 1 ö
1/4
R= .E Max .êç ÷ +ç ÷ ú lnçç ÷÷
(m + 1) ëêè 2 ø C p è 2 ø C j ûú è 1 − ζ ø
can be easily worked out. Generally one uses piston prop equations for a
turboprop and jet engine equations for turbofan studies.
31
OPERATIONAL RANGE VERSUS PAYLOAD DIAGRAM

It would be interesting to see as to how the range and payload are exchanged
during an airplane's operation in a fleet. Figure 5 shows the Range versus
Payload diagram from Torrenbeek (1976) with a variety of limitation imposed to
the maximum take-off weight, (MTOW), maximum landing weight (MLW) fuel
carrying capacity, the maximum range and other causes.

350
MAX. TAKE0FF WEIGHT

TOW TOW
LIMITED TOTAL TRIP LIMITED
BY FUEL FUEL BY
MLW FUEL
CAP
TAKEOFF
WEIGHT
WEIGHT ~ 1000 LB

MAX. LANDING WEIGHT

300
MAX.
ADDITIONAL
FUEL

LANDING
WEIGHT
A MAX ZERO FUEL WT B

MAXIMUM USEFUL LOAD

USEFUL FUEL CAPACITY
FUEL
250 RESERVE
FUEL

MAX STRUCTURAL. PAYLOAD

PAYLOAD

200
D
OPERATIONAL EMPTY WEIGHT
RB
MAX. PAYLOAD RANGE

RD MAX. RANGE

0 1000 2000 3000

RANGE ~ NM

Figure 5. Variation of Range and Payload During Flight Operations.

The point A denotes the maximum possible payload that can be carried and since
between A and B, the range is increasing the fuel that need to be carried is also
limited. However the reserve fuel has to be carried all the time as if it is an
additional fixed payload. It is not possible to increase the range beyond point B,
since any additional fuel uptake would increase the take-off weight beyond
MTOW. Beyond point C, with maximum fuel on board, the only way to increase
the range is to reduce the payload. The point D denotes a flight with zero payload.

32
EFFECT OF WND ON THE RANGE OF AIRPLANE

Importance of Wind

So far the range and endurance calculations for a jet and propeller driven airplane
were made assuming no wind. The atmospheric temperature is very important for
airplane design. This is because it controls the thrust or power output from the
engines and also determines the density altitude which in turn affects the turn,
take-off, climb and other performances. Similarly winds plays a very important
role in the day to day operational performance of an airplane and in particular
affects the payload and range and determines the cruise altitude. Thus for the
same airspeed, since the ground speed increases with head wind the range reduces
and with a tail wind the range increases. Thus one prefers tailwind for cruise,
unlike the case of take-off and landing wherein one seeks headwinds. However
gliders and sailplanes benefit from headwind and vertical air currents over slopes,
heated surfaces or along zones of converging winds to maintain altitude.

