Does anyone have any objective data on how much (if any) climbing steeper into a tailwind vs flying at a faster forward speed affects fuel use and time to destination? I've tried running a test on MSFS 2020, but the save system doesn't work right.

Scenario: Good tailwinds to destination, climb closer to best L/D till hitting the majority of tailwinds, then spin to max forward speed. Headwinds at cruise, climbs faster at a shallower angle.

 

I just spin the knob doohickey then press the button on the thing when they tell me to be at a different altitude and hope the checks keep cashing every two weeks until I’m 65.

 

I have seen objective data showing that the most efficient flight path is a parabola, in which you never spend one moment in level flight. That's obviously impossible to achieve outside of a very carefully flown test pattern.

In the real world...ATC constraints, weather, weight variations etc will all make the most carefully considered calculations go out the window. I'm sure that for each airframe type you could write a performance program providing solutions to exactly this question, and I suspect that the software in our flight planning software does much of this. Short answer is, i haven't a clue lol...

 

For me getting to cruise has a difference of about 5 minutes from the soonest (steepest) to latest (shallow). Or about 50 miles different.
With that you can find your information with whatever variables you’d like for GS, cruise duration, fuel flow etc.

 

Best post of the day

 

I know some of these words and agree with them, I think…

 

Lemme guess..Air Force/delta?

 

This, lol. Not only do I not know the answer too the OP but I have never even thought to think about the question. Just shows how truly different we all see the world. I guess the Microsoft sim should give it away though as the very last thing I want to do when I am not at work, is pretend I am at work. To each their own I guess.

 

If you stick to what Dispatch filed you to, you should have the least potential for problems / rug dances, right?

However, sometimes I'm really hungry and my overpriced airport food is cooling towards inedibility. But while that has nothing to do with the OP's question, it can mean hundreds of pounds of fuel.

 

The company's flight planning system figures out the cruise portion. In the macro world it matters. If they can figure out how to save 100 lbs per flight it's about $45 million a year for the largest airlines. In the micro world, that is impacted by other traffic, crossing restrictions, possible weather or turbulence you're trying to climb over, and not climb into, it's harder to achieve the optimum profile.

The aircraft's FMC's figures out the climb and descent profile. We never climb at L/D under normal operations. L/D might be 250 kts, climb speed will be in the 300-310 range, maybe 280 kts if very light and climbing into massive tailwinds and maybe 340 kts if fighting massive headwinds. That's a range of +/- 10% and the extremes and more typically perhaps +/- 5% on most flights.

The most efficient way to save gas is to descend slower. You're closer to L/D and start down sooner. The second most efficient time and fuel saver is climbing out faster. The less efficient time and fuel saver is cruising at a higher mach.