Climatology of Wind, Jet Streams and Persistence

The Wright brothers considered a steady strong wind essential to attempt their
first powered flight which was carried out at Kitty Hawk on 17th December 1903
against a steady wind of nearly 22 mph at 4 ft above the ground. During the early
days of commercial aviation the cruise levels of aircraft was between 2-3 kms
with the mean winds of about 20 knots. Faster and modern piston engined aircraft
cruise at about 6 kms where the mean winds are of order 50-60 knots. High
subsonic jet airplanes cruise around 10-11 km and encounter winds of order 100
to 150 knots. Thus in spite of a fivefold increase in airspeed over a period of time
due to the associated increase of cruising levels, the wind speeds being a third of
the airspeed has not changed much. This means that winds change the ground
speed of an aircraft by a factor of two between head and tail winds. Thus a study
of wind effect on operational economics is very useful. Figure 6 taken from
Pisharoty (1961) shown the vertical cross-section of average zonal wind at two
longitudes during the months of January and July, which show the location of the
core of the jet streams clearly. The polar jet streams at 11 km height over Japan
(350 N) have mean a wind speeds of more than 140 knots and on individual
occasions can be as high as 250 knots. The corresponding values for a subtropical
jet stream at about 13 kms over India at 25o N are 90 and 150 knots respectively.
The jet streams have a height (characterised by decrease to half of the peak value)
of about a few km and a north-south width of about 1-2 kms. Easterly jet streams
over Bangalore around the 130 N occur at about 14-15 km. With maximum wind
speeds of 100 to 120 knots. Only for supersonic airplane which cruise at about
1000 or 1500 knots and at levels well above the jet streams the effect of winds is
likely to be weak. Pisharoty (1961) provides a graphical method of constructing
the flight path for minimum time of flight between two stations. In fact the
westerly jet streams have been exploited to create records on the west-to-east
flights. The intercontinental flights follow different routes during summer and
winter to take advantage of the latitudinal shift in the wind and pressure systems.
Also political and other organizational considerations also decide the flight path
33
Figure 6. Vertical Cross-Section of Zonal Wind and Potential Temperature
During January along Longitude 1400 E and 750 E and During July along
Longitude 1400 E and 750 E (Form top to bottom).

34
over large tracts of land and sea. Winds change generally slowly with time and
thus one can assume a quasi-stationary situation based on the latest wind to retain
their values without significant changes for about 12 hrs in the extra tropical
latitudes and for about 24 hrs in the tropics.

Range With Wind

It is best once again to use the drag or power versus airspeed diagram to discuss
the range performance of jet and propeller driven airplanes. Consider the Figure 7
for the jet airplane. We can write

Ground speed = True Airspeed ± Wind speed

where (+) and (-) refers to tail and head wind respectively. An airplane
experiences lift and drag forces based on the true airspeed.

Ground Range = Still air range ± VW. Endurance

Thus
æ Ground ⋅ speed ö
Max. Ground Range ~ çç ÷÷
è Fuel ⋅ consumption ø Max

which means that for a tail wind the time from the airspeed axis has a reduced
slope which means the operating airspeed has to be reduced and for head wind
the operating airspeed has to be increased. Now, we can utilise the range and
endurance expressions to derive quantitatively the estimates. From Table B the
best formula to understand the effect of wind on the range and endurance is the
constant αV, the `cruise climb' program having an easy and simple structure for
both jet and propeller airplanes in terms of flight speed.

Range of Jet Airplane with Wind

Here the range with a wind speed of VW can be written down as

E(Vi ± VW ) æ 1 ö
Range (with wind) = lnçç ÷÷
C è1 − ζ ø

The ratio of lift to drag E is strictly a function of the flight velocity. So

E Max 1/2 æ m2 ö æ 1 ö
R(m, VW ) = .2.(3) .ç ç ÷÷(m ± VW /Vbr )lnçç ÷÷
è 1 + 3m è1−ζ
4
C ø ø

where m = Vbr and Vbr = 31/4.VMD, the speed for best range with in no wind
conditions. Hence the above expression consists of the effect on range, of flying
at various speeds V and with wind speeds VW. The best true airspeed with VW,

35
 1.6
w/Vmd = -0.4 TURBOJET
1.4
w/Vmd = -0.2
1.2
Relative Range wrt No Wind

w/Vmd = -0.0
1
w/Vmd = 0.2
0.8
w/Vmd = 0.4
0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Relative Airspeed

Figure 7. Relative Ground Range with Wind Speed for Jets.

for obtaining maximum range can be worked out by differentiating the above
equation with respect to m, to give
1
é m ± (2/3)(VW /Vbr ) ù 4
m br = ê br ú
ë m br ± 2(VW /Vbr ) û

Thus the gain in range with tail wind occurs due to increasing ground range and
also flying at a slightly lower true airspeed which reduces the fuel consumption.
We can compare the absolute change of range in tail or head wind by the ratio.

R(m, VW ) æ m 2 öæ V ö
= 4çç ÷ç m ± W ÷÷
4 ֍
R(1,0) è 1 + 3m øè Vbr ø

and this has been plotted in Figure 7. The endurance of a jet airplane as can be
seen from the cruise-climb formula to be unchanged.

Range of Propeller Driven Airplane with Wind

One can work out very similar expression for the range with wind of a propeller
driven airplane using once again the cruise-climb equations. The scaling factor
for m in this case would be the true airspeed for maximum range in still air which
is VMD. Hence

36
 1.6
w/Vmd = -0.4 PISTON PROPS
1.4
w/Vmd = -0.2
1.2
Relative Range wrt No Wind

w/Vmd = -0.0
1
w/Vmd = 0.2
0.8
w/Vmd = 0.4
0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Relative Airspeed

Figure 8. Relative Ground Range with Wind Speed for Piston Props.

E Max æ 2m 2 öæ V ö æ 1 ö
R(m, VW ) = çç ÷÷çç m + W ÷÷lnçç ÷÷
Cη è1+ m
4
øè VMd ø è 1 − ζ ø

and the maximization for m, leads to

1
é 2 m br ± (VW /VMD ) ù 4
m br = ê ú
ë 2 m br ± 3(VW /VMD ) û

and the corresponding ratio of maximum range with wind to the maximum range
without wind as

R(m, VW ) æ m ö æç æ VW öö
= 2ç 4 ÷ ç m ± çç ÷÷ ÷
è m +1øè ÷
R(0,1) è VMD øø

and this has been plotted in Figure 8. The endurance of a propeller driven
airplane with wind is unchanged since it can fly at different ground speeds for the
same airspeed.

37
Relative Effect of Wind on Propeller and Jet Airplanes

Wind does not affect endurance of any type of airplane but due to the differences
in the ground speed affects the range. Lastly we can compare the effect of wind
on the range performance of a propeller driven airplane and a jet airplane. We
have seen earlier that the range of propeller driven airplane does not vary much
with altitude. Thus piston engine airplanes can fly at varying altitudes without
undue range penalty. For such aircraft the wind data is utilised to select the
altitude to provide the best ground speed. However a jet airplane whose range is
strongly dependent on the cruising altitudes the advantages through changes in
wind are weaker and not sufficient to compensate for the penalty. So if a flight
path that is laid down is along the great circle between the points of departure and
destination the wind data are not utilised to gain any advantage in speed or range.
The knowledge about them is made use of only in determining the flight time,
fuel consumption, payload and other details.

Of course one need not be under the impression that the effect of wind is very
severe on jet airplanes. Firstly, tail winds are favourable and so it need not be
discussed further. The frequency of the occurrence of the head wind of various
magnitude during a season or month and at various levels thus becomes
important. Head winds of small magnitude do not affect the cruise but flying at
higher altitudes generally can offset the ones of modest intensity such as 25 knots.
The severe head winds of lower probability are the ones that has to be
operationally considered properly both for safety and economy.

Lastly, the wind information can be used calculate the optimum flight path
between two stations. Such an optimum for a non-stop flight time of 10hrs turns
out to be about 15 per cent less than the flight along the great circle and these
tracks could vary with weather situation and is of the order of 80 in latitude. Such
situations occur 50% of the time. The above refers to flights at 3 km with TAS of
200 knots, or at 6 km at 300 knots, or at subtropical belt of jet streams (between
200 to 400 North or South at 11-12 km at a TAS of 600 knots.

So if one desires to create world records for the minimum flight time between two
places, it is very essential to know the aviation climatology of the route as well as
day to day weather conditions and utilise them effectively.

OPERATIONAL CRUISE CONTROL TECHNIQUES

There are many operational practices of flying. The commander of the flight has
to decide the most suitable one for a particular flight. These programs are

1 Constant power
2 Constant speed
3 Scheduled ground speed
4 Range flying
5 Endurance flying

38
Constant Power

A constant power flight leads to increasing speed and thus shortest sector time.
However decreasing the velocity in steps as the weight decreases leads to better
economy. Here engine handling is simple but complicates Air Navigation due to
regular corrections for TAS. This procedure is not good for long flights. For not
too long a zone, a power suitable for midzone weight can be used and thus
navigational disadvantage is avoided and fuel economy is realised. If weather
conditions indicate deterioration at the destination, then higher speeds than
normal is beneficial to reach the destination.

Constant Speed

The constant speed simplifies the task of a navigator. This is also not very
suitable for very long flights from the fuel economy point of view since high
airspeed will have to be used initially requiring high power. This demands
regular reductions in power to be made and are best executed at the end of zone.
The power setting will be to achieve the desired TAS at the midzone weight.

Scheduled Ground Speed

Airline flying especially on shorter routes must adhere to a rigid schedule; the
tolerance on longer routes are larger as there will be more factors likely to change
the schedule. When departures occur on time and wind components are normal
for the route, the normal planned TAS can be used, but occasions may arise for
maintaining ground speeds to arrive on schedule.

TAS = (Distance/Time) + Wind

Long Range Cruise

For piston prop airplanes this occurs at (L/D)max conditions since least fuel is used
to cover a certain distance. This is not usually employed since it is of greater
importance, and higher speeds can be used without much loss of operational cost
or efficiency. But when route distance is close to the maximum range of aircraft,
then long range cruise control is necessary to cover the distance of the aircraft
with reasonable margin of safety. Such occasions occur when range is limited by
fuel tank capacity or when the payload that is carried necessitates reduction of
fuel for the flight. As the weight decreases the TAS for range is changed and is
used in each zone.

Endurance Flying

For piston prop airplanes this occurs generally at lower speeds than for range
flying. Such a flying may be necessary when bad weather or other unexpected
conditions make it necessary for an aircraft to ``hold'' over an airfield for some
considerable time before landing. Here the distance traveled is immaterial, the
only requirement being that the aircraft must stay in the air as long as possible.
39
PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSING RANGE AND ENDURANCE

We will first make a remark about the variables used in discussing the range and
endurance calculations. The wing loading W/S or the effective wing loading
(W/Sρ) at an altitude where the density is ρ, is used often such as for instance
Smith (1991) or the thrust to weight ratio by Ashkenhas (1948) or the cruise
Figure of Merit (FM) by Jobe (1985). Improved range capability is indicated by
higher wing loading W/S of (W/Sρ) can give rise to a mistaken impression that
increased weight or decreasing the size of wings or increasing the altitude are
beneficial. The above does not convey the situation under which it is true. It is
better to translate the above it terms of the cursing speed since higher the wing
loading, the greater is the cruising speed and with increasing altitude due to
decreasing density and for the same drag as well. This means or the same sfc one
is able to fly faster and cover larger range in the case of a jet airplane and the
same range in a shorter time for a propeller driven airplane since in the latter case
the sfc depends on power. In any case discussion in terms of speed, drag and
power are better than in terms of wing loading. Consider the case of higher thrust
to weight ratio as argued by Ashkenhas (1948) for better range performance.
Here again one might be led to think that the greater the thrust greater would be
the range, and it might be confusing to see how an increased thrust accompanied
by higher fuel consumption could provide better performance or how is the
balance between the thrust and fuel consumption? He states that the cruise
altitude is determined by (T/W) ratio. This can be understood if we translate T/W
into CL/CD and combine it with other terms in his range expression, which in our
notation is

1/2
æ 2Wi ö TSL C 2L ìï Wi üï
R ccs = çç ÷÷ . 2 í − 1ý
è ρ SL SC L ø C SL C D ïî Wf ïþ

2 æ 2Wi ö TSL C 3/2 ìï Wi ïü

= .çç ÷÷ . L2 .í − 1ý
C SL è ρ SL SC L ø Wi C D ïî Wf ïþ

and which expressed in terms of velocity and (CL/CD) ratio leads similar
expressions as before and it is clear that the quantity

V CL M CL
or
C CD C CD

is the best to discuss the range performance and the function of W multiplying the
above depending on the various programs. Ashkenhas (1948) rightly concludes
that speed and range (certainly for jets) are compatible and but however states that
the wing loading (W/S) is not a prime parameter, but it is the higher (W/S) that
leads to higher speeds!

40
Jobe(1985) provides the correlation for the Figure of Merit (FM) which is an
effective (L/D) ratio

FM = (Optimum Specific Range × Weight × sfc)/V

for turbojet powered aircraft which can lead to an improper comparison.

The specific range (SR) provides the instantaneous range performance capability.

dR 1 L V
SR = = .
dW C D W

Hence picking out the parameter L/D ~ FM, and thus expressing FM, only scales
down the benefit of lower sfc, higher speed and lower thrust (T = CD/CL.W) and
denotes just only the aerodynamic efficiency (CL/CD) and does not provide true
picture of how the above gets translated through the speed and transporting a
certain weight W over a distance which is the range. Thus it is felt best to discuss
range in terms of
1 C1/2
L V CL
Range ~ or
C CD C CD

which provides a direct interpretation namely to transport a given weight W, the

thrust T that is necessary to overcome the drag D at a speed V, by the
consumption of fuel at a rate specified by the specific fuel consumption.

Obviously similar conclusions can be arrived at for the endurance performance

discussion as well which would be

1 CL
Endurance ~
C CD

which is in terms of Cl and Cd and not the velocity.

THE ROLE OF RANGE AND ENDURANCE CALCULATIONS IN DESIGN AND

OPERATIONAL PRACTICES

It might be tempting to conclude that the best operational flight speeds correspond
to the conditions as are worked out earlier in various sections. But it is necessary
to distinguish between performance calculations and design optimization for
sizing. At a conceptual design stage it would be quite useful to have an
appreciation of the broad effect of various airframe-engine-atmosphere interaction
effects and also their optimum conditions. Thus it is perfectly acceptable to treat
say weight W as a given parameter and to study the effect of the parameters in the
drag polar on the range and endurance performances. To give a more specific
example if one wants to make a study of the supersonic or hypersonic airplane
with a certain specified drag polar and one is interested to estimate the most
desirable volume or wing area of airplane and its altitude, speed and range around
41
which further design can be usefully pursued, the present type of analysis with its
implied assumption on the thrust and sfc for various types of power plants can
indicate a feasible region for further detailed study. However at the next stage
namely preliminary design wherein a higher accuracy is demanded, it would be
necessary to estimate the optimum based on not just the aerodynamic parameters
but also the weight. What this implies is that a modification of the geometry say
the aspect ratio will not only change the drag polar parameters K and CDo, but the
changed wing planform in turn changes the weight of the airplane as well. Thus
one should account for the interaction effect of all the geometrical properties on
the aerodynamic and structural and even propulsive systems. In the design of an
airplane the operational route sector distances, the flight profiles, the time spent in
air and in ground which affect the direct operating cost through fuel consumption
and time dependant operational cost, enter into the optimization process. Lastly
the range and endurance are only some of the constraints to be met in design apart
from take off, landing, climb and other performances. However it does not mean
all the above calculations are not useful, but it must be understood that they have
a role to play. But once an airplane has been built, the weight W can be taken to
be a given parameter (or worked out as may be necessary for operations) and the
cruise flight conditions in an operational environment to cater for wind, weather
deterioration at the landing point, meet the schedule and many other safety
aspects change the optimal flight path of an airplane. To summarise, the design
sizing depends on simultaneous aerodynamic, structural, propulsive and
operational considerations and once an airplane has been built, the cruise speed-
altitude profile is necessarily changed due to operational and cost considerations.

FUEL CONSERVATION IN OPERATIONAL PRACTICE

Usually about 40% of the Direct Operating Cost (DOC) of an airline depends on
the fuel bill. There are a number of factors which can cumulatively affect the fuel
that is spent by an airline fleet. We provide below some of the many important
operational features which affect the fuel consumption.

1. An airplane should carry the right amount of reserve fuel since lower levels
would compromise safety and higher levels would affect the economic
operation.

2. Excessive weight of catering equipment and supplies or empty containers

should be avoided. JAL changed to lighter-weight paper in its in flight
magazine resulting in a saving of 50 lbs per Boeing 747.

3. The aircraft should not be dirty inside and outside. Occasionally some airlines
do not even paint the aircraft in order to save weight!

4. A reduced (derated) take-off thrust provides some fuel saving but more so
reduces engine degradation and reduces the shop visit rate and thus the
maintenance cost.

42
5. An airplane should reach the clean configuration early since more fuel is spent
at low altitudes in less cleaner configuration and followed by a climb at the
recommended speed.

6. During cruise the throttle must be periodically reset at about every 30 minutes
as the weight decreases to reduce the drag and maintain fuel and thrust
balance which would otherwise add drag due the trimming that is needed.
Even 1/2 degree of bank is imperceptible on the horizontal situation indicator
but it produces sideslip drag! Typically for an Airbus A300, 2 units of rudder
trim affects the specific range by 1.5% and the fuel over a fleet of aircraft
could be of the order of $ 30,000 and for a fuel imbalance of 500 Kg between
inner tanks or 200 Kg between outer tanks with no bank or yaw, the specific
range is reduced by about 0.1% leading to a corresponding fuel bill for the
fleet.

7. Operational flights are not necessarily carried out at the speed for minimum
fuel consumption or cost because there are operating costs such as for crew
and maintenance that vary inversely with time. Thus the sum of fuel and the
above time dependant cost which is DOC will lead to a speed that is higher
than the speed for minimum fuel consumption. Since most airlines operate for
profit the above speed for minimum operating cost is chosen. If the fuel cost
increases substantially as it did during 1970's then the optimum speeds are
recommended to be reduced. If one were to think of fuel conservation alone,
then for a typical Airbus A300 or a Boeing 737 aircraft with a mean weight of
135 tons and 48 tons, and flight speed of M = 0.78 and 0.74 respectively, a
reduction of Mach numbers by 0.02 leads to a fuel saving by about 1 and 2
percent. Generally the fuel mileage improves with altitude and then decreases,
and hence one must fly at the optimum altitude. In short sector flights fuel
savings can be achieved by increasing the cruise altitude in the limit there is
only a climb followed by descent.

8. During the decent also, an early descent showed be avoided as in take-off

climb more fuel is spent in less cleaner configuration at lower altitudes. The
descent should made as much delayed as is possible and permissible.

9. The fuel that is carried by an airplane is determined by the altitude,

temperature at the take-off point and the flight speed profile as well as the
landing weight which has to be as low as possible.

10. One may say that in a typical flight the fuel or cost efficiency is determined by
the amount of attention given by the crew to the maintenance of the desired
speed in various flight segments. Manual flight management achieves between
about 95-98 percent of optimum fuel efficiency.

43
GENERAL REMARKS AND COMMENTS

The range and endurance calculations can be carried out for various types of
aircraft at different levels for analysis, preliminary design and operational
practices with varying accuracy. The present treatment addressed the problem of
understanding the airframe, engine and atmospheric interactions on the range and
endurance performance of jet and piston prop airplanes. Based on the level flight
equations it turns out that there are only four meaningful programs of constant
αV, αh, hV and hT/hP which are worth studying. Due to the basic assumption of
the sfc based on thrust or power for jet and propeller driven airplane respectively
being constant with forward speed the integration of the relevant equations for the
performance is simple in most cases. In other cases a simple approximation
based on trapezoidal rule or Simpson's rule can provide fairly accurate estimates.
In fact even for any approximation that is used for the variation of sfc with speed
and altitude the integration could be treated as above. The optimum cruise speed
conditions occur for the range and endurance for a jet at high speeds and around
minimum drag speeds respectively and similarly for a piston prop airplane around
minimum drag and minimum power conditions. The cruise for best range of jets
may be limited by being close to MDD the drag divergence Mach number or the
inability to climb to higher altitudes which may be beneficial. The range of jet
and endurance of piston prop airplanes are not affected by altitude. All there
results can be easily inferred for various programs and even their comparisons can
be done by using the drag or power versus speed diagram for jets but for piston
prop airplanes respectively. The above speeds also indicate that aerodynamic
cleanliness is more important than increasing the aspect ratio to reduce the drag
for range performance of jets and for piston props increase of aspect ratio is
highly beneficial for their range performance. However it should not be
concluded that an airplane's sizing can be carried out only by aerodynamic
considerations alone. It is preferable to simulate varying speeds and optimum
altitude based on route lengths or load factor which would occur in any airline
operation. Further the maintenance aspects based on a certain number of hours of
flying an airplane and other costs could lead to the sizing of an airplane and
consequently its operational characteristics. Hence design is not based on just
(CL /CD)Max or ( CL1/ 2 / CD ) Max . However after an airplane is built the above speeds
are speeds which may need modification due to operational flight conditions. The
wind is a very important operational feature and it affects a jet more than a piston
prop airplane. The latter can cruise at any altitudes with different airspeeds with
little penalty due to wind, but for the former the wind cannot offset the penalty of
departing from the optimum and for jets wind information is utilised to estimate
flight time, the fuel needed and the payload. Lastly among the various operational
programs available for a flight, the pilot has to choose the best depending on the
prevailing situation.

44
REFERENCES

1. Hage R. E., ``Variation in Airplane Range with Wind Velocity''. Aeronautical

Engineering Review, July pp. 18-22 (1951).

2. Pisharoty P. R., ``Upper Winds Aeronavigation''. Proceedings of the Seminar

on Aeronautical Sciences held at Bangalore during Nov 27 - Dec 2, (1961).

3. Worthington G. D. P., ``Flight Planning''. Second Edition. Sir Isaac Pitman

and Sons Ltd. London (1964).

4. Simpson L., Bashioum D. L., and Carr E. E., ``Computer Flight Planning in
the North Atlantic''. J. Aircraft Vol.2, No.4, pp.337-346 (1965).

5. Page R. K., ``Range and Radius-of-Action Performance Prediction for

Transport and Combat Aircraft''. AGARD LS-56 on Aircraft Performance
Prediction Methods and Optimization pp.1-1 to 1-30 (1973).

6. Erzberger H., McLean J. D., and Barman J. F., Fixed-Range Optimum

Trajectories for Short-Haul Aircraft NASA TN D-8115 (1975).

7. Hale F. J., ``Best Range Conditions for Cruise - Climb Flight of a Jet Aircraft.
NASA CP - 2001. Vol.4, pp.1713-1719 (1976).

8. Hale F. J., ``Effects of Wind on Aircraft Cruise Performance''. J. Aircraft.

Vol.16, No. 6, pp.382-387 (1979).

9. Tobias L., Palmer E. A., and O'Brien P.J., Simulation Study of the
Operational Effects of Fuel-Conservative Approaches. J. Aircraft. Vol. 16,
No. 7, pp 498-505. (1979).

10. Bert C. W., ``Prediction of Range and Endurance of Jet Aircraft at Constant
Altitude'', Journal of Aircraft, Vol.18, pp.890-892, Oct. (1918).

11. Lynch F. T., ``Commercial Transport-Aerodynamic Design for Cruise

Performance Efficiency'', Transonic Perspective Symposium. NASA Ames
Reasearch Center. Feb.18-20,(1981)

12. Ojha S. K., ``Optimization of Constant Altitude-Constant Airspeed Flight of

Turbojet Aircraft'', J. Aircraft, Vol.29, No.4, pp.731-734, Aug. (1991).

13. Martinez-Val R., and Perez E., ``Optimum Cruise Lift Coefficient in Initial
Design of Jet Aircraft'', J. Aircraft. Vol.29, No.4, pp.712-714, May (1991).

14. Tanenbaum J., Recent Experiment Focuses on Operational Impact of Jet

Stream Forecast Errors. ICAO Journal, pp 12-13. (1992).

